"Felony voting"

Mrs. Woodrow Wilson's 18 month administration

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

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

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

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

Why is Machiavelli so overrated?

Why is Niccolo Machiavelli so incredibly overrated? I mean, this guy was a total loser, a loser's loser really, trying to set himself up as some kind of authority on ruling the world! He was probably really something of a nutcase, if you think about it. This guy actually got himself tortured and stretched out on the rack because he was so aggressive with potential noble employers to try to get a job, that they couldn't get rid of him any other way! Really! His role model for the "ideal prince", Cesare Borgia, managed to get himself slaughtered in his early thirties simply by getting ahead of his own army, and refusing to identify himself, so he died, in a situation in which he could readily have saved himself and been ransomed back for a healthy sum. Cesare Borgia achieved a brief period of military success under the kind patronage of his much, much older father, Pope Alexander VI, Rodrigo Borgia, while the two were attempting to establish a kind of military dictatorship throughout all of Italy. Possibly if Rodrigo Borgia hadn't died, or maybe been poisoned, they might have succeeded. Or, maybe not. In any case, it was downhill from that point on for poor Cesare Borgia. Maybe he effectively committed suicide in battle, intentionally, who knows? Now, to be fair -- and, I always want to be very fair, of course -- Machiavelli did write some interesting analyses on Livy in which he supports a balance of powers in democratic republics, and hence incorporates his cynicism into a kind of practical framework for ideal government that has some application. But, were any of Machiavelli's ideas really at all original? Obviously William Shakespeare was well aware of the need for deviousness at times in statecraft, and that pure virtue does not always win the day. For that matter, so was Geoffrey Chaucer, long before Machiavelli. Actually, if you really want to look at some "Machiavellian" statecraft at multiple levels, take a look at what happened to Thomas Becket. No real "Saint", he. What Becket was, really, was a middle class man on the make, trying to duke it out with Henry II of England, and Pope Alexander III, and getting outplayed by both of them, and ruthlessly used by both of them. When has there been any period in history when leadership did not involve some element of cynicism? There has never been one, ever. When Shakespeare has Richard III himself say he could "bring the murderous Machiavel to school" I think what he is saying is that Machiavelli actually was, himself, rather naive, and that's why he was such a total failure and screwup! Of course, some element of cynicism is necessary in leadership, but, not that exclusively! To read "The Prince", you would think that only murderous sociopaths have any success in politics, and the more damage they do, the better for everyone! This is patently ridiculous. Leaders like that end up dead rather shortly, or permanently imprisoned. People aren't stupid enough to be manipulated and fooled indefinitely, although, from time to time such actions may be useful, or even essential. Ultimately, unless political leaders deliver the goods, they are removed, one way, or another, quite consistently. So, what's the big fuss about Machiavelli, one way, or another? I think it's rather similar to the fuss about his younger contemporary Nostradamus. Machiavelli wasn't a political genius, and Nostradamus wasn't a prophet. However, both of them were highly literate men who had led a varied life, and were operating in the time of the exploding field of the mass production of books through modern printing. So, combining their knowledge of the world with their literary studies, and given that their works could be mass produced, they were able to expand their reputations and influence far beyond what would have been the case before the advent of printing and mass production of books. Put another way, both Machiavelli and Nostradamus were contemporary media stars, not because they were actually very unique, but, simply because they happened to appear at a time when the new medium of printing was looking for media stars, and they just happened to fit the bill. #machiavelli #torture #borgias #cesareborgia #renaissance #printing #history #philosophyofhistory #leadership #ethics #moralphilosophy #philosophy #italianhistory #shakespeare #chaucer #britishhistory #historyofphilosophy #papalhistory #churchhistory #thomasbecket #politics #polticalscience #nostradamus #media #massmedia

Whither Texas

As the November election approaches, and it looks more and more likely that Democrats will do rather well, on the whole, probably retaking both House and Senate, the question arises, what about the States? OK, it looks likely the Democrats will retake power at the Federal level, to a large extent anyway, but, will the Republicans retain their power bases in the states, particularly the very large states of Texas and Florida. Texas, in particular, has always been a conservative stronghold. It used to be a Democrat stronghold, when the Democrats were the conservatives, the slaveholders, the segregationists. For decades now, Texas has been a Republican stronghold, since Republicans have become the conservatives, anti-immigrant, racist, anti-government. The reason this is important, is that if Texas ceases to be a Republican, conservative stronghold, really for the first time in its history, it ceases to be a source of money or good candidates for the Republican Party at any level, to a large degree anyway. And Republicans cease to have any real substantial base of operations in the entire United States. The Party may risk permanent extinction under these circumstances, and politicians do not like risking political extinction, do they now? Now, of course, the election is still six weeks away, and we really don't know what exactly is going to happen. Elon Musk is spending big money there. Lately, that hasn't worked out for him too well politically, since Musk is electoral poison, almost everyone hates his guts. However, the price of oil is fluctuating wildly, and, if it's low enough by November, that may help Republicans out a fair amount, or not. Iran has its fingers on the scales of oil prices of course, now, with its control over the Strait of Hormuz, and its allies control over the rest of the Middle East. And, this gives Iran considerable influence directly over the outcome of the US elections this year, of course. It is notable that Polymarket is now giving the Democrats a 40% chance of taking 6 or more Senate seats, something considered inconceivable just a few months ago. Odds of Trump's impeachment are 67% on Kalshi, 69% on Polymarket. Odds of Democrats taking the House are 93% on Polymarket, 91% on Kalshi. If Texas goes Democrat in a big way, inluding a federal Senator, a Democrat governor, and a Democrat House of Representatives, combined with 6 total Senate pickups federally, and 40 or more House pickups federally, Donald Trump risks total mutiny in his own Party, impeachment, and removal. And, all his charm and dealmaking may not be enough to stop it. And, this outcome is approaching even odds, given current polling. And, Democrats have been outperforming the polls by double digits for a year and a half now! #texas #texashistory #uselections #democrats #republicans #ushistory #conservatives #trump #donaldtrump #elonmusk #musk #geopolitics #politics #philosophyofhistory #economics #impeachment #polling #predictionmarkets #politicalscience

I don't need a million dollars

If you really want to understand the Nazis, you really should take a look at this fabulous show stopping musical production number. Here's an English version inspired by the original German lyrics: I've got plenty of pockets, But they're all full of nothin', Just my 'ol gal's photograph, And I'm perfectly happy therein. And I've got a pair of notes, But they're not notes from a bank, These are melodious notes, And I sing them all the time. I don't need a million dollars, I don't miss money a lick, All I need forever, Is music, music, music! I don't need to live in a castle, I don't need no car that's slick, All I need, my dear, Is music, music, music! Now, the really interesting thing about this wonderful 10 minute production number, that is as good or better than anything Fred Astaire ever did, and is done by a beautiful woman, at that, is this -- it was produced just two months before the Nazis invaded Poland! It was produced by Josef Goebbel's Ministry of Culture and Propaganda, under the executive direction of none other than Adolf Hitler! Now, of course, the entire reason that Hitler was invading Poland was that he was running out of money to finance the "German economic miracle" he was presiding over, so, actually, the irony of this particular number is rather brutal. But, you know, even if the Nazis were lying their bloody heads off here, the number is so exquisite, you really do have to say, "Hey, they weren't all bad!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G54J4Imb2ss&list=RDoyht_FPMidI&index=3&pp=8AUB0gcJCSQMAYcqIYzv #music #film #dance #nazis #history #germany #germanhistory #hitler #goebbels #money #wwii #economics #nostr #plebchain #grownostr #philosophyofhistory #marikarokk #classicmovies #cinema #propaganda #historicalrevisionism #revisionism #irony #brutalirony

The illusion of certainty in mathematics

It is frequently stated that mathematics is the language of nature, that the laws of mathematics must, necessarily, apply everywhere in the universe, because they are absolute. Why exactly? What makes them so absolute? How do we know they cannot change, or that their meaning is perpetually fixed in nature somehow? Well, first of all, it's necessary to define precisely what mathematics is, and what it is not. While mathematics sometimes is described as "The Queen of the Sciences", mathematicians themselves -- who tend to be rather charming and reasonable people, in general -- are rather more likely to describe what they do as a kind of "art". Why is this? The reason mathematicians tend to describe what they do as more of an art than a science, is that it is a highly subjective, introverted, rather aesthetic kind of activity. What do mathematicians do exactly? Well, they try to come up with concepts that appeal to other mathematicians, basically. Ideas that are interesting, and somehow meaningful, in an intuitive way. And -- this is the really unique thing about mathematics that distinguishes it from the other so-called "sciences" -- mathematics really isn't mathematics unless it acquires at least temporary universal agreement amongst mathematicians that it is in fact mathematics. In a way, then, mathematics is, in fact, the ultimate, and most essential principle, or principles of human social conformity! And, it is this aspect of extreme social conformity that does indeed explain why we hear of the "essential universality" of mathematics, of the inevitability of mathematics, of the consummate power of mathematics. Because, my friends, mathematics is, quite frequently anyway, nothing more, nor less, than a social control strategy! When we hear about the "cult of Pythagoras", they really do mean "cult", you know. Pythagoras had his own little empire and army, and was by no means above abusing his acolytes in any way you can possibly imagine! Really! So, when we hear of non-euclidean geometries, almost no one says that non-euclidean geometry "disproves" Euclid. After all, this is mathematics, mathematics is the ultimate reality it cannot possibly be disproven, right? Right?? No, no, no, non-euclidean geometry merely extends or provides, perhaps a "new perspective" on euclidean geometry. One that illustrates that all the assumptions and conclusions of euclidean geometry are wrong, of course, or usually wrong anyway, but, no matter! No matter at all! After all, this is mathematics! So, basically, mathematics is just stuff that some people with some good publicity agreed on sometime. Nothing more than that. Nothing. Nevertheless, because it is stuff that was widely agreed on and understood, mathematics does provide a pretty good basis for communication, particularly in areas where good communication and understanding are essential, like important engineering projects. Mathematics provides a well understood common language for these engineering projects, and, no doubt, that does help somewhat. Sometimes, anyway. Problem is, when we get into the notion that mathematics is "truth", absolute and total, and anything done mathematically must necessarily be true and useful, and that mathematics combined with some purely fictional "scientific method" can do anything we want, by some kind of magic only understood by PhD's. Then we get into the total drivel and nonsense of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and endless absolutely pointless research in "controlled nuclear fusion", and, then, God help us all! #mathematics #geometry #noneuclideangeometry #euclid #science #philosophyofscience #metaphysics #philosophy #physics #engineering #sociology #conformity #institutions #institutionalization #historyofphilosophy #philosophyofhistory #pythagoras #conformity #socialconformity #publicity #publicrelations #relativity #einstein #fusion #controlledfusion

Why did Adam Smith decide to try to whitewash capitalism?

Why did Adam Smith decide to whitewash capitalism?  Why did he insist in The Wealth of Nations that capitalism was the enemy of slavery, when capitalism itself developed specifically because of slavery!? It was the slave plantations in the New World that provided the world's first opportunity for entrepreneurs to make a fortune very quickly indeed, in sugar, tobacco or cotton!  It was this capacity to generate enormous wealth very quickly that got governments interested in fostering and developing corporations and monopolies to transport slaves from Africa to man these highly profitable plantations, so said governments could generate tax revenue and wealth from them.  Black African slaves were the backbone and sinews of the world's first great capitalist corporations, and that generated their wealth. Black Africans were the perfect source of extremely cheap and controllable labor for these huge agricultural factories. They were in most cases sold from slavery in Africa itself, so, their condition was an accustomed one they were less likely to rebel against.  They were accustomed to tropical diseases, so much more likely to survive in the tropical climates necessary for cotton, tobacco and sugar plantations.  And, finally, their complexions made it much harder for them to escape from slavery and blend into the broader population. So, all this open available land for the development of agricultural factories, combined with cheap black African slave labor, was an astonishing money generator for the imperial nations of Europe.  Capital was generated, and could be used and exploited like never before. And this changed the entire attitude of governments to wealth, power and social control in general.  People should be encouraged to generate wealth, so the government could tax wealth, and use wealth. Now, with the development of new technologies, specifically with the industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, possibilities for mass production extended well beyond the tropical plantations.  And, these opportunities were not necessarily ideally suited for black African slaves.  Quite aside from the awkwardness of transporting and and controlling African slaves, these new industrial opportunities were varied, might require education and skills, and could provide opportunities for advancement and wealth generation themselves.  So, governments shifted their approach from slave exploitation to generate capital, to more general exploitation, control and training of the population as a whole to generate wealth. So, what Adam Smith is really trying to rather hypocritically do, is present this new form of exploitation, as the ultimate social virtue, and the rejection of conventional slavery not as a practical necessity, but as some kind of universal virtue!  Thus, the phrase "making a virtue of necessity". Now, this gets us to Adam Smith's much quoted and abused and exaggerated concept of the invisible hand, the suggestion that capitalism can do no harm, and always magically does good!  What a joke!  This ridiculous concept is so absurd, that it's hard to discuss it with a straight face.  Like, no one trying to make money ever did any harm, at all! Adam Smith was a consummate liar and hypocrite, scrambling with every fiber of his being to generate propaganda to whitewash greed and stupidity and destruction with his nonsense about an "invisible hand".  If there is any invisible hand of capitalism, it is a greedy, and grasping, malicious hand, and it is covered in blood, when we ever see it! #adamsmith #thewealthofnations #invisiblehand #capitalism #hypocrisy #history #philosophy #philosophyofhistory #historyofphilosophy #americanrevolution #industrialrevolution #britishhistory #ushistory #economics #slavery #classwar #africanhistory #moralphilosophy #morality #civilwar #propaganda #ethics #disinformation #communism #socialism #politicalscience

The Great New York City Bombing of 1920

I was listeing to KUCO Classical Oklahoma City, A Day to Remember History Segment, this morning. They focus on often relatively little known historical events of significance. They described a rather important terrorist event that I'd actually never heard of, the New York City Bombing of 1920, in front of the JP Morgan Bank, in which 38 people were killed and 145 injured, right in the heart of New York's financial district. The incident was described as being related to extremist groups involved with anarchism, communism and anti-capitalism. Actually it was about the false prosecution of Sacco and Vanzetti, who were ultimately executed for a crime they certainly didn't commit. Eventually, the judge in the case had his home bombed as well. He survived, but, he had to live in a heavily guarded bunker for the remaining rather upleasant year of his life, and his wife and housekeeper were badly injured. Authorities did get the message, and moved away from false prosecutions of immigrants. Sad to say, violence does work. Sometimes, it's the only way, I'm afraid. But, you probably see why you and I have never heard of this particular act of "terrorism" don't you? So I do hope all Oklahomans do remember KUCO in their upcoming membership drive for the great work they're doing, won't you? #npr #media #oklahoma #terrorism #history #newyork #wallstreet #ushistory #history #uspolitics #saccovanzetti #politicalviolence #anarchism #anarchists #politicalscience #okc #publicradio #mediabias #manufacturedconsent #galleanists #palmerraids #redscare #classwar #plebchain #grownostr #revisionisthistory

Why Trump can't govern by veto

Now that it is becoming fairly clear that the Democrats are going to triumph in the November elections this year, taking House and Senate, the question is, how effective they can be, with Trump as President. Can't Trump simply govern by veto, as Presidents have in the past, from the Oval Office? The answer to that is actually fairly simple, and the answer is "no". Why, exactly? Certainly, in the past, many highly successful Presidents have indeed dealt with unruly Congresses by governing by veto. Most notably, FDR, Grover Cleaveland, Harry Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower were chronic users of their veto pen. In more recent American political history, vetoes have become rare, to some extent because the mere threat of a veto discourages legislation, and to some extent because party polarization has made it more difficul to assemble the votes required for any potential veto overrides. These two are, of course, closely related. However, Donald Trump is a special case. Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Donald Trump has already been impeached twice in his first term of office. Donald Trump is also highly unpopoular, with strong disapproval rates of 50%, and strong approval rates of only 14%. So, any veto of popular legislation by Donald Trump, wil inevitably arouse howls of rage from most Americans, and arouse very little strong support, at all. Legislators from both parties, including his own, will no doubt hear about this. And, these legislators, particularly from his own party, will fear justified righteous retribution from their electors, and being cast out into the cold by them, of unelectable Hell. So, all Donald Trump has to do is veto a couple of popular pieces of legislation, and, suddenly, he may well find that the Republican firewall in the Senate preventing him from not only being impeached by the House, but actually removed by the Senate, will rather magically disappear, very quickly indeed. Certainly, it is a rather likely thing to happen, isn't it? Now, of course, many of you will say that the electorate is polarized, and Republican senators dare not antagonize Trump's loyal MAGA "base". However, with generic polling suggesting that the Democrats are currently leading the Republicans by double digits, and with Democrats outperforming their polls by double digits in most of the elections, the question is, does Trump have any significant real base left? Trump has been saying that he wants the electors to vote as if he himself were on the ballot. However, what if that's exactly what the electors have been doing lately? And, of course, once Trump is removed from office, his electoral shield of the Presidency from criminal prosecution ceases to exist. Indeed, Congress might decide to remove some conservative justices from SCOTUS, and permanently eliminate the "presidential immunity" so recently instituted by them. Presidential immunity might go the way of the Dred Scott decision, as a direct result of the Trump presidency. So, on the whole, I really don't think it is possible for Donald Trump to govern by veto. Not for very long, anyway. #politics #uspolitics #uselections #trump #donaldtrump #impeachment #usconstitution #veto #maga #dredscott #presidentialimmunity #supremecourt #ushistory #politicalscience #history #scotus #republicans #democrats

John Locke and the horrors of classical liberalism

The philosopher and government administrator John Locke is rightfully praised for his analytical brilliance, but, unfortunately, I fear his morals leave something to be desired. Unlike his illustrious predecessor Sir Isaac Newton, who always saw himself as merely an humble instrument of God in his philosophical and scientific enquiries, I do fear John Locke somewhat aspired to be God himself, on his own, and it shows. While Isaac Newton would never have suggested that human reason is perfect, I believe Locke is suggesting that precisely in his empirical epistemological enquiries, and he likes that idea very much indeed. Especially his own reason, which Locke certainly did put on a pedestal! Locke put himself up as a critic of Hobbes and his absolutism, but, actually, Hobbes isn't really that all much of an absolutist when push comes to shove. Hobbes is, first and foremost, a profound realist. Hobbes recognizes the inevitable conflicts between our fellow men can have disastrous consequences, so he sees the need for some kind of government superstructure to control them, but he is extremely flexible about the forms this government superstructure can take. Locke, on the other hand, believes that all human beings can live in "perfect equality and freedom", subject of course, to Locke's own reason! Locke actually had an opportunity to apply this principle directly in his administration and design of the constitution for the Carolinas, in which British aristocrats had the literal power of life and death over all their slaves, by law! Which, by various philosophical and legal circumlocutions, Locke manages to rationalize as "perfect equality and freedom". We all know just how well that all worked out, in the long run. What John Locke really helps us to understand are the true horrors of classical liberalism, in which God is replaced by the tyranny of "human reason" over all, and the "perfect liberty and freedom" of powerful men to do precisely as they choose, no matter what. #philosophy #history #historyofphilosophy #philosophyofhistory #johnlocke #isaacnewton #locke #newton #metaphysics #politicalscience #britishhistory #empiricism #hobbes #slavery #liberalism #leviathen #empiricism #epistemology #mentalillness #sociopathology #psychoanalysis #psychology #sociology #ushistory #sophistry #religion #God

John and Henry -- the relationship between Henry Morgan and John Locke

Henry Morgan -- bloodthirsty pirate, and revered Royal Governor of Barbados

Henry Morgan was a totally ruthless brigand pirate and criminal who murdered, raped, tortured and pillaged his way across the Caribbean, thus providing a source of enormous wealth to the British Crown, and incidentally himself.  He rose to be Royal Governor of Jamaica, the main base of his pirate predations, and was tolerated by the British Crown, particularly Charles II, because of his effectiveness in acquiring wealth, and defeating enemies. He was a perpetual embarrassment during his political career, his predations and extremities being largely papered over by philosophical and administrative genius John Locke, who was certainly one of the most total intellectual whores in all of human history.  John Locke used his enormous intellect to rationalize the gradual transition Britain was undergoing from being a monarchy, to being a plutocracy.  Locke's conceptions formed the basis for classical liberalism during the enlightenment, which basically held the view that anyone intelligent and ruthless enough to acquire great wealth should have total freedom to do whatever the hell they wanted to, no matter what, bar nothing.   Locke's approach worked pretty well for centuries of British Empire, unless of course you happened to be one of the unlucky ones -- the vast majority of course -- who weren't ruthless and intelligent enough to acquire great wealth.  I suppose you could argue that the American Revolution was something of a reversal here, since on this particular occasion, the British found themselves dealing with a group of Americans who were just as ruthless and intelligent as they were -- the so called "Founding Fathers" -- but, being natives to the region, had the advantages of geography, and, certainly, massive French support, as well. Henry Morgan of course was very ruthless indeed, and very intelligent indeed, so he could do no wrong.  Quite literally!  None!!  And, good old John Locke was there in London busily rationalizing everything he did quite brilliantly, particularly using such concepts as "just wars", which justified the most horrific barbarities of all types, in particular the holding of slaves in eternal, and frequently lethal bondage.  If you're wondering why the world is such a total mess today, maybe we should consider looking back to the seventeenth century British Empire, and those grand old pals and chums, Henry Morgan, and John Locke. #history #philosophy #metaphysics #morality #moralphilosophy #ethics #britishhistory #ushistory #philosophyofhistory #historyofphilosophy #liberalism #britishempire #imperialism #capitalism #johnlocke #henrymorgan #politicalscience #geopolitics #usrevolution #foundingfathers #enlightenment #seventeenthcentury #jamaica #economics #pirates

John Locke -- philosopher and slave trader, extraordinaire

While most treatments of his life tend to downplay the fact, the great empiricist, liberal philosopher John Locke actually played a very key role in the development of the English slave trade, and the institutionalization of slavery in the British Colonies in North America, many of which would subsequently become parts of the United States, and would ultimately have a great Civil War over slavery. While advocating liberalism and tolerance in government, Locke simultaneously was personally responsible for the establishment of the absolute power of Carolina planters over their slaves, by law. Yes, you read that right. No contradiction there, eh? So, how do we explain this little conundrum, then? What are the mental gymnastics going on in John Locke's head, that allow him to simultaneously do these two totally opposite things -- condemn slavery and oppression, and then write up a constitution that is enforced, that gives absolute tyrannical power of life and death to aristocrats in the British colonies over slaves? Well, is this really so complicated? John Locke was a greedy, murderous, hypocritical total creepshow, a real sociopath! Freedom for me, oppression for you, my friends! A lot of people are like this, of course, now, and in the past. #history #philosophy #historyofphilosophy #philosophyofhistory #ushistory #slavery #psychology #economics #psychoanalysis #britishempire #britishhistory #hypocrisy #johnlocke #sociopathology

Corporate Problem Solving -- the sixth minute

This morning I was listening to the BBC on NPR radio, and a new book on problem solving in difficult situations was presented.  They used the analogy of a battle plan, which only lasts the first five minutes of the battle. Then, people have to explore the unknown, to solve the new problems being presented.  They discussed the strategies that must be employed to deal with the unknown, how a corporation should be set up to deal with these unknown uncertainties that must be quickly regulated and controlled.  They said that the human element must be employed, using the example of a specific person knowing a specific repairman who could quickly repair an essential machine on demand.  They said that it was very important for everyone to know that they were not alone, and that the corporation would be behind them in their decisions, and would work with them, and respect them. Notably, they used the example of Apollo 13, and now NASA managed to bring home three astronauts despite the fact that an explosion had rendered the spacecraft largely untenable, and forced them to abort the primary mission of landing on the Moon.  They observed that the average age of the NASA engineers involved in solving this problem was only 26, so, immense actual life experience was not required. Now, the example of Apollo 13 is very interesting, and is often cited as an illustration of how victory can be seized from the jaws of defeat.  Ron Howards's excellent film with Tom Hanks from 1995 is a prime example of how this particular space mission has been interpreted by a great many people.  A triumph of American engineering excellence. Let me explain how I perceived Apollo 13 at the time of the event, as an eleven year old boy, very enthusiastic about science, the space program and NASA.  I was absolutely stunned by their incompetence.  I couldn't believe how anyone could possibly take any of this seriously anymore. They were building multi-billion dollar exploding tin cans that weren't good for anything, certainly not conquering or exploring outer space.  And, of course, Apollo 13 did curtail the Apollo program itself by several missions, we haven't be back to the Moon since Apollo 17, and there's no indication that we will be there again anytime soon, NASA fantasies like the Artemis program, or the ambitions of the CCP space program notwithstanding.  It's too expensive and dangerous, we spent the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars in today's money, for nothing whatsoever, in terms of actual human progress.  Fundamentally new technological approaches to space travel will have to be developed, approaches we simply do not understand yet, and have not attempted yet, before manned space travel becomes a viable commercial possibility. Now, all of this is, I believe, perfectly obvious.  So, given that, why do people see the Apollo 13 mission as having been a great success, and use it as an ideal model for how corporations should function to deal with practical, real world problems?   I think, if anything, Apollo 13 was an effort in damage control, and, certainly, corporations deal with a lot of damage control.  Corporations make mistakes, terrible, disastrous mistakes, but, they want the corporation itself to survive.  Corporations are like living organisms, they seek to survive and grow and expand, to replicate themselves and their control structures, over, and over again.  If an employee is unwilling to accept this, they cannot function as an employee within the structure of the corporation.  Corporations do not concern themselves with human beings as individuals, except insofar as it is necessary to do so, in order to use them effectively to expand the power and size of the corporation itself.  Corporations do not care about the desires, aspirations, goals or imagination of individuals.  Corporations do not care about humanity itself, except as humanity serves to maintain the corporation itself, and increase its power.  Apollo 13 represented an absolute failure in terms of the goal of human beings conquering outer space, but, the fact that the three astronauts did survive, may well have helped NASA to survive as a government agency, or corporation.  And, fundamentally, survival is what corporations are all about.  Indeed, NASA desperately tried to pitch the failure of Apollo 13 as a success, for this specific purpose -- their institutional survival.  This is something that all corporations can relate to.   The observations of the BBC program about these ideal strategies emphasized that inexperience was no obstacle, an average age of 26 worked fine.  Indeed, inexperienced people are much easier to control and program, so, actually, experience is by no means desirable in assisting a corporation to survive.  The "human element" is reduced to merely knowing the name of a repairman -- no insight, imagination, inspiration are required ever, at all.  This aligns well with Thomas Edison's truly bizarre claim that "genius" is 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.  We don't want you to think, we want you to do what you're told, of course, to serve the corporation!   Actually, genius is 90% inspiration, 10% perspiration, and, I'm quite sure Thomas Edison was well aware of this, he was a very shrewd man.  However, Edison didn't really want other people to believe this, it might reduce his control over them!  Edison was a corporation man, of course. The BBC program stated that the support of other people in the corporation was essential for optimum performance.  But, true insight is always individualistic and intuitive.  What do we need the support of other people for, to promote ideas and intuition?  We don't! What this BBC program was really about, was the desire of corporations to control other people, and the desire of corporations to survive and increase their power, at all costs.  "Efficient performance" simply means serving the corporation, as an end in itself.  And, this highlights the fundamental conflict and confrontation between the individual and all corporate systems and units, throughout all of human history. #economics #business #corporations #capitalism #economictheory #philosophy #edison #thomasedison #invention #engineering #ai #apollo13 #nasa #philosophyofhistory #spacetravel #problemsolving #metaphysics #psychology #psychoanalysis #individualism #conflict #humanconflict