Prince Harry's pathological hatred of the media

The war after the war -- 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8cwFtiwKrM

How the two year election cycle defines the American character

The Left-Right divide in politics

Richard Nixon was impeached for incompetence

It is a myth, but, an extremely well propagated myth, that Richard Nixon was impeached, and forced to resign,  because of the Watergate break-in fiasco.  This is, actually, absolute and total nonsense.  To grasp just how total this nonsense is, all you have to do is realize that the Watergate break-in was reported and condemned in July 1972, and Nixon went on to defeat the Democratic candidate by a 20 point landslide in the popular vote, and win 49 of 50 states in November, 1972. Now, sure, additional details did come in during subsequent investigations, but, actually, everybody knew more or less what had happened, but no one particularly cared.  In fact, it was said that it wasn't the break-in so much that destroyed Nixon, as the subsequent attempts at covering it up.   But, actually, that wasn't really the problem either, at all. You see, in 1972, Nixon seemed to be doing a very good job.  The stock market was doing well, the economy was doing well, Nixon had pulled American troops out of Vietnam, and South Vietnam seemed to be holding up pretty well.  Nixon appeared to have achieved that long sought for American dream of "peace with honor", to bring the long nightmare of Vietnam to an end.   So, Nixon won the elections overwhelmingly, who cared if he had broken into Democratic headquarters, he would have won big anyway, right, what difference did it really make? Now let's fast forward two years.  Now, rather suddenly, everything is falling apart.  South Vietnam is being overwhelmed by North Vietnamese troops, and is clearly going to fall soon.  Israel has only won with great difficulty a hard fought war against the Arab world, one it would probably have lost without massive American aid authorized by Richard Nixon.  In direct retaliation, an Arab oil embargo has been declared, that has totally trashed the entire US economy.  Inflation is at 11%, the nation is deep in recession, the stock market has lost much of its value.   Now, suddenly, Watergate looms as the greatest and most significant crime in world history!  Hysterical, right? What we really see with Watergate, is how law is used to rationalize the broader agendas of society as a whole, right or wrong.  You see, the US Constitution requires "high crimes and misdemeanors" to justify removing the President of the United States.  Now, it was clearly seen as absolutely essential to remove Nixon, because he was making such a total mess of everything, so, by God, some high crimes and misdemeanors had to be manufactured! Now, to be sure, the Watergate break-in was certainly an illustration of Nixon's paranoia, obsessiveness, and incompetence, but, it was only a very small part of a much bigger picture, and it was that much bigger picture that was the real problem, not Watergate. #nixon #richardnixon #watergate #impeachment #nixonresignation #usconsitution #republicans #democrats #uselections #uscongress #history #ushistory #usconstitution #law #uslaw #philosophyoflaw #philosophyofhistory #revisionism #revisionisthistory #historicalrevisionism #socialanthropology #sociology #moralphilosophy #vietnam #vietnamwar #israel #yomkippurwar #araboilembargo #opec #useconomy #economics #uspresidents

Trump is finished

While there is currently some uncertainty over whether the Democrats will get the 4 seats necessary to take full control of the Senate -- odds are now about 2:1 in favor of the Democrats -- there is no such uncertainty about the House. With betting odds of more than 10:1, this is as close to certainty as betting odds ever get. The Democrats will take the House. However, although the odds of taking the Senate are only 2:1, the odds of taking at least 3 or more seats -- making the Senate a 50-50 tie -- also are now approaching 10:1 for the Democrats. So, at least a tied up Senate is also a lock. Democrats will at least tie up the Senate. Of course, it's possible for Vice-President JD Vance to break the tie, if he's available. However, that's assuming there are no Republican defections, which is highly unlikely given Republicans like Rand Paul, and Lisa Murkowski. Also, given Trump's very low approval ratings, that are still dropping, any Republicans in vulnerable seats will think twice about supporting unpopular policies, for fear for their own political careers. So, it appears certain, now, that Trump will be the lamest of lame ducks next year. No power to get anything through Congress, at all, ever, at any level. No power to appoint anyone, at all, ever. And, the Democrats should have little difficulty gathering sufficient Republican support to reverse most, if not all Trump policies, given Trump's unpopularity. It's clear now, the party is over for Donald Trump. He is finished. #politics #uspolitics #uselections #geopolitics #democrats #republicans #ushouse #ussenate #usgovernment #donaldtrump #jdvance #randpaul #lisamurkowski

The strange case of Louis Ferdinand Celine

Witchcraft

Special Relativity and GPS

The Apocalypse

DOA movie, about 1950, with Edmund O'brien

Isaac Bashevis Singer -- The Dead Fiddler

"Felony voting"

Mrs. Woodrow Wilson's 18 month administration

You know, people say that the US has never had a woman President, and maybe never will, but, nothing could possibly be further from the truth. In fact, the United States had a woman President even before women even had the right to vote in the US. Really! After Woodrow Wilson was sidelined by a massive stroke in 1919, his wife Edith completely took over the functions of Presidency of the United States, officially referred to as her "Stewardship" for eighteen months. She completely controlled the executive branch of the US government, effectively making all executive decisions, only referring to her extremely sick husband issues of her choosing. And, if you're wondering why the United States has never had a woman President since, and may never have one again, it's because Edith Wilson, the First Lady and Presidential Steward, actually has a great deal to answer for! The period of Edith Wilson's "Stewardship" was perhaps the most disastrous period of total mismanagement of government in all of US history. There was terrible post-war inflation, the country was paralyzed by massive strike action, and farm prices collapsed, leading to mass bankruptcies among farmers, and contributing to the Great Depression, some ten years later. In particular, this was the period in which the League of Nations was being negotiated, and Edit Wilson's total incompetence and ignorance absolutely guaranteed that the US would not be a member, that the League of Nations would be toothless, and that the world would within just a decade already be plummeting dizzily towards another World War. This was also the period of the "red scare" and the "Palmer raids", in which the young J. Edgar Hoover ran amok arresting and deporting anyone and everyone he chose, -- Edith Wilson had no capacity or inclination to stop him -- and fabricating cases against innocent men, like Sacco and Vanzetti, who were ultimately executed for a murder they did not commit. This inevitably led to anarchist reprisals against the government, such as the massive New York City bombing of 1920, which caused 38 deaths, in front of the JP Morgan bank building. Ultimately, the judge who presided over the Sacco and Vanzetti case had his home bombed. When Henry James wrote "The Bostonians", in the 1880's, he was satirizing the intellectual elitist culture of high-brow feminists centered around Harvard University at the time. These starry-eyed lady idealists were quite certain that all we had to do was give women the right to vote, and all the world's problems would instantly be solved. Really! Actually, Henry James found this just as hysterically funny then, as we do now! Clever fellow, Henry. #revisionisthistory #historicalrevisionism #revisionism #wwi #wwii #ushistory #history #leagueofnations #redscare #palmerraids #greatdepression #henryjames #thebostonians #philosophyofhistory #jedgarhoover #feminism #feminists #harvarduniversity #woodrowwilson #uspresidents #edithwilson

Iran is engaging in "asymmetrical warfare"

In case you haven't noticed, Iran has begun engaging in "assymetrical warfare". And, I don't mean the drone attacks on shipping either. I don't mean drone attacks at all, actually. That's just conventional warfare these days. No, what I mean is what we in the West call "terrorism". However, you may not have noticed that Iran is engaging in it, because no one wants to acknowledge that Iran is doing it, although they quite obviously are. I am referring to the recent attacks on the plane bound for Israel that had a "fight" in the cockpit, in which the pilot was stabbed, and the attack by vans of armed men on the British base being used as a stopover point for American attacks on Iran. How do I know that Iran was behind these attacks? Well, you know, despite the fact that Iran and the US are actively engaged in negotiations in New York, and despite the fact that Iranian President there has assured everyone that Iran does not want to kill Donald Trump, they have publicly announced a 10 million dollar bounty on the head of his youngest son, Barron Trump, and they have not publicly retracted it. This is a somehwat unusual situation then, you agree? Now, who is responsible directly for all these complexities. I think we all know. I think we must put all this at the feet of Donald Trump, I'm afraid. You see, the gangster-in-chief has made it clear that the US now stands for the complete and total abrogation of all international law, of all justice and decency, and even of the US Constitution itself. All to make America great again! So, can we really blame the Iranians for playing exactly the same games? Why should the Iranians pay any attention to international law, if no one else is? Are the Russians? No. Are the Ukrainians? No. Are the Israelis? No. Are the Palestinians? No. Obviously the Americans aren't anymore under Donald Trump, and MAGA and Donald Trump are very proud of it too, so why would Iran want to be odd man out? Why should the Iranians follow any rules at all, if no one else does? Why call the Iranians terrorists, for playing exactly the same games the US and Israel are playing, all the time? There are many levels of irony to this current situation. Americans still remember 911, and they don't want to go there again. Iran is now making it quite clear, that's exactly where America is headed, if they continue down the path of lawlessness that Donald Trump is pursuing. This, among many, many other things, may indeed help to contribute to the impending electoral disaster the Republicans face in a few weeks, when they will certainly face their worst electoral rout in decades. Democrats will retake total control of Congress, they will enforce international law again, they will bring Israel to heel, and, quite possibly, the Reupublicans will feel compelled to assist them, possibly removing Donald Trump from office, to avoid total extinction as a national political party. All because Iran is engaging in "terrorism". So, American democracy is about to be saved by Iranian "terrorism". Isn't that ironic, my friends? #terrorism #warfare #asymmetricalwarfare #iran #hijacking #911 #september11 #geopolitics #politics #donaldtrump #trump #history #ushistory #uselections #republicans #democrats #democracy #usconstitution #uslaw #crime #criminality #barrontrump #internationallaw #israel #irony #uscongress #funny

"Violence against women"

Sherlock Holmes, and the constant quest of humanity for Gods

There has never been, and may never be, a character in literature with the astonishingly enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes. Why is Sherlock Holmes so very special, what is the particular magic of this character that Arthur Conan Doyle created, as a failed doctor trying to earn a living through his pen?  What did he do, exactly, how, and why? Conan Doyle was brought up a strict Catholic, so he had a natural disposition to seek the strict structure, faith and power of traditional Catholicism.  This is the natural tendency humanity has, that Freud commented on, of trying to seek a great Father Figure, to control the world around us, so we don't have to.  Up to a point, this is probably the basis for all world religions, past and present. However, Conan Doyle was highly educated, and became trained as a doctor in mid-nineteenth century Britain, and such faith was highly inconsistent with his training and education.  He really could not help but reject conventional religion.  Instead, for a time anyway, he became a religious skeptic and a rationalist.  It was during this period that Sherlock Holmes was born.   What is Sherlock Holmes, precisely? Is he a man?  I'm not quite sure of that.  Actually, it's not too big a stretch to suggest that Sherlock Holmes definitely has some Christ-like qualities. On the other hand, Sherlock Holmes was certainly based to some extent on incredibly influential, but rather unsuccessful Edgar Allen Poe, and his intellectual,intuitive detective Auguste Dupin, who is probably largely modeled on Poe himself.   Dupin is a somewhat dissipated intellectual eccentric, no superman, but extremely intelligent and resourceful.  As consequence, he has no trouble at all running rings around the none too bright bureaucrats at the Police Force. This idea interested Conan Doyle, with his new religiously rationalist perception, and he probably unconsciously imbued Holmes with some element of his own innate religious fervor from his childhood.  Certainly, Holmes is not the rather careless dilettante that Dupin, and up to a point, Edgar Allen Poe himself was.   Holmes is quite obsessed with his work, and he is also quite obsessed with helping his clients, with something very much like a messianic fervor.  Edgar Allen Poe and Auguste Dupin would have laughed at such obsessiveness, it was contrary to their natures. So, what Conan Doyle created in Sherlock Holmes, is something rather like an intellectual superhero, an intellectual superman, but also a father figure because of Conan Doyle's own religious upbringing, with genuinely Christ-like qualities.  In other words, Sherlock Holmes is a God, in the truest sense of the term, something superhuman, something beyond mere humanity. That to some extent explains Holmes' unique attraction, because as L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer who founded the Church of Scientology so shrewdly said, "Religion is where the money's at!"  Now, to be fair here, Conan Doyle never did say that, and, I really do believe that this religious aspect to Sherlock Holmes was something that happened quite unintentionally, it wasn't what Conan Doyle had in mind at all.  So, Conan Doyle kept trying to kill off Sherlock Holmes, and get back to being a "serious" writer, but, he liked money, and Sherlock Holmes was the only way he could get it, at least in really large quantities. However, there are lots of religions out there, why be a worshipper of Sherlock Holmes, exactly, what's the unique attraction?  I think what's happening here, is that we have a reincarnation of the Greek God Athena -- Goddess of Wisdom -- who really had effectively died out, a long time ago, you know.  You see,  science has failed.  Rationalism has failed.  Probably it's been corrupted by bureaucracy and capitalism.  So, where we had Einstein, Newton and Darwin as Gods in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, no one really takes them very seriously anymore, in the general population anyway.  Scientists and Engineers are merely salesmen and hustlers, not be trusted, at all.  But, who wouldn't trust Sherlock Holmes?  Why, you could trust Holmes with your life.  And, so, we have the worship of the Father Figure, Sherlock Holmes, the true God of Wisdom, the New Athena. #freud #psychoanalysis #psychology #arthurconandoyle #sherlockholmes #conandoyle #religion #god #gods #polytheism #catholicism #literature #englishliterature #philosophyofreligion #philosophy #metaphysics #edgarallenpoe #augustedupin #detectives #detectivefiction #americanliterature #philosophyofscience #capitalism #mythology #athena #greekgods #scientology #lronhubbard

Overpopulation

Alfred Hitchcock acted as a Nazi agent provocateur before and during WWII to advance his own career

Suspense cinematic master Alfred Hitchcock always seemed just a little bit creepier than he really had to be, in order to sell  his suspense films.  Like, maybe it wasn't entirely an act, you know, or some kind of artificial sales pitch.  Like, just maybe, Alfred Hitchcock really was a very, very creepy guy!  This was to some extent confirmed towards the end of his career, when he systematically destroyed the career of his favorite leading lady, Tippie Hendron -- mother of Melanie Griffith -- because she wouldn't sleep with him. However, much earlier in his career, decades before, when he was just getting started, Alfred Hitchcock got involved with something that may have been even creepier than this.  Alfred Hitchcock tended to focus on criminal activity for his suspense films, for most of his career.  After all, for most of us, crime is the most frightening thing we are likely to have affect us, so, it is a natural source for material for suspense films in our culture.  He occasionally departed from crime to accommodate popular taste -- for example, in 1966, he veered into science fiction with his highly successful "The Birds" -- but crime was his natural milieu.  The one big exception to this pattern occurred during the mid-1930's, when he developed a deep interest in espionage as a basis for suspense films. This is hardly surprising. With the rise of Adolf Hitler, the British were absolutely terrified of falling into another holocaust like WWI.  And, it was even worse than that. To fully appreciate just how frightened the British were in the mid-1930's, you have to understand the full geopolitical situation.  The British saw themselves facing off against Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Josef Stalin in the USSR!  All at once!  And, Britain's natural anglo-saxon ally in the US was totally prostrate, an economic wreck, overrun with heavily armed gangsters and virtually without any military at all!  If you are interested, you can see this terrifying situation very elegantly sketched and illustrated in the world's first mass market paperback, the immensely successful "Lost Horizon", which I like to call "Lost Empire"!  It is, of course, about an imaginary kingdom of Shangri-La, in a hidden part of the Tibetan plateau, in which people are totally isolated from the rest of the world, and live in perfect peace, to immense ages.  See where the British were coming from here? So, it was perfectly natural for Alfred Hitchcock to become interested in espionage in the mid-1930's as a means of creating true suspense in Britain.  Or, was it?  After all, everyone was totally terrified already, why try to scare them further?  It's one thing to be frightened of something as a change of pace, quite another to be exposed to more of a terrifying situation you've already had quite enough of, already.  What's the attraction?  So, unlike his Hollywood career, or earlier British career, at this particular time, Alfread Hitchcock wasn't really creating fear, he was merely observing and analyzing fear, which is really quite different, you know.  Of course, being Hitchcock, he did a very good job of it!  But, really, "The 39 Steps" comes across more as almost a contemporary documentary, than as a suspense thriller!  Albeit, a documentary about a terrifying, suspenseful  situation. So, instead of scaring people for fun, Hitchcock was scaring people for real here.  Why?  Just to make money, and a name for himself?  Maybe.  But, just maybe, there was a little more to it than that.  Bear in mind, both Britain and France desperately wanted to avoid a repetition of WWI.  If there was going to be another world war, they were perfectly happy to let Russia and Germany fight it out, with France and Britain on the sidelines, watching to see the winner. Hitchcock undoubtedly wanted to be a rich and famous Hollywood director with starlets fawning at his feet.  Supposing he could scare the British people enough of Nazi Germany, that they would simply run away from every confrontation, because they were too terrified to fight?  Then the Russians and Germans would have to fight it out, the US would eventually get involved, because the war was unavoidable, they would win, and brilliant Alfred Hitchcock would be hailed as a film director war hero in Hollywood, and all his dreams would come true! The fact is, the British did run away from every confrontation.  They did nothing when Hitler occupied the Rhineland.  They did nothing when Hitler invaded Austria.  They betrayed and abandoned Czechoslovakia at the Munich conference.  They declared war when Hitler invaded Poland, but, did little or nothing to help them.  Then they ran away when Hitler's forces invaded France!  Then they hunkered down in their island for the rest of the war, suffering a mere tenth the casualties they had in WWI.  They let the Russians and Americans do most of the fighting for them.  If they had confronted Hitler earlier, there probably would have been no WWII, at all! To what extent was Alfred Hitchcock personally responsible for all of this?   Hard to say.  Almost certainly to some extent. Would Alfred Hitchcock have willingly precipitated WWII and all its disastrous consequences merely to further his personal career ambitions as a film director?  You bet he would have! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzhIlFGdjeU&list=PLgGlTguenMthdLWIE-ugT16w224UcL7TH&index=15&pp=iAQB #cinema #film #movies #classiccinema #classicfilm #classicmovies #alfredhitchcock #suspensefilms #39steps #history #wwii #adolfhitler #philosophyofhistory #suspense #psychology #psychoanalysis #philosophyofart #revisionisthistory #revisionism #britishhistory #sociology #losthorizon #geopolitics #filmdirectors

The Ponzi Scheme

The basic concept of the Ponzi scheme, is that there is no means of producing capital inherent in the scheme, other than investing more money in the scheme itself. It is essentially non-productive in nature. Now, this seems simple enough, really. Some things are productive, others are not. Growing crops is productive, it produces food for people, people need food. On the other hand, one shouldn't throw good money after bad. Don't invest money in something that isn't productive. In the case of the original Ponzi scheme, as practiced, money is invested, but nothing is produced, the only source of funding is finding further investors, to produce further dividends. However, the concept of a Ponzi scheme needn't be quite this simplistic, and in its normal application, isn't quite this simplistic. For example, Charles Dickens wrote in Martin Chuzzlewit (1843), some time before the original "Ponzi scheme", about insurance agents as being in a rather similar line of endeavor. Of course, you could rather easily argue that all insurance companies are in this line of endeavor, the Ponzi scheme -- simply funding insurance payouts from other insurance investors, never producing anything -- however, the insurance companies generally do have a large capital, sufficient to pay off all likely claims. If not, they inevitably must go out of business. How far can the concept of the Ponzi scheme be generalized? What is "true production", as distinct from just shuffling money around? Banks don't really produce anything, they just shuffle money around. No bank investors, no bank, period, they have no real "product". Even where there is a product, how much is the product really worth, if anything? The "Tulip bubble" in the seventeenth century is a prime example of this, when specific types of tulip bulbs were selling for astronomical sums for a time, before the market collapsed completely. What about "health care"? How competent are doctors, really? Are they really selling "health", or are they merely selling an illusion of competence, a mere "bedside manner", and little else? As for lawyers, enough said? These days, there is much interest in Elon Musk's transformation of "junk bonds", into "high yield bonds", a transformation which looks a great deal indeed like the original Ponzi scheme. There is no immediate product of value, certainly. There is the long term prospect of all kinds of products of value -- the conquest of all of outer space, no less! However, there is no clear method to get there, unless we consider the "scientific method" to be a true guarantee of progress, which is dubious indeed. Is the "scientific method" itself a Ponzi Scheme? Or is science just a religion? Are all religions, actually Ponzi schemes? Isn't the promise of perpetual bliss in an eternal afterlife, in return for unlimited devotion and contributions, the ultimate Ponzi scheme, where you give everything, are promised everything, and get nothing, ever? #ponzischeme #economics #stockmarkets #charlesdickens #dickens #insurance #elonmusk #spacex #starship #pentagon #usgovernment #banking #banks #money #finance #spacetravel #religion #afterlife #metaphysics #junkbonds #philosophyofscience #science #philosophy #tulips #historyofeconomics #philosophyofeconomics

Money and Technology

Man is a tool making animal, that is perhaps the most straightforward definition of humanity that we can ever arrive at. Our species, and its direct lineal ancestors, have been systematically fabricating tools for almost 2 million years now. Other animals, particularly primates, can and do use tools to a limited degree in foraging for food, but the extent of actual tool fabrication is exceedingly limited. Man is uniquely suited and uniquely capable at tool fabrication, the creation of so called technology. It has made the modern human species great and powerful. Money is an invention dating from the dawn of human civilization, a mere 5000 years ago. It was undoubtedly very closely associated with the effectively simultaneous inventions of writing and accounting. The first writers were certainly accountants, you see. The complexities of managing the needs of reasonably large cities necessitated more detailed records than oral recall recall could easily manage. So, city officials and managers developed simple visual, mnemonic devices to symbolize essential commodities of various types. The numbers of these types of commodities increased over time, until something rather like a comprehensive written language was developed. So where does money come into this? Money is invented simultaneously, with the simultaneous inventions of accounting and writing. Money is the means of exchanging all those commodities that are so essential for the community. The Shekel -- still the unit of currency in modern Israel -- was the first form of money, used in early Mesopotamia, to represent an equivalent weight of barley or silver. In other words, silver could now be used in exchange directly for needed barley, or, for that matter, vica versa. Very convenient, no? No need to have the exact commodity on hand that is needed, money could be used in exchange for whatever was needed, within a very broad range of possibilities, by common communal social agreement and trust. Great idea! Now it is a great idea, of course. However, there is a problem here, to some extent based on the power of the human imagination for over-generalization. The problem is, the human imagination could tend to make the error that money is an equivalent measure for absolutely everything! And, that may not really be the case at all. Let's consider the very interesting example of a somewhat related human creation -- the ring. These days, of course, rings are considered essentially just a form of purely aesthetic adornment. However, even now, rings retain an element of special power, particularly conspicuous in wedding rings, and diamonds in wedding rings. Really, diamonds are just semi-precious stones now, they are actually quite commonly available, and should be quite cheap. However, their supply is strictly controlled, and this is tolerated because of the social power of the marriage industry, and their special use in diamond wedding rings. We don't want cheap diamond wedding rings, that would cheapen the sacrament of marriage itself, right? Try reselling your diamonds from a wedding ring though, you will find they are almost worthless! So, in other words, rings have a social power, still. And, in the past, it was much, much greater. Why exactly? Why are rings powerful? Well, fancy, jewelled rings were much rarer in the past, and were a symbol of great social power, as well as wealth. But, even more significant than that, rings could bear seals, an early form of printing, which required highly skilled, extremely expensive craftsmen to engrave. And seals could be the basis of all essential social contracts, laws, decisions, state warrants, legal contracts, diplomatic agreements, etc. The seals on rings literally could be the basis of all or most of the power of states before the invention and widespread use of mass printing devices! And, this is almost certainly the entire basis for the role of rings in the history of the Western imagination -- the Ring of the Nibelungen, Wagner's operatic Ring Cycle, JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. In other words, people are overgeneralizing the uniquely massive social power of rings at the time, for some kind of universal physical power of rings to control absolutely everything! Which, of course, rings do not have, and never will have. Similarly, people are inclined to confuse the power of money as a convenient means of exchanging a wide range of useful commodities, for a power to control absolutely everything in existence! Money cannot do this, and, it never will be able to do this. Money is not the be all and end all of existence, whatever capitalists economists may say to the contrary, any more than rings are. Money is merely a convenient means of exchanging a large but limited and finite range of commodities. The fundamental error of all modern economics is to assume that money is the equivalent of absolute physical power in the real world, and can be used to control everything. This is totally false and totaly ridiculous! Which gets us back to technology. Technology is the basis for manipulating the real world. In theory, technology really can do anything, and everything, if we can figure out how to invent it, anything whatsoever can be accomplished with technology. Unlike money, which just can just be used to exchange established, understood commodities, technology is a creation of human imagination, and intuition, it has no defined limits at all. So, by definition, money cannot be used to develop whatever technologies we wish. Even limitless amounts of money cannot automatically lead to the development of any technology to do anything we choose. Non-existent technologies simply are not a "commodity" that can be purchased. Human imagination and intuition simply cannot be controlled, predicted or purchased. Human inspiration cannot ever be fully understood. Now part of the confusion here, is the development of the concept of the idea of a "scientific method", from the period of the European Enlightenment, the eighteenth century, when modern capitalism was also developing. Capitalists loved money, and saw money as the basis of all of human society, so, academic theoreticians were more than happy to fabricate the notion of some "method" that guaranteed scientific and technological progress, as long as enough time and money were thrown at the problem. This was pure fantasy of course, there is no such "scientific method", and, there never will be. However, this has led to immense confusion, and an immense waste of money and time on absolutely useless research of all types. The most extreme exemplar of this is, of course, Mr. Elon Musk, and SpaceX, and Starship. And, we are now about to suffer a massive stock market collapse, a bear market going on for years, because people have assumed that the more money they throw at problems they have no idea whatsoever how to solve -- like colonizing Mars -- the more progress they will make! #anthropololgy #archaeology #technology #sociology #homosapiens #economics #neanderthals #philosophyofhistory #tolkien #wagner #lordoftherings #ringcycle #opera #money #capitalism #civilization #sociology #writing #accounting #jrrtolkien #trade #barter #society #rings #marriage #diamonds #power #socialpower #seals #officialseals #history #printing #historyofprinting #legalhistory #historyoflaw #stockmarket #markets #stockmarkets #elonmusk #starhip #spacex #imagination #intuition #humanlimitations #science #engineering #scientificmethod #philosophyofscience #eigtheenthcentury #philosophy

The surrealistic stream of consciousness of FOX late night radio

From time to time, I like to listen the the surrealistic stream of consciousness that is FOX late night radio, between 9 PM and 12 AM. It's astonishingly adaptable, you know? Just a few months ago you could hear rants for hours ridiculing and condemning transsexuality, non-stop. Really! As little as a month or two ago, you could hear guests gleefully describing all Democrats as "Islamo-Communists". Really! However, if you listen to FOX late night now, things have rather abruptly changed. A lot! Suddenly, FOX late night is focused almost entirely on apolitical news stories like the issues with AI, and sometimes the best ways of funding sports stadiums. And, learned university professors are heard discussing them, too. Really! Actually, FOX late night is almost beginning to sound like NPR radio on a particularly slow news day. Now to be fair, and entirely accurate, FOX late night does occasionally still have clips ridiculing Kamala Harris, and saying how stupid she is. But, you know, that really doesn't have much bearing on current news and politics at all, does it now? Is this out of pure nostalgia, perhaps? Of course, it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Even the most diehard conservatives at FOX broadcasting recognize that the Republicans are heading into an electoral disaster of epic and historic proportions in a few weeks. They recognize that MAGA has failed miserably, and has become a lunatic fringe constituency of the extreme right wing, rather quickly. That's probably because all of their policies have now been tried by Donald Trump, and have failed miserably, and spectacularly. Democrats are probably going to take full control of congress, both House and Senate, possibly by substantial margins. Donald Trump will be cut off at the knees, all his policies will be reversed, he will be impeached, possibly removed from office and imprisoned. So, FOX is trying to reposition itself, rather quickly, much, much closer to the center of the political spectrum, both for ratings and legal purposes. Makes sense, doesn't it? #foxradio #foxnews #foxlatenight #fox #npr #media #massmedia #uselections #maga #republicans #democrats #donaldtrump #politics #geopolitics #conservatives #kamalaharris #uscongress #ushouse #ussenate #uslaw #uspolitics

The Play Ethic -- hard work is bad!

All work, no play makes Jack a dull boy. Why, exactly? I think in the simplest possible terms, true work, in the normal and practical sense of the term, tends to almost always be rather routine, rather predictable, rather controlled. Work does not, in general, make full use of human intuition, intelligence, creativity. Work, for most people anyway, most of the time, is not an "inspirational" activity. Work is boring, so, inevitably, people who do nothing but work are themselves, also, rather boring. Now, that doesn't mean that work doesn't need to be done sometimes, of course. However, it might well mean that practical work of most types isn't the most healthy thing for people psychologically. And, of course, most physical labor is very, very unhealthy physically when pursued over the long term, it leaves people broken up husks of men, in general. Kind of like playing football for a living! There is also, of course, the point that not all work is particularly useful from a purely social point of view. Drug dealers work hard selling drugs, most people do not consider them to be useful members of society, at all. In fact, they frequently end up in prison! Are pharmaceutical companies and doctors any better than drug dealers, really? Well, that is a debatable point. How about lawyers, how do people usually feel about them? Not too good? A bunch of shysters maybe? I am very, very fond of the saying "Overfond of lawyers little wealth, overfond of doctors little health." Don't you think there's a great deal of truth to this wonderful old homily? Karl Marx is famous for his dictum: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." This is a rather beautiful idea really, almost a perfect society. Is it practical? Not if everyone is forced to work, of course! I think the point Marx is making here, is that flexibility and creativity are much more important and valuable socially, in real terms of improving human society, than "hard work". Hard work may, actually, be rather a bad thing, usually a destructive thing, indeed. How much good has been done for human society by work, as distinct from play? The military, soldiers, work very hard. Isn't their job, normally anyway, purely destructive? Are science and engineering best pursued as playful activity, or, as hard work? This gets into the question of the reality of the "scientific method", some "system" that guarantees progress of a real and meaningful type, that actually leads to meaningful progress, and isn't just running around in circles, or pretending to make progress, when all you are really doing is junk technology -- technology that doesn't help human beings in any meaningful way at all. I think it's critical to determine the extent to which working as a salesman may take the place of real scientific and technical progress. Real scientific and technical progress may be more a matter of "play", of pure relaxed unstressed creativity, than "hard work". Whereas most real, actual scientific and engineering work these days may be more a matter of "hard sales work" that accomplishes nothing other than getting people's attention and monopolizing scarce resources, and money. I'm thinking specifically of Elon Musk, a "hard worker". And, a hard worker we'd all be much better off without, all he does is damage! So, I suggest we need to consider an alternative to the "work ethic". What we really need is a "play ethic", a philosophy of relaxed contemplation and thoughtfulness, of sensitivity and receptiveness to new ideas. Hard work is bad, and destructive, most of the time, anyway! #labor #work #play #psychology #sociology #communism #capitalism #karlmarx #marx #economics #antiwork #drugs #healthcare #doctors #crime #law #uslaw #lawyers #philosophyofscience #science #engineering #technology #markeing #massmarketing #sales #salesmanship #musk #elonmusk #ethics #moralphilosophy #metaphysics #philosophy #ethics #hardwork

The Stupid Rich

BERNSTEIN Thatcher! That man was the biggest darn fool I ever met. THOMPSON He made an awful lot of money. BERNSTEIN Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money, if all you want.....is to make a lot of money. You take Mr. Kane -- it wasn’t money he wanted. "Citizen Kane" -- Orson Welles. America is an ultra-capitalist nation, founded on the basic principles of ultra capitalism, the notion that "classical liberalism" -- the idea that people should, quite literally, be allowed to make as much money as they want, using whatever means they want, no matter what. John Locke is largely responsible for codifying this notion, in response to the extremely lucrative predations of pirate Henry Morgan from the British colony of Jamaica, which however bloody and immoral they may have been, were nevertheless, extremely profitable for the British Crown. Adam Smith attempted to sanitize classical liberalism as "capitalism", with his absolutely ridiculous concept of an "invisible hand" that guided capitalists to do good, in pursuit of wealth, almost despite themselves. So, for Adam Smith, capitalists were quite literally all Santa Clauses, showering the world with their gifts. Anybody believe that? Anyone? Didn't think so. So, what's Orson Welles up to in "Citizen Kane"? Well, first of all, of course, he's trying to make an extremely entertaining film by satirizing communications Mogul William Randolph Hearst. And, Welles succeeded extraordinarily in doing so, too! Now, the film is not particularly accurate, Welles himself described it as a "hatchet job", although I would be inclined to say it was more about Welles himself, than Hearst. The character of Kane is portrayed as much softer and more vulnerable and childish, than the actual William Randolph Hearst, who was actually a rather dangerous man, and quite fond of money, too. Orson Welles almost found this out the hard way himself, when, following the appearance of his film, Hearst sent an underage girl into Welles' hotel room, in an attempt to entrap him into a charge of statuatory rape. Fortunately for Welles, he had friends in the police force who tipped him off, and he never returned to that particular hotel room! But, I think Welles isn't just playing games in this film, he does have some genuine moral in mind. Hearst is portrayed as missing his "lost childhood" -- a symbol for true human values, if you like, as distinct from mere wealth and power. In other words, Welles was not, himself, exactly a capitalist. Welles did not believe Adam Smith, he certainly did not believe in an "invisible hand" automatically guiding all capitalists to do good. Welles saw life as being about human beings, about beauty, about curiosity, about helping other people, and he didn't particularly see most capitalists as being likely to do this if they could possibly avoid it! So, effectively then, Welles is generalizing this view of "capitalists" like Thatcher a bit, and really introducing an entire category of human beings into what I will simply call the "Stupid Rich". Now, the notion that rich people can be very stupid indeed, is of course somewhat alien to the American mindset, which is largely based on the notion that all Great Men are rich and powerful, because, of course, all of the American Founding Fathers were, indeed, rich and powerful, and, because they wanted to become even more rich and powerful still, by overrunning the Indian Lands to the West, and the British wouldn't let them do it! However, as we see with the continuing overwhelming influence of Karl Marx -- a very poor and unsuccessful man indeed -- money is certainly not the whole enchilada. And, as poor and unsuccessful men like Lenim, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and the Iranian Ayatollahs have demonstrated over and over again, capitalist systems and rulers will come falling down like a house of cards when faced with important ideas and movements that effectively transcend mere financial considerations come into play, as they very often do. Then, the Stupid Rich really never knew what hit them! You see, if you spend your entire life pursuing money, trying to "make it", as it were, you really don't and can't understand anything else. And, that can make the Stupid Rich very vulnerable to non-financial counter-attacks of a variety of types. The Stupid Rich really have no conception of anything other than money, even survival, even social progress, even social morality, none of these are really comprehended very well by money. But, the vast majority of people are actually much, much more interested in survival, social progress and social morality than they are in money, and so, all these "money geniuses", the Stupid Rich, are somewhat inclined to find themselves odd man out, and, as the Holy Bible tells us, "money will not protect you in the hour of anger"! #capitalism #adamsmith #communism #money #wealth #business #johnlocke #piracy #philosophy #history #orsonwelles #citizenkane #classicfilm #ushistory #americanrevolution #philosophyofhistory #historyofphilosophy #history #philosophy #hearst #williamrandolphhearst #foundingfathers #iran #islam #moralphilosophy #socialprogress #bible #biblicalstudies

Populist Demagogues

Here's a complete list of characteristics of demagogues according to Wikipedia:     1   Emotional oratory and personal charisma 2.  Scapegoating 3.  Fearmongering 4.  Lying 5.  Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty 6.  Promising the impossible 7.  Encouraging violence and using physical intimidation 8.  Personal insults and ridicule 9.  Exhibiting vulgarity and behaving outrageously 10. Folksy posturing 11. Making gross oversimplification 12. Attacking the news media 13. Establishing one-man rule, subverting the rule of law 14. Appointing unqualified lackeys to high office Now, think carefully please.  Are there any of these characteristics that Donald Trump does not possess, and has not exhibited quite consistently in his second terms of office, to a rather high degree.  Any?  Not even a single one?   Correct.  Donald Trump has exhibited every single one of the characteristics of demagogues, every single last one, to an extraordinarily high degree, in his second term of office.  To such a high degree, that he is regularly compared quite reasonably to Adolf Hitler, who also exhibited every single one of these characteristics to  a quite extraordinary degree.  Indeed, Trump has regularly praised Adolf Hitler as one of his role models!  Hey, even Trump never lies, all the time anyway.  Sometimes Donald Trump can be remarkably, and rather charmingly frank about himself, don't you think? Now, to be entirely fair, most politicians do actually exhibit a number of these characteristics, from time to time anyway, there probably is inevitably a certain element of demagoguery in being a successful politician, under any and all circumstances.  However, many, and probably most, do draw the line somewhere.  Most politicians do not generally apply 14, or very rarely, they don't appoint unqualified lackeys to high office, they know this will not work out for them, or for the country, in general anyway.   Most politicians do not apply 13, they do not establish one-man rule, subverting the rule of law, something Trump and Hitler reveled in, of course.   Most politicians do not attack the news media, number 12, freedom of speech is highly protected and valued in the US, according to the US Constitution.  Trump does not care about the US Constitution, or US laws, at all.  Most US politicians, and politicians in democratic societies, do not apply 7, they do not encourage violence and use physical intimidation, Donald Trump has regularly employed ICE and National Guard troops to frighten and assault US citizens and noncitizens alike.  In Minnesota early this year there was the real possibility of Trump instigating a civil war between Minnesota National Guardsmen and National Guardsmen from other states, over the excesses of ICE.  The situation was deescalated by backroom discussions between the different elements of the US military itself, who basically refused to go along with their official commander-in-chief. Now, again, to be fair, not all demagogues are extremely violent, in fact.   No one so far is accusing Donald Trump of having behaved as violently as Adolf Hitler ultimately did, and as he always seemed to have some inclination to do.  This may simply be because the US military culture will not permit him to be as violent as Trump would like to be, or, possibly because Trump himself is not particularly violent, except as a means of intimididation and control.  It's a bit hard to determine the point with certainty.  And, actually, I think by this stage most Americans really don't want to find out just how much like Hitler, Trump might be, under certain circumstances! #hitler #trump #donaldtrump #adolfhitler #demagogues #politics #geopolitics #ushistory #history #germanhistory #philosophyofhistory #demagoguery #usconstitution #law #uslaw #uspolitics #violence #politicalviolence #ice #usmilitary #minnesota #psychology #psychoanalysis

Was Hitler really an authoritarian

The Savonarola historical analogy for Donald Trump

I'm just going to quote Wikipedia exactly here, regarding Jerome Savonarola (1452-1498), who acquired power briefly in Florence Italy: "He became known for his prophecies of civic glory, his advocacy of the destruction of secular art and culture, and his calls for Christian renewal." Now, does this sound at all just the slightest bit familiar to anyone at the moment? Anyone at all, hmmmmmm? Well, I think it might you know. "I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down. America will start winning again, winning like never before." "Six weeks ago, I stood beneath the dome of this Capitol and proclaimed the dawn of the golden Age of America." “I’ve always felt that a lot of modern art is a con, and that the most successful painters are often better salesmen and promoters than they are artists.” "...left wing cultural revolution..." “I’m very proud to say that during my time in office, both the first four years and in particular this last year, there has been a tremendous renewal in religion, faith, Christianity and belief in God,” These are all direct quotations from Donald Trump. And, they are all highly representative quotations from Donald Trump. Of course, we have the entire concept of the MAGA movement -- Make America Great Again! Again, I will quote exactly from the wikipedia article on Savonarola, this from a Savonarola sermon: Florence will be "more glorious, more powerful and richer than ever, extending its wings farther than anyone can imagine". Ultimately, what destroyed Savonarola was simply his inability to do what he claimed to be able to do. Florence did not become great again. Nothing really changed. And, when Savonarola claimed to be able to order the direct intervention of God, he failed to do so. When Donald Trump claimed he could easily crush the Iranian regime, he failed to do so. Instead, the Iranian regime has rather easily crippled the US economy, caused runaway inflation for US consumers, and steadily expanded its influene and power in the Middle East, largely driving the US military out of the region, by attacking US bases. Faced with universal opposition from the Pope and the Catholic clergy who he had attacked and ridiculed, and his own ineffectiveness having become obvious to everyone, Savnonarola was ultimately overthrown by the mob, arrested, tortured and executed. Double digit advantages in the generic polling are no longer outliers for the Democrats in the upcoming November midterms in the US. They are becoming the new normal. We may be facing the most extreme electoral outcome in US history, almost certainly the most extreme in decades. What will be Donald Trump's fate next year? I don't envy him, at all. #history #italianhistory #churchhistory #ushistory #savonarola #politics #geopolitics #trump #donaldtrump #roycohn #uselections #republicans #democrats #philosophyofhistory #maga #conservatives #conservatism #usconservatives #economics

The vagueries of the concept of intelligence

A hundred years ago, psychologists and psychiatrists thought they understood the concept of intelligence pretty well, that they could test it, measure it, put a number on it, and that it was a comparatively stable variable across the entire human lifespan.  However, those days are long gone!  While there are still professional psychometrists who will swear on a stack of bibles that intelligence can be measured with their technical rulers, no one else actually believes them anymore, at all.  Those tests are acknowledged pretty universally now to be merely skills tests, and skills can be learned, and unlearned, over time, pretty much any and all skills. So, where does that leave us exactly, with the concept of intelligence? What is it, and what is it not?  Can it even be defined, at all? Additional confusion is being introduced into this discussion and debate by the increasingly important field of AI, artificial intelligence, at least from an economic point of view.  While the actual practical significance of AI is still highly debatable, there is no question whatsoever that, currently anyway, AI technology is largely driving the entire world economy, so, inevitably, it becomes a matter of considerable interest to people.  Hence, AI must be brought into the picture now, I think in trying to understand what intelligence "really" is.   AI is simply a mass of data structures associated in various ways, particularly in terms of mathematical statistical analysis, with an emphasis particularly on natural language processers as a convenient human interface and indexing device.  The mass of data is enormous, and, that explains its massive consumption of electricity.  Enormous quantities of data must be worked through to answer even comparatively simple questions. This is clearly not how the brain operates, although we really don't understand very well how the brain operates. Put simply, the human brain is vastly cheaper and more efficient at doing most of the things AI is now doing.  So, why use AI at all?   Well, while the human brain is cheap and efficient, people themselves are expensive and lazy!  AI, on the other hand, given limitless energy resources, is more than happy to work 24/7, and, other than energy to keep going, it makes no demands whatsoever for anything else, at all, ever! This leads to the fear of many, apparently anyway, that AI will take over the world, and displace human beings as the dominant "lifeform" on the planet.  Actually, I have no fear whatsoever of this.  For one thing, AI is incredibly stupid!  AI has no insight, no sensitivity, no perspective, no intuition.  None whatsoever, it can only summarize masses of input data.  That's it, period.  And, although this skill can be quite convenient at times, it is by no means essential, we can really do it ourselves, when we want to, albeit more slowly, because our power consumption is orders of magnitude lower than AI systems. And, in our normal human conception of true human intelligence, it is insight, sensitivity, perspective and intuition.  These are what constitute true wisdom, true "intelligence". The ancient Greek poet Homer says at the beginning of the Iliad, probably the greatest and most important poem ever written, "Sing through me, oh Muse".  Now, what does he mean by that, exactly?  Homer was probably a trained doctor, and a good one, we can tell that from the incredibly detailed anatomical descriptions of wounds in battle in the Iliad.  Then, he went blind, and the great lords of Greece decided to let him hang around and play music and poetry for them.  Homer decided to use his education and skills to redefine the Greek pantheon in simpler terms than conventional polytheism, and to frame this in the form of epic poetry.  So what does this brilliant guy mean by saying "Sing through me, oh muse"? I think what Homer means is, true intelligence is inspiration, not skill.  We know not whence it comes from.  And we know not where it goes.   #intelligence #iqtests #iqtesting #psychology #psychiatry #psychoanalysis #metaphysics #philosophy #neuroscience #ai #computerscience #technology #philosophyofscience #economics #homer #iliad #poetry #intuition #insight #historyofphilosophy #greekgods #ancientgreece #greekpantheon #polytheism

Donald Trump as Agent Provocateur

Donald Trump has been deeply, personally involved in politics for well over a decade now, but, actually, I think a lot of people are still rather unclear about what exactly Donald Trump is doing in politics. He used to be a moderate Democrat, and has become a progressively farther right, even extreme right-wing Republican. In his life, he's mainly been an entertainer and a businessman -- perhaps he could be called an entertaining businessman. These days, he is often described as a far right populist politician, and that makes some sense, as far as it goes. However, as we see the Democrat lead in the generic ballot approaching levels not seen in this century, and only very rarely in the last century, one begins to wonder exactly what Donald Trump is really up to. You know, this election could be the swan song of the entire Republican Party, if the Democrats outperform their current polling by as much as has been the case in most if not all US elections in the last year and a half. They might take most of the 22 Republican Senate seats up for reelection, and 100 seats from the Republicans in the House. That isn't actually being predicted by anyone, and I don't particularly expect it myself, but, it's by no means inconceivable now. In any case, the Republicans are going to take a serious hammering in November, that is clear. Why so bad? Well, certainly, Iran has something to do with it. The Iranians are into revenge. They destroyed Saddam Hussein, they ensured Jimmy Carter never got reelected, they threw out the Shah, they cut George Bush Junior down to size, they have the Israelis terrified of them, at all times. So, probably murdering the Iranian Supreme Leader wasn't a really brilliant move on Trump's part. Certainly, it's a problem for Donald Trump's youngest child, Barron Trump, who now has a 10 million dollar bounty on his head. He's only 20 years old, will he make it to 40? Time will tell. The Iranians are largely controlling the outcome of the November elections by shutting down the flow of oil and other materials in the Middle East, thus massively stoking inflation, and hamstringing the US economy. But, couldn't Trump have anticipated this, particularly since everyone told him what would happen? What is Trump really up to here? One possibility that has been rather half-heartedly suggested from time to time, is that Donald Trump actually is still a Democrat, maybe even a left-wing Democrat, and that he is actually acting as a kind of agent provocateur, a disrupter from within, and his goal is to totally destroy the Republican Party, and to shift the Democrats much further to the left than they have been in decades. Sounds far-fetched? Well, you know, if Donald Trump were intentionally acting as an agent provocateur, trying to destroy the Republican Party from within, he couldn't possibly be doing a better job than he's doing right now, whatever his motivations are! I mean, this guy is amazing! Of course, people's actions often have unintended consequences, particularly people who are high-powered disrupters like Trump. Napoleon and Hitler come to mind, and Trump may actually be almost at their level. Napoleon probably hadn't intended to bring about the reunfication of Italy and Germany, but, that is indeed the long term impact Napoleon had on Europe. Napoleon's long term impact on France was actually rather modest, compared to the impact he had on Italy and Germany. Was Napoleon an "agent provocateur", undermining France, but strengthening Italy and Germany? In practice, yes, in terms of his own motivations, who really knows? What is one of the most important consequence of Hitler's reign of terror? We have the state of Israel. Effectively, and I hate to say it, but, it's true, Adolf Hitler has been the long sought Messiah of the Jewish people, finally bringing them back to their promised land, although at great cost. Prior to Hitler's genocide, there wasn't enough support for a Jewish State for it to become a reality. The Jewish Holocaust frightened the world's Jews so much, and got them so much sympathy, that they were finally able to make their dreams of the long lost promised land a reality, at last! How would Hitler feel about this? Actually, I think he would be amused and pleased about it. Really! Are all great disrupters like Donald Trump, effectively, just agent provocateurs, disrupting anything and everything, just as an end in itself? Is that the difference between Donald Trump and his mentors Richard Nixon and Roy Cohn, that they didn't want to be defeated, but, Trump doesn't really care, because impeachment and removal mean nothing to him, as long as he achieves total destruction of the Republican Party, and possibly the entire US political system as we know it? #politics #geopolitics #trump #donaldtrump #ushistory #uselections #impeachment #roycohn #nixon #richardnixon #politicalscience #napoleon #hitler #history #democrats #republicans #conservatives #watergate #iran #revenge #psychology #psychoanalysis #germanhistory #italianhistory #barrontrump #israel #revisionism #revisionisthistory #israel #promisedland #messiah #holocaust

Thomas Mann's Death in Venice --- a psychoanalytic, social and historical study

I have a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of Thomas Mann's extremely popular novella, Death in Venice.  While the novel is generally attributed to Thomas Mann's own homosexual leanings and own experiences, I must demur.   Look at it this way.  There was indeed an event that transpired about 20 years prior to the writing of this novella, in 1912, that paralleled precisely the events of Thomas Mann's famous work.  I'm astonished that this is never referred to in association with Death in Venice.  It wasn't a writer in his early fifties, it was an extremely famous composer in his early fifties, who was certainly every bit as artistically talented as Mann's protagonist, Aschenbach, and every bit as homosexual, if not more so, and every bit as intellectual.   And, he died suddenly and unexpectedly of cholera in "The Venice of the North", Saint Petersburg, through failure to take proper precautions.  Who might that be?  Why, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky, of course!  He died just very shortly after completing and performing his magnificent sixth symphony, the Pathetique. What is particularly striking about this omission, is that Thomas Mann was obsessed with Peter Tchaikovsky and his music, and this obsession was transferred to his son Klaus Mann who actually wrote a biographical novel about Tchaikovsky in 1935, called "Pathetique"! So, while everyone is seeing this work as entirely autobiographical, I am actually rather skeptical about that.   Rather, I see Death in Venice as being an analysis and critique of both Russian culture in certain of its aspects, and of Tchaikovsky in certain respects, possibly with Mann seeing some of these limitations in himself at times, as well, and reflecting on them through these varied associations.   Thomas Mann of course, being a good German boy during the time of the Kaisers, was quite supportive of traditional Imperial German values -- militarism, conservatism, capitalism, traditionalism.  And, associated with these, were a healthy dose of extroverted pragmatism.  His protagonist Aschenbach definitely does not exemplify these characteristics, at all!  An impressive man, intellectually but, in terms of Thomas Mann's philosophy of the time, a "weak" man, an ultimately self-destructive man, a man doomed to die prematurely. Too introverted, insufficiently pragmatic, too "weak", as demonstrated by his homosexual leanings, which, arguably, in the context of Death in Venice, actually destroy him.  Presumably Thomas Mann felt exactly the same way about Tchaikovsky, whatever his admiration for Tchaikovsky's music. I suspect Mann may be generalizing these concepts somewhat, seeing here a fundamental weakness in Russian culture, possibly anticipating its downfall.  Russia was tortured by paralyzing strikes and instability at the time, and had never really fully recovered from the 1905 Revolution, which was only papered over by Tsar Nicholas II, leading ultimately to final downfall of the Romanovs in 1917.  What Mann did not realize, was that Germany itself would collapse just a year later! With the collapse of Imperial Germany, Thomas Mann's own politics shifted sharply to the left.  Suddenly, intellectual introverts like Aschenbach became his heroes, and aggressive militarists like Bismarck and Hitler were his bogeymen. I think we can see in Thomas Mann's analyses in Death in Venice, and in his work in general throughout his entire life,  an attempt to determine the "correct" approaches to human existence, the "safe" approaches.  Are there any safe approaches?   I don't think so! #wwi #russianhistory #germanhistory #tchaikovsky #thomasmann #deathinvenice #psychology #psychoanalysis #germanhistory #geopolitics #introversion #extroversion #conservatism #liberalism #militarism #homosexuality #capitalism #communism #writing #books #literature #germanliterature #pragmatism #philosophy #metaphysics #moralphilosophy #ethics