Rosa Luxemburg's fatal error -- loyalty to her friends

Rosa Luxemburg was a leader of the German communists until she was murdered by German nationalists following the failed communist Spartacist uprising of 1918-1919 in Germany, just at the end, and just following WWI. This was essentially a spontaneous uprising of the German people and the German military in response to the deprivations and failures caused by the First World War, although it was certainly encouraged and fostered by the German left, and some financing was available to Rosa Luxemburg and other communist leaders from the newly founded Soviet Union led by Vladimir Lenin. This was not a coup ordered by the USSR, although Lenin and Trotsky certainly did favor World Revolution as the ultimate goal of the communist internationale, as a matter of fundamental principle. Rosa Luxemburg argued against the Spartacist uprising, believing the time had not yet come for a worker's revolution in Germany, and that it must inevitably fail. The Spartacist uprising had little to do with Germany's capitulation, which was actually inevitable within a few days or weeks anyway, they no longer were militarily capable of opposing the advance of the Allies, who had become much too strong for Germany by the end of 1918. Once the uprising was underway, Rosa Luxemburg decided she must join with the revolting workers, out of solidarity, and loyalty to her friends. This was a literally fatal, and a disastrous decision on her part, that had catastrophic consequences for the world as a whole. It had particularly disastrous consequences for Jews internationally, because Rosa Luxemburg was Jewish, as were many members of the leadership of the German left, and, of course, of the Soviet Union, like Leon Trotsky. Because of this incredible and totally unnecessary error, Rosa Luxemburg died a martyr's death, and Jews as a whole were blamed for the attempt to force Bolshevism on the people of Germany. This was precisely what turned Adolf Hitler and Germans into rabid antisemites. Hitler actually hadn't been particularly antisemitic at all until the Spartacist uprising, nor had the people of Germany. By this simple and extremely unfortunate act of loyalty, Rosa Luxemburg personally formed the basis for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany, bringing about WWII, and the Jewish Holocaust. Indeed, to this very day, extreme right-wing American supporters of Donald Trump -- who obviously themselves have antisemitic, fascist leanings -- will cite Rosa Luxemburg as proving that Jews tried to force Germany to become an authoritarian Bolshevist state! In fact, Rosa Luxemburg was very much opposed to Bolshevist authoritarianism, and, if she hadn't been murdered, might have helped to steer German leftists to a democratic course. She was basically a gentle pacifist, and a socialist idealist. #wwi #history #antisemitism #hitler #sparticists #communism #germany #fascism #wwii #philosophyofhistory #geopolitics #ussr #trump #donaldtrump

The bizarre twilight zone world of the Trump administration -- ICE--Iran cooperation in the deportation of Iranians to Iran

If you want to know just how bizarre the twilight zone world of the Trump administration really is, consider the fact that Trump's greatest enemy, the Iranian government, worked closely with Trump's infamous ICE deportation service to help deport as many Iranians as possible to Iran, in the period immediately leading up to the mass uprisings that occurred early this year in Iran. In other words, many of those very people involved in protesting the Iranian government, and who were violently suppressed may have just immediately before have been US asylum seekers, and been deported for it! Now what's that about, exactly? Amd, then, Trump claimed that he was "helping" them, by bombing them in Iran, in March! What can we say about this, but that Trump is just a natural disrupter, doing as much damage everywhere he can, out of a sort of pure joy in the experience. A kind of senile demon, who exists solely to destroy everything he can. https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/ice-iran-quietly-worked-together-101111801.html

The problem with "elites"

All societies are run by elites -- dictatorships, democracies, plutocracies, monarchies, capitalist countries, communist countries, theocracies etc. There will always be a select group of people who have vastly more power at times than anyone else. Why is this? Well, most people are too busy or ignorant or incompetent to actually control everything to any significant degree, and, in any case, there are far too many people in modern nations to allow for the possibility of everyone getting their way all the time. So, someone has to decide what to do. And, what is done can have immense consequences for everyone. So, some "elite" group is selected by some means or other to make these immensely important decisions, that could have catastrophic consequences for everyone, or, might possibly be brilliant solutions to everyone's problems! Now, in the US, there tends to be an immense contempt for academic and government and media "elites". Individuals who, while financially comfortable, are not fabulously wealthy, in general, but simply presume to have some knowledge or understanding of things that makes them more important and powerful than almost anyone else. This is deeply resented by "ordinary people", who see no reason why university professors should run their lives. This is perfectly understandable really. While, at times, science and engineering has made rapid strides to improve people's lives, this is much less the perception of people now, than it was 100 years ago. Perhaps this is because life expectancy and standard of living are not increasing nearly as rapidly now as they were, at least in the West, 100 years ago. Whereas 100 years ago it was perfectly natural for people to worship Einstein, these days, people are more likely to laugh at Nobel Prize winners than worship them. We don't really know why exactly scientists and engineers were more effective 100 or 150 years ago than they are now, but, for the average person, this is perfectly obvious. Of course, scientists and engineers will say this just proves how stupid everyone but scientists and engineers are. Right back at ya, guys! These days, particularly the US, there's more of a tendency to look for plutocratic elites, the billionaire oligarchs. This is probably because everyone in the US can relate to making money. So, someone who is good at making money must be smart, right? While that's probably true, the problem is, they may simply use their intelligence to manipulate people so they can steal from them! Making money does not mean that someone is productive, despite what arch-capitalists may think. Drug dealers make money, Art thieves make money, Art forgers make money, Counterfeiters quite literally make money! And, in a much broader sense, there are many, many people who are excellent salesmen, and can sell almost anything, who are not necessarily doing the world a great deal of good at all! They are selling garbage. So, the rich, plutocratic elite may be just as useless as the current academic, government or media elites, but, just greedier and more destructive! I think, in some ways, the Chinese example may be useful. They call themselves "communists", in the Chinese elite. Are they communists? Possibly, although I'm not quite sure what Karl Marx would think of them these days. However, I think we have to give the current Chinese leadership some credit in their immense flexibility in attempting to rule their great nation. They will try capitalism up to a point, they will try popular representation up to a point, they will try joint leadership up to a point, they will try having a single strongman up to a point. And, whatever they're doing, it seems to be working, in terms of increasing standard of living and prosperity for China. China's population will be cut in half by the end of the century, and with current trends for increasing technological innovation there, and increasing prosperity and education, they will probably be able to increase human rights to Western levels by then, they will not be constrained by overpopulation or poverty to control the people rigidly. By 2100, China will probably be the richest, best governed, and even most open and tolerant nation in the world. China may be freer than the US, by that time. Does China have "elites"? Perhaps, but, they are very elusively defined, and are inclined to morph into new forms rather regularly. So, perhaps no "elites" in the traditional Western sense, at all. And, it's working! #politics #politicalscience #sociology #philosophy #geopolitics #philosophyofhistory #science #technology #engineering #economics #communism #capitalism #China

What really killed off the Neanderthals?

The key point to understand with regard to Neanderthal man, is that they did not evolve in Africa, unlike most or all of our other pre-human ancestors. They evolved in a very specific and very harsh ecological niche in Northern Eurasia, and were hyper-specialized to this niche. As long as that niche didn't change a great deal, they were alright, although their numbers were never very great, due to the demands and limitations of this harsh climate, and the biological limitations on their fertility, imposed by these biological adaptations. However, once the climate changed enough to make this niche no longer feasible, which it did tens of thousands of years before the arrival of modern man into Neanderthal territory in Eurasia, the Neanderthals were already in deep trouble as a species. They had extraordinary strength and intelligence, considerably greater than modern man. However, their bulky bodies and brains put severe limitations on fertility rates. It was hard for Neanderthal women to bear children, and to keep them alive, considerably harder than for modern women. So, once their natural habibat deteriorated enough to threaten them and reduce their numbers and force them to move to new territory, they were in deep trouble simply due to inbreeding and the genetic limitations this inevitably leads to. And, then came along modern man, with new and dangerous pathogens from Africa which they had no immunity to. They still survived another 20,000 years here and there, and they inbred to some degree with modern men, particularly due to male Neanderthal on human female couplings, which is why we all have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in our modern human bodies. However, there is no need whatsoever to assume any particular human genocide of Neanderthals, or any direct active human competition with Neanderthals, to account for their extinction. Our mythologies have memories of Neanderthals, particularly in terms of the elves, the mythical, wise, loving ancient men who disappeared to the islands of the West, leaving men with great sadness. But, also, the Cyclops, a story estimated by specialists to be 50,000 years old, the great, God-like, powerful beings that terrified and attempted to control modern man. Modern men did not destroy the Neanderthals, the climate destroyed the Neanderthals. #anthropology #biology #sociology #history #prehistory #philosophyofhistory #neanderthals #homosapiens #mythology

It's happeed!

Well it's finally happened. People are no longer paying any attention whatsoever to Trump's ridiculous claims about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, not even the oil traders or the stock markets. Trump, despite his genuine sales genius, simply cannot sell that he has everything under control there, or that he's going to make the Strait of Hormuz the 51st state. Not gonna happen! It took a while, but, now, the markets don't even blink when Trump claims "peace is at hand", or "Iran is desperate for a deal", or "I am in full control". They just ignore him totally, and completely. For quite a while there, months really, the markets would simply assume there must be some actual truth to Trump's public pronouncements, because we've never had such a totally shameless pathological liar for a U.S. President before! The markets would leap and jump like a trained tiger through hoops, and give Trump whatever values he wanted, just because he said so. Not any more. As the economy weakens, and the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf drops to a mere trickle, traders are finally being forced to deal with the reality of a totally incompetent US President who is running the American ship of state very swiftly indeed onto the rocks! Now, let's try to understand what's actually going on in Trump's head here. Trump, for no apparent reason, decided it would be a really good idea to murder the Iranian Supreme Leader, who the Iranians worship as a God. Why did he do this? From Trump's point of view, "why not"? I don't like him, he doesn't like me, I control an invincible military force, I can kill him if I feel like it, nothing will happen." As it turns out -- and his advisers were warning Trump about this -- quite a bit has happened. Iran has seized total and unshakeable control of the entire Persian Gulf. This has immense economic consequences for the world as a whole, and Iran can now use this power to have immense influence over the entire world, including, and quite specifically, in largely controlling the results of American elections. So, what's going on in Trump's mind now, exactly? I think it can be summed up in his repeated statement "We cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." Now, personally -- and I think this would be rather a common, perhaps a majority view of Americans -- I couldn't possibly care less if Iran develops a nuclear weapons or not. They seem quite rational in their ability to survive extreme crises, I can't believe they would be any more unreasonable than North Korea's Kim Jong Un, for example, whose sanity is I think much more in question than the Iranian leadership, and who has thermonuclear weapons in quantity, and threatens to use them quite regularly, including on the US itself. So, why is Trump so obsessed with Iran not developing a nuclear weapon? I think Trump is a very imaginative and creative guy. I think he has anticipated a situation that concerns him, that could quite likely occur if Iran developed nuclear weapons in quantity. I think at that point, something might come up, that makes Trump very uneasy. You see, the Iranians never actually threatened Jimmy Carter with death, during the Iranian hostage crisis. Sure, they said "Death to America" a lot, but, never actually "Death to Carter". Never. Whereas now, I think it's rather more common for Iranians to chant "Death to Trump" than "Death to America". And, the Iranian Leadership has said over and over again "we will kill you", to Trump, quite specifically. And, as we know, the Iranians do have a certain tendency to, shall we say, "follow through". So, what does this have to do with Iran developing a nuclear weapon? Well, if Iran has a pretty good nuclear arsenal, what's to stop them from simply saying, publicly, "You risk nuclear war with our nation, if you continue to protect this ridiculous loser, Donald Trump, at enormous expense. He murdered our supreme leader." Now, this might be a mere bluff. Or, maybe not. But, how would the American people react to this? How would you react to it? #economics #politics #trump #donaldtrump #geopolitics #psychology #funny #markets #psychoanalysis

There's no great surprise as to why Germany made such a mess of things in the twentieth century

There's no great surprise as to why Germany made such a mess of things in the twentieth century. It had been forged in a hurry by Otto von Bismarck, an eccentric political genius, towards the end of the nineteenth century, and the entire structure of the German government was a rather haphazard system solely designed to accommodate Bismarck himself. Naturally, it didn't function terribly well at all, after Bismarck's dismissal and death. True, Kaiser Wilhelm II did well enough for 25 years, but, then the entire nation collapsed like a house of cards during WWI, a war that certainly should and could have been avoided. Then Germany floundered around for twenty years, trying out different political systems rather awkwardly, before launching an ever more catastrophic and self-destructive apocalypse on itself and the world as a whole. Why should we be surprised that the highly cultured, civilized and, for the most part, rather peaceful people of Germany should have descended into Hell as a nation, given that they had never been a nation before, and had no idea whatsoever how to be one? What is astonishing about the fact that forcing a people who had never been a large nation before, rather suddenly into the responsibilities of a large and powerful nation, should have failed abysmally and totally? I suppose this is simply another example of the unfortunately rather generally applicable principle, anything that can go wrong, will. If you don't know exactly how to do something from extensive, hard experience, you will do it disastrously badly. And, if an entire people have no particular experience in functioning as a nation, they will be totally incapable of doing so, and will do immense damage to themselves, and everyone they deal with. #history #philosophy #philosophyofhistory #Germany #wwi #wwii #metaphysics

History is written by the victors

It is said that history is written by the victors. On the other hand, it is also said that the smallest worm turns, being trod on. In other words, losers can become winners, and vice-versa. So, over time, history may look very different indeed in both books and films, as those who were winners become losers, and the losers themselves start rewriting history. I've been watching a Russian version of a move produced in 2010 about Japanese government just before Admiral Perry's "black ships" bombarded Yokohama Harbor, to "open up" the Japanese to trade with the West. It's called 13 Assassins. Now, the Russians are particularly notable for radically altering their perspectives on their history every few decades or so, as they adopt radically different approaches to government itself. So, they particularly enjoy seeing representations of other governments from other societies, that look as bad, or worse, than their own, since they are very well aware of the serious problems with Russian governments over the centuries. And, I'm quite sure they enjoyed this particular film a great deal, indeed, because it basically portrays the entire Samurai tradition as simply bloodthirsty, lustful, murdering, raping and destroying, for no purpose whatsoever, start to finish. Maybe the intention was to appeal to Americans, by suggesting maybe the assault on Japan by Admiral Perry wasn't such a bad thing after all. Actually, the Japanese do tend to portray this American nineteenth century military intervention as if it were some kind of a benevolent action, in general. Maybe they accept as a nation that they were by no means too well ruled at the time, and needed a change. Certainly, they do not feel the same way about the use A-bombs in WWII against Japan, which they see as the only true war crime of the entire war! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8In8cytL7Fc #philosophy #history #philosophyofhistory #ethics #Japan #Russia #sociology #government

Donald Trump to the US media -- "If I go, you go."

Donald Trump has just made a very compelling and frank statement to the entire US media, with regard to an incident in which the plane on which the media were flying in was made a decoy for Iranian attacks, in order to decoy the Iranians away from the plane in which Trump himself had been detoured to actually fly in -- "If I go, you go." Actually, more precisely in this particular case -- "I don't want to go, I want you to go." You will all notice, no doubt, that very little outrage has been aroused from this statement of intention on Donald Trump's part, other than within the US media itself, of course. This is likely because the average American actually hates the US media just as much as they hate Donald Trump, since the job of the US media is largely just to ridicule anyone and everyone at all times. An interesting question is, what exactly would happen if anyone actually posed exactly the same question to Donald Trump -- if I go, you go? No doubt, they would, at the very least, be subject to investigation by Trump's "Department of Justice", or, whatever it is exactly. Perhaps the "Federal Bureau of Investigation", or whatever it is under Trump, might come calling. Who, knows, maybe they would be arrested and tried for threatening Trump? Hard to say, I guess. What this definitely does indicate, however, is a rather consistent attitude on the part of Donald Trump, that altruism really is not a part of his nature. In general, anyone who deals much with Donald Trump is rather in this same position as the US media is with regard to Trump -- "If I go, you go." This is one of the reasons I've never really had any desire whatsoever to have anything to do with anything associated closely with Donald Trump. It seems rather hazardous to one's health, safety and freedom. Actually, because of this particular attitude, and great many rather rational, reasonable people -- in which category, I'm afraid, we must currently place the IRGC, and the Iranian government in general these days -- don't want to have anything to do with Donald Trump, and will use, quite literally, any level of force whatsoever to avoid it. They make this quite clear. This winter we witnessed in Minnesota, something very much like an armed standoff between Governor Tim Walz' National Guard and Donald Trump's ICE agents, in the streets of Minneapolis. Now, the media, of course, never actually called this a mutiny against the Federal Government, after all, Trump never officially ordered their federalization. Of course, given that Tim Walz had been a member of the NG for 25 years himself, and was a personal friend of all the leaders of it, Trump was probably informed that he risked an open military mutiny if he attempted to federalize them, which is why he did not do so, since, that might have been the end of his presidency. After all, if the commander-in-chief cannot count of the loyalty of his own troops, and this becomes obvious, he cannot continue as commander-in-chief in any normal sense of the term. So, in this particular case, when Trump tried to say "If I go, you go,", Timmy Walz countered with "No, I'm not going, you're going." And, so ICE left Minnesota. Most of them anyway. Now that most major polling averages show the generics favoring Democrats by 7 points or so -- the level of a major wave -- and elections have consistently shown for over a year that Democrats are outperforming the polling by double digits quite consistently, because Republicans simply are not showing up to vote for this clown and his supporters, it appears likely that Democrats will flip Texas and Florida and other previously "red" states. In other words, there will be no major Republican MAGA strongholds left, anywhere in the country. More precisely, the National Guards of all major states will be under Democrat control. What does this say about the military situation in the US next year, and Trump's personal NG of 5000 armed troops in Washington D.C.? Will this be a situation of "If I go, you go," like Trump wants it to be, or, instead, will it be like it was in Minnesota -- "No, I'm not going, you're going." #politics #geopolitics #psychology #psychoanalysis #military #USmiltary #trump #donaldtrump #free-speech

A very real and plausible danger to Donald Trump and the Republicans next year

Although statistically possible this year, it is highly improbable that the Democrats will get the 67 votes in the Senate necessary to themselves, on their own, actually remove Donald Trump or SCOTUS justices entirely on their own, next year. However, as oil prices rise, and the economy weakens, and a stock correction becomes probable, another powerful and dangerous scenario presents itself to the Republicans. It is looking more and more probable that the Democrats could well take House and Senate by solid margins, and, in addition, take the governorships of Texas and Florida, as well as the Texas House of representatives. All of these are well within the realms of reasonable probability, perhaps 50:50 possibilities. Other states may fall to the Democrats as well. Facing solid opposition in both Houses of Congress at the federal level, and having no support base of any significance at the state level anywhere in the entire country, Donald Trump, who has just lost a major war with Iran, possibly the greatest disaster in US military history, will face an historic level of political isolation, both domestically, and internationally. I cannot see how he could possibly govern the country under these circumstances, he would just be an extremely unpopular, eccentric old man. I doubt that he would be tolerated to complete his term of office. #politics #geopolitics #news

The rather bizarre Dred Scott Decision of the US Supreme Court before the Civil War

What are we to make of the rather bizarre Dred Scott Decision of the US Supreme Court, just before the US Civil War, which probably, more than anything else, actually guaranteed a civil war in the US? What could possibly prevail upon 80% of the Supreme Court justices to confidently assert that black people were not human beings, that they didn't even belong to the same species as white people? Because that is precisely what they all said. This was not a close decision, 7:2, that black men were not men! So, the constitutional principle that all men are created equal simply didn't apply to black people. Very weird! Now, slavery is at least as old as human civilization, we really shouldn't blame the old south for all the evils of slavery throughout human history. However, it would have never occurred to the ancient Greeks or Romans that their slaves were not human beings. After all, they had fought and defeated them in battle, in many cases, they could have lost, in which case the Greeks and Romans themselves might have become slaves! Nevertheless, they did, often anyway, see their slaves as being barbarians, if they came from other nations who they had pillaged or conquered, and, perhaps anyway, less capable than they themselves. The essential nature of competition in all human life was quite obvious to ancient people, even civilized people, they were still really just competing tribes, even if some were larger and more civilized. If you lost, you became a slave, because you obviously couldn't be the master of someone who had defeated you in battle. And, that's all there was. The dominant people, and their slaves. No social services, no welfare support, no unemployment insurance, no public housing, nothing. You won, or you were a slave. In fact, you could argue, that in the ancient civilized world, with no social support, but insufficient free fertile land to support people by foraging for food alone, or even hunting for it, that slavery was really the only social service around. After all, if you defeated a great city in battle, put all the adult men to the sword to prevent them from being a threat to you, burned down the city and all its farmland, you really had to take all the women and children into slavery, or they would certainly all die from starvation and exposure. However, there were some special aspects to slavery in the New World. It was essentially confined to black people, with some limited exceptions, for some very specific reasons, which had nothing to do with them being inferior. Firstly, there were some African states that regularly practiced slavery, and so, there was a ready supply of people accustomed to this lifestyle, more or less, anyway, there. This wasn't particularly the case anywhere else in world in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Secondly, Africans were accustomed to the heat and humidity and diseases of the tropical and sub-tropical climates in which the large lucrative tobacco and cotton and sugar plantations of the New World were operating. Thirdly, their black complexions made Africans much easier to track and control as a group than would be the case with Caucasian slaves, or even native Indian slaves, who could blend into their own communities, and escape slavery by this means. So, from a purely practical, economic point of view, Africans could be used by Europeans at this time as a controllable, relatively cheap source of labor, particularly in large mega-plantations, in which the work was very labor intensive. So, there became a cultural social institution that attempted to rationalize this exploitation. And, perhaps the latest and most extreme -- although the situation in Brazil may actually have been as bad, or worse -- was the American Old South in the nineteenth century, before the US civil war. An entire rich region of the planet, inhabited by rich Europeans, but worked entirely by poor African slaves. Incredibly unjust, but, quite profitable, and so, elegantly rationalized by learned theologians, learned jurists, learned writers journalists and politicians and, as we have seen, 80% of the justices on the US Supreme Court! Of course, this could not stand. The absolute hypocrisy of the judges on the US Supreme Court merely guaranteed a violent confrontation between the fools who agreed with them, and profited by their decision, and the majority of the population. #ethics #politics #law #USCivilWar #19thCenturyHistory #slavery #history

Sheridan's rather puzzling School For Scandal

Perople love to ridicule each other. Always have. Most of the news is clearly intended to make one or another group of people look totally ridiculous. Arguably, the entire profession of journalism is primarily about making people look ridiculous, mostly, anyway. Which brings me to Richard Sheridan's rather puzzling play, The School for Scandal, an entire play devoted to its main characters engaging in systematic constant and highly creative ridicule of everyone of their acquaintance. Now, of course, this is inevitably, and for always, going to be a very entertaining and popular play! And, obviously, Sheridan was well aware of this when he wrote it. Nevertheless, the tone of the play is actually somewhat prudish, with the more tedious and virtuous characters regularly expressing their total disgust with all the other more entertaining and "scandalous" characters. Now, nothing particularly awful actually happens to anyone in this play, either the "virtuous" non-scandalous characters, or the "immoral" scandal mongers. It's really just about how they constantly quarrel with each other to pass the time away, and, they do it every entertainingly too, which some of the characters themselves actually comment on! However, beneath all this apparently pointless self amusement, I think Sheridan may have something else in mind. Richard Sheridan was a highly successful liberal politician, at times a senior minister, and a passionate champion of freedom of the press, and of free speech in general. While some of his "virtuous" characters in the play actually say that all the "scandalous" characters should be prosecuted in court for their nasty ways, they never really look through to the implications of such a policy, something I'm quite sure Richard Sheridan had done rather systematically. Because, you see, if you can prosecute someone on the basis that they say nasty things about other people, then, what could possibly be nastier than saying that someone is guilty of a serious crime, simply for saying nasty things! And, so, the prosecutors would logically be compelled to prosecute themselves! This brings up the broader point, that we always claim the right of freedom of speech for ourselves, and our own particular views, but frequently attempt to deny it on various grounds for those we happen to disagree with. Any kind of censorship and denial of free speech is a very slippery slope indeed, because the greater the diversity of acceptable views, the more opportunity we have to arrive at some real approximation of truth, and of reality. #ethics #politics #literature #free-speech #sheridan

What is Ideology?

What is ideology? The term is commonly used, but, precisely what it is, and is not, and its significance, I think is not entirely clear to most people, currently. I suppose the most commonly known and accepted forms of ideology that are accepted and understood by most people are religious and economic in nature. So, communism and capitalism are economics ideologies, and christianity and islam are religious ideologies, and they are clearly distinct in many respects from each other. Now, of course, even this is debatable. I knew a man once, whose father had escaped from Bulgaria following WWII, to the US. He said he asked his father once what the real difference was between communism and capitalism was, and he said "not a thing". Now, bear in mind, this man hadn't been particularly successful in either society, kind of lower middle class in both. A working stiff, if you like. And, actually, from the standpoint of the average working stiff, there might not be really much difference between capitalism and communism. There are probably differences, but not particularly at that level, perhaps. In a general sort of way, capitalism is rather like survival of the fittest, on the basis of possessing money, where possession of money is the criterion of fitness. Communism is about centralized government control to try to arrange social progress and prosperity. Christianity and Islam are the two most important religions the world currently, and have been for some time. Both are evangelical religions that aggressively proselytize, which might explain their success and power. And, there are clear distinctions between the two. Christianity is the more transcendental of the two, the more concerned with abstractions of good and evil, and with a hypothetical afterlife. Islam is much more pragmatic, much more a religion of this world. I might argue that Mohommad was a political science and marketing genius, rather easily, I think, and that the Koran is a kind of popularized political science textbook for founding a legitimate government system very simply, by simple people. Arguably, Christianity was developed as an antidote to the pragmatism and materialism of the Roman Empire, seeking more universal ideals, while Islam was an antidote to the abstractions and fundamental irrationality of Christianity. Of course, there are other kinds of ideologies. Other religions, other economic systems. Also, other approaches to life that could be called ideologies. I would argue that the "scientific method", as practiced in universities and research laboratories, is a kind of ideology. The notion that systematic experimentation, as practiced systematically, will lead to inevitable progress, is definitely an act of faith. We really don't know for sure whether it works or not, despite the absolute insistence of professional scientists and engineers, because these same scientists and engineers inevitably claim that they were using the scientific method, whatever they did or did not do! The claim of inevitable progress is quite universal by engineers and scientists, whether they actually ever make any progress, or not! #philosophy #metaphysics #ethics #politics #communism #capitalism #christianity #islam #science

The US military-industrial paradigm is broken

We have seen clearly in the Iran War now, that there is a bit of a problem with the current US military-industrial paradigm. We have seen, that, quite literally, the US is exhausting years of military stockpiles of weapons in just days, or perhaps weeks of active combat, and virtually no effect whatsoever is seen on the enemy's ability to continue to function and return fire! Obviously, this is not a way to win wars. Actually, it's a great way to lose wars! Now, why is this exactly? Well, it might have something to do with the economic system of capitalism itself, which rewards companies for producing profits, not for producing any meaningful practical results, of any type whatsoever. Now, I know, there are those of you arch-capitalists who genuinely believe that money is the only reality, that money explains everything, controls everything, and cannot be dispensed with. Indeed, there was even a pretty good philosopher and sociologist who wrote a book, The Philosophy of Money (1900), who argued exactly that! Actually, I read this book about twenty years ago, and I thought it was the funniest book I ever read. I sincerely believe he was inspired by Sigmund Freud. I think this guy said to himself "Hey, if Siggy, an Austrian Jew, can argue that the only thing that matters in human life is sex, I, Georg Simmel, a German sociologist, can argue that the only thing that matters in life is money." However, us people who live in the real world, are more likely to accept the axiom "Money is a good servant, but a poor master". Unfortunately for the US military currently, and for Americans as a whole, the Pentagon, as President Dwight D. Eisenhower observed, is controlled by a US military-industrial complex, and the only thing this complex is interested in is money. They would sell their souls for money. They have sold their souls for money! These are the people who are bankrolling Elon Musk, and Elon Musk is bankrolling them. The Pentagon's support is what makes Elon Musk untouchable, and what keeps Elon Musk so rich. The only way for the US to start winning wars again, and for US society to start working proplerly again, for ordinary Americans, is to break down this relationship. Rather than limitless sums of money for useless weapons systems and Starships, we must start looking at ways to spend government money on what is important for ordinary Americans, not the capitalist oligarchs who currently are running the show. This is precisely why, in America, socialism is no longer a dirty word. God Speed, the socialists of America! #military #warfare #geopolitics #politics #history #philosophy #capitalism

Mother Night -- Vonnegut

MEPHISTOPHELES. Bescheidne Wahrheit sprech' ich dir. Wenn sich der Mensch, die kleine Narrenwelt Gewöhnlich für ein Ganzes hält; Ich bin ein Teil des Teils, der anfangs alles war, Ein Teil der Finsternis, die sich das Licht gebar, Das stolze Licht, das nun der Mutter Nacht Den alten Rang, den Raum ihr streitig macht; Goethe, Faust, Part I. I speak you the purest truth, As humankind takes upon itself, To call his little world of fools, Habitually, the whole of life itself. I am a part of the part, That was the beginning of all, Of Darkness, a part, That held Light in thrall, O'erweening Light, That now, Mother Night, The Highest Place, Savagely competes for Grace! One of Kurt Vonnegut's lesser known and shorter novels, but, one of my favorites, is "Mother Night", written in 1962, and probably inspired by a confutation of recent events, at the time. One was the abduction, trial and execution of Adolf Eichmann, administrator of the Death Camps, by Israeli Mossad in 1961. The other was the release of poet and "war criminal" Ezra Pound, from St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital in 1958. In response, Vonnegut created a composite character, an American Nazi radio propagandist apparently, but, actually, a covert American spy, supposedly abducted like Eichmann by Israeli agents and put on trial in Israel, not from South America, but, from Greenich Village, NY. That premise is, actually, probably the funniest thing in the entire book! Vonnegut was undoubtedly satirizing the very concept of war criminals, a concept which he also satirizes in perhaps his most famous novel, also made into a famous film, Slaughterhouse Five, about the fire-bombing of Dresden, certainly the seminal influence of his life. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was a anarcho-pacifist, a gentle loving man, who probably never hated anyone in his life, but was compelled to fight the Nazis during WWII, although his heart was probably not in it. Vonneguts's point is, most certainly, that there is no such thing as either pure evil or pure good, but, that everything is part of a greater whole that we may never thoroughly understand. Both Eichmann and Ezra Pound are excellent examples of this. In Eichmann's case, he certainly did incredible evil, but, there's no particular reason to suppose he actually realized this. He was personally responsible for a horrific killing machine that murdered millions of innocent people, but, from his point of view, this was simply a necessary procedure to ensure the success of the German Empire, and even humanity as a whole. The Nazis believed in euthanasia, not just for Jews, but for anyone not meeting a certain standard of aryan purity, including Gypsies, the mentally ill, the terminally ill, homosexuals, and any other races deemed "inferior". This is an extreme right-wing, conservative, fascist philosophy that has always been with us, to a greater or lesser extent, and still is. Ezra Pound to some extent shared this point of view, but as a poet, writer and theoretician, he never went as far as the Nazis did. He had lived in Italy for decades and had been making regular radio broadcasts for years that were primarily literary in nature, but, did contain elements of fascism and anti-semitism. To a large extent, he simply ignored the second world war, and just went on exactly as he had before, as if it really didn't matter to him, at all. He certainly wasn't particularly rooting for Hitler or Mussolini, he just was so arrogant and self-involved that he didn't realize how much danger he was in by broadcasting for the Italian fascists as an American national. The Italians actually thought he was an American spy, particularly since his broadcasts were not propagandistic in nature, and he wouldn't allow a syllable of them to be modified. They thought he might be broadcasting in some kind of code. As it happens he wasn't, apparently, so, the Americans kept him in a tiger cage in the desert for months after capturing at the end of the war, then put him on trial for his life for treason, and his insanity defense was accepted largely because it simply would have been too ridiculous to have executed him! Vonnegut, being Vonnegut, could see a certain parallel between Pound and Eichmann, and to Mephistopheles himself, and thought he would create a satirical confutation of these contemporary world events, to create an analysis of the nature of good and evil, to show that, actually, it is human society itself that has evil implicit in itself at all times. I think Goethe knew this too! #history #Goethe #Germany #wwii #writing #Vonnegut #philosophy

TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION (CCRC) REX v. WILLIAM JOYCE (1945)

TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION (CCRC) REX v. WILLIAM JOYCE (1945) APPLICATION FOR POSTHUMOUS REFERRAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This application requests that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) refer the 1945 conviction of William Joyce for high treason to the Court of Appeal under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. William Joyce was executed by hanging on January 3, 1946. This application contends that the conviction rests upon a fundamental error of law regarding jurisdiction and allegiance, rendering the verdict unsafe. Correcting this historical miscarriage of justice is necessary to preserve the integrity of English common law, ensuring that administrative technicalities are never again weaponized to bypass the statutory definitions of citizenship. II. THE CORE LEGAL ERROR: THE PASSPORT PARADOX The prosecution of William Joyce under the Treason Act 1351 required the Crown to prove that the defendant owed allegiance to the British Sovereign. It is an undisputed matter of fact that: William Joyce was born in Brooklyn, New York, on April 9, 1906, as a natural-born citizen of the United States. He never at any point naturalized as a British subject. An alien cannot commit treason against the Crown for actions taken outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. To circumvent this total lack of territorial and personal jurisdiction, the trial court and the House of Lords relied on a novel extension of the common law: because Joyce fraudulently obtained a British passport in 1933 (renewed in 1939), he enjoyed the "protection" of the Crown while in Germany, and therefore owed a reciprocal duty of allegiance. This argument fails under modern and historical legal scrutiny on two distinct grounds: A. Fraud Vitiates Consent and Status A passport obtained via a fraudulent statement of birth is a legal nullity. It is a foundational maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything (fraus omnia corrumpit). A document issued on a false premise cannot create a binding, reciprocal constitutional contract of allegiance between a foreign citizen and the Sovereign. Joyce was not entitled to British diplomatic protection; had his fraud been discovered while abroad, any such protection would have been immediately withdrawn. The state cannot claim a monopoly on defining reality by treating a document as void for the purpose of rights, but valid for the purpose of execution. B. The Complete Absence of De Facto Protection The House of Lords asserted that the passport extended the King's protection to Joyce while he was in enemy territory. This is a geographical and geopolitical fiction. Joyce resided in Nazi Germany during World War II. The British Crown possessed no diplomatic presence, no administrative power, and no physical capability to offer protection to anyone within the borders of the Third Reich. It is legally unsustainable to argue that a citizen of a neutral nation (the United States, prior to December 1941) owed allegiance to the British King while residing in a hostile nation where British authority was entirely absent. III. THE TIMELINE DEFECT AND COMPETING ALLEGIANCES The trial court acknowledged that Joyce’s British passport expired on July 2, 1940, and that he subsequently became a naturalized German citizen. Consequently, he was acquitted of the treason charges covering the later years of the war. He was sentenced to death exclusively for his radio broadcasts between September 1939 and July 2, 1940. The appellate court must review the proportionality and safety of a capital conviction based entirely on a temporary duty of allegiance artificially generated by an expired, fraudulently obtained travel document. Furthermore, as a matter of international law, Joyce owed a permanent, unalterable allegiance to the United States of America during this exact window. The English courts effectively claimed that an administrative error by the passport office superseded the sovereign, constitutional citizenship of a foreign national. IV. THE GROUNDS FOR REFERRAL A Misdirection on the Law of Allegiance: The trial judge misdirected the jury by ruling that the possession of a passport, as a matter of law, extended the duty of allegiance to an alien outside the realm. This bypassed the jury’s role in determining whether any real protection was ever actually extended or available. Unsafe Precedent: The House of Lords decision in Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] AC 347 has been heavily criticized by generations of jurists as an ad-hoc legal fiction manufactured to satisfy post-war public demand for retribution. It stands as a highly dangerous precedent that expands the state's power to try foreigners for political crimes committed on foreign soil. V. CONCLUSION William Joyce was an anti-Semitic fanatic and a fascist propagandist whose broadcasts were deeply offensive to the British public during a national crisis. However, the abhorrent nature of a defendant's speech does not grant the state the right to engineer jurisdiction where none exists. Justice requires that convictions reflect the strict boundaries of the law, not the emotional temperature of the era in which they were tried. Because William Joyce was an American citizen acting outside the United Kingdom, he did not owe allegiance to the British Crown. His conviction for high treason was ultra vires, legally unsustainable, and fundamentally unsafe. The CCRC is urged to refer this matter to the Court of Appeal to formally quash the conviction. #law #wwii