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

The disconnect between economics and morality

Other than Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, there are remarkably few well known economists who actually manifest any particular interest in human social morality, at all   There is an almost total disconnect between the social science of economics, and social morality, as we normally understand it.  Why is this, exactly?  The other social sciences -- sociology, history, psychology, political science -- all focus to a large extent on the differences between right and wrong in human social behaviors, although they all tend to have a profoundly ethnocentric bias in the way they do it.  Social scientists from different nations and cultures tend to see morality their own way, and have their own heroes and villains, who may not correspond particularly well with those from other cultures.   But, they are very interested in moral issues, issues of right and wrong.  Not so, the vast majority of economists, at all.  True, Adam Smith coined his ridiculous smiley face morality of the "invisible hand" to clothe capitalism in virtue, but, that metaphor has been grossly overextended so much as to amount to a reducto ad absurdam.  There is no invisible hand guaranteeing capitalist goodness, I'm afraid. Part of the problem here is Karl Marx -- the ultimate outsider -- effectively trashing all of human existence so thoroughly and not really offering much as an alternative -- only a purely speculative utopian socialist vision that he almost certainly did not even believe in, himself. So, the rest of the economics world has effectively turned tail and run from any attempt at human morality ever since Marx, with the exception of course of the Chinese communist marxist economists, who have no choice whatsoever other than to be Marxists, by law, and so are simply ignored by Western economists.   Well, maybe we should go back to good old Plato, and The Republic, then.  Plato had no fear whatsoever of Karl Marx.  Really!  So, Plato's Republic puts strict limits on the maximum wealth of all private citizens, and forces the actual guardians of the Republic to live like homeless people in a shelter, with no wealth whatsoever, and only their basic needs modestly met by the state.   And, these are the people who are supposed to be running the country, the people with the real power! Aristotle believed that the pursuit of wealth for its own sake was purely evil, and would lead to the destruction of the state, as it had in ancient Athens. In the European middle ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas and the his Catholic theologian friends made money lending for interest illegal, along with merchants charging any more for goods than was necessary to cover production costs and to ensure the tradesmen involved made a decent living wage. Traditional Islamic societies required Zakat, redistribution of wealth in the form of a wealth tax.  In the US currently, similar policies are being considered as we speak, in terms of a special tax on billionaires. So, historically, morality has indeed been integrated into economics theory quite regularly.  However, almost inevitably it seems, all morality in economics, looks socialist, or communistic.  Isn't that interesting?  So, the only way to divorce the economics of a state from socialism, and communism, is to divorce it completely from any moral basis whatsoever, and, hence, any chance whatsoever of survival.  Do tell! #ecomomics #economists #economictheory #ccp #china #capitalism #communism #philosophyofscience #history #philosophyofhistory  #philosophy #academia #adamsmith #morality #moralphilosophy #politicalscience #marx #karlmarx #historyofphilosophy #ethics

Temporary Kings

The Golden Bough, of Sir James Frazier, is a  powerful work of cultural anthropology focusing on religious mysticism.  An important chapter of it is called "Temporary Kings", and deals with the issue of religious regicide, the formal, institutionalized execution of leaders, after a time, to ensure the continuing survival of the people they represent.  The idea here is that leaders, Kings,  were responsible for the good of the people, so, if they themselves showed signs of weakness or illness, they must be ritually disposed of.  Or, if the people were suffering some great calamity such as famine or plague or military disaster, the death of the leader might in some way alleviate this problem. There is a kind of logic to this. A sick leader is unlikely to be an effective leader, at much of anything, might as well get rid of them.  And, if the nation is plunged into disasters, one way or another, this probably does have something to do with the nation's leadership, so, changing Kings might not be too bad an idea, under the circumstances. I think we can see, if we look rather closely, that Adolf Hitler, perhaps intentionally, actually fulfilled the role of a "temporary king" rather precisely.  While many contemporary Germans attempt to scapegoat Hitler for all Germany's problems in the 1930's and 1940's, in fact, the nation was in a totally disastrous condition when he came to power, the Germans were well aware that Hitler was not the most mentally stable individual, they would never have trusted him with their destiny unless they felt absolutely desperate, and were willing to try anything. Hitler was a charismatic figurehead for the inevitable right wing military dictatorship in Germany that was going to try to redo what Otto von Bismarck did with the military in the nineteenth century -- make Germany once more the dominant military power in Europe.  It failed miserably, largely because the USSR was much more powerful and effectively run than Tsarist Russia had been, something which Hitler himself expressed open shock and surprise about. But, what Hitler did, was serve the role of the "King", the leader, the symbol of state power to rationalize the brutality and ruthlessness of the whole process, and, then, when it failed, his suicide, and subsequent denigration, have allowed the Germans to transfer their guilt and responsiblity to his person, and effectively disclaim responsibility as a nation for their failures.  A true, made to order, "temporary king".   I wonder if we aren't seeing a rather similar phenomenon currently with Donald Trump, in the US.  Trump has been soundly routed by the Iranians in the Middle East, leading to a catastrophic increase in oil prices, as the American military is driven out of the region by expanding Iranian power, that cannot be curtailed.  His immigration policies have also led to near civil war in the US, particularly in Minnesota, but, actually throughout the country.  Nevertheless, as American power in the world wanes faced with the increasing power of China in particular, Americans actually wanted to try something desperate like this, many of them anyway, rather like Germans in the 1930's.  So, salesman Trump has become the American symbol for these aspirations to Make America Great Again. But, instead, like Hitler, promising the Moon has just caused America to fall on its face, looking weak and incompetent militarily, and shaky economically.  So, it appears likely at this stage, that Democrats will retake House and Senate, and will use their power at the very least to control Trump and reverse his policies, and possibly, if things look bad enough to remove him and "punish" him, for his obvious failures.   So, the parallels between Trump and Hitler are not exactly death camps and the Russian Winter, but, rather, ICE detention centers and the Strait of Hormuz.  A bit of stretch, perhaps, but, good enough, really. So, the question is, what is to be done with the "Temporary King", Donald Trump, now that he has proven contrary to the nation's interest.  I suppose he could be removed from office and imprisoned.  Or, he could be turned over to the International Court of Justice.  A low stress possibility, would simply be not to give him and his family very much secret service protection after he leaves office, and let the Iranians deal with him.  I suspect that latter possibility may be exactly what happens to him.  As Richard Nixon was made to pay a price, not for Watergate, but for total national failure, so will Donald Trump, one way, or another.  Both disciples of the late great right wing activist lawyer Roy Cohn, who was disbarred from legal practice shortly before his death from AIDS, having made a few too many enemies in his illustrious career.  Karma.  Temporary Kings. #religion #anthropology #sociology #hitler #donaldtrump #adolfhitler #history #wwii #philosophyofhistory #uspolitics #uselections #nixon #impeachment #richardhixon #watergate #roycohn #nazis #bismarck #germanhistory #maga

Why is Karl Marx so special?

Karl Marx was basically just an intellectual bum, who hung out in libraries a lot. Nothing more. How on earth has he managed to become the best known economist on the planet, and the most influential? Why and how is Karl Marx so special? I think, first of all, we have to understand that Karl Marx wouldn't have had the slightest prospect of ever having achieved recognition, or probably even have survived, without the support and financial patronage of his young wealthy friend, Friedrich Engels. Engels financed Karl Marx and his family, and allowed Marx to hang out in the British Library for decades as a reasonably respectable intellectual for decades, and assisted in publication and promotion of his extensive writings. What do these writings consist of, exactly? Well, they are extremely detailed, perhaps rather too detailed, in their exhaustive examination of all aspects of money, trade, work, financial exchange and services. They attempt to generalize these detailed analyses to human existence in general and all of human history, in an effort to find the true nature of existence, and how human life can be perfected. Are they successful in this endeavor? Obviously not, how could they be, that's precisely why Karl Marx said ironically "I am not a Marxist", he knew he was writing nonsensical conclusions on the basis of his extremely detailed factual analyses. But, that's OK, really. What else could he say? What is so unique about Karl Marx? Well, beyond the astonishing detail of his writings, and the broad sweep of their implications, he was also a total failure and an outsider, which makes him rather unusual for an economist. Economists are generally team players, part of the social system, supporters of the status quo, or, in any case, only slight variations on it. Karl Marx was none of these. Marx was an outsider, an intellectual rebel, who clothed his rebellion in the guise of highly detailed scholarly analyses of economic theory. Indeed, I think it could be rather easily argued that Marx was deliberately choosing a conventionally socially conformist field, economics, in which to frame his social rebellion, to give it somewhat greater impact and appeal. So, he chose that ultimate philosophical social conformist -- Georg Whilhelm Friedrich Hegel -- as the role model for his philosophical and social analyses, basically turning Hegel's concept of dialectics on its head. Hegel's intention was to discredit Immanuel Kant's materialistic empirical conception of reality by showing how ideas alone could be used to understand reality, thus reinforcing idealistic social control through institutions like the Christian Church. Marx decided to tie Hegel's dialectical method to material reality, as the only true reality, thus systematically attacking all conventional idealistic social structures like Christianity, Government and religion in general -- thus, "religion is the opiate of the masses". If we want to really understand what Karl Marx was about, and what makes him so very special, I think it would probably be best to compare him to someone he was really rather like -- Diogenes the Cynic, the guy who lived in a barrel in ancient Athens during the time of Alexander the Great, and walked around with a lamp in broad daylight "trying to find an honest man". Marx was an iconoclast, a cynic, a man who was attacking everyone and everything, clothing it all in the most erudite academic guise, really, as a kind of broad joke on the system, by attacking it from within, using its very own language and control structures. #marx #karlmarx #communism #economics #philosophy #metaphysics #history #philosophyofhistory #diogenes #hegel #historyofphilosophy #engels #capitalism #daskapital #cynicism #dialectics #dialecticalmaterialism #christianity #religion

What are Democrats planning to do if they take both House and Senate?

While Democrats are frantically discussing what they're going to do on day one once they retake the House -- all kinds of wonderful bills that probably cannot get through a Republican Senate -- they are remarkably tight lipped about what they are going to do if they take both House and Senate, something that is becoming at least a 50-50 or more possibility, quite possibly by a substantial margin. I think the reason for this, is that proposing politically attractive pie in the sky is a relatively risk-free, if pointless activity, while having the full control and power of congress might actually require doing something, and actually doing things inevitably involves risk. I think the really critical issue is, if the Democrats do retake both Houses of Congress, how big a majority will they have, and how badly will the Republicans have done not only federally, but also at the state level. Because, this will determine whether we simply have stalemate and pushback by Democrats against Republicans, and pie in the sky, or, whether we actually have a fundamentally different kind of government in power in Washington DC. If the Democrats take 4 or 5 Senate seats and 26 to 35 House seats -- the most probable scenario currently according to the pollsters, although somewhat more optimistic for the Democrats than the prediction markets -- then we will have a lame duck President with no power or ability to appoint judges or government officials, or pass legislation. The united Congress probably will find the means to largely eliminate the ICE and military programs initiated by Donald Trump, to raise taxes to assist with social programs, and to rein in Trump's tariffs and military operations. Trump will be powerless, although it may take him a few months to realize it. However, Trump will remain in the Oval Office, largely under siege from criminal investigations, but, still a free man, still the President of the United States. However, if the Democrats take 6 to 8 Senate seats, or more, along with the likely flipping of Texas and even Florida, and other red states at the state level, the situation will have changed fundamentally. The Republicans will no longer have any base at all, anywhere, at the state or federal level. The entire Republican Party might be facing extinction, along with the careers of all Republican politicians. At this point, the Republicans will see they have no choice but to actually formally cede power to the Democrats, and bow to the will of the people, in hopes that a couple of years of Democrat administration will make them look pretty good again, which is perfectly possible, of course! So, in this scenario, the Republicans support the impeachment of not only Donald Trump, but also JD Vance, as well, and Republicans themselves support Hakeem Jeffries as President of the United States. "Hey, guys, we screwed up, you have a go for a couple of years!" And, then we'd have to see just how good, or bad, a job the Democrats will do. #politics #news #geopolitics #congress #uscongress #usconstitution #democrats #impeachment #trump #donaldtrump #jdvance #hakeemjeffries #elections #uspolitics #republicans

Why traditional conservative parties are ceasing to exist in the West

These days, the western media is constantly bemoaning the fall of the political center, the fact that traditional conservative parties in politics are largely ceasing to exist.  The media complains that politics are now "polarized" between extreme left and extreme right, and that this is a dangerous eventuality, far more dangerous than traditional centrist and conservative parties, that tended to favor consensus, and the status quo. The western  media is missing a fundamental point.  Political extremism is a symptom of a political disease, not the disease itself.  When people are content, they naturally favor centrists, conservatives, people who support the status quo.  However, when people are having difficulties, as they are at present in the Western world, they support change.  And, really, all change is radical and extreme, by definition.   There are no "conservative" changes. For centuries, the West dominated the world, invaded it, conquered it, exploited it.  This is no longer possible.  The rise of China and India as major military and economic powers makes this impossible. The US and Europe have declined in power and influence, and, this costs the people economically, and, they don't like it.   The Western people want to be dominant again.  They don't know how to do it, but, that's what they want. We can see this in the rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, which basically is a desire to go back to colonialism and gunboat diplomacy.  As we can see, this isn't working at all well in the Middle East, and Iran is giving major pushback, and effectively defeating US forces and driving them out of the region.  Canada is also fighting back against US neo-Imperialism, with considerable effectiveness.   The basic difference between the left and the right is that the right favors traditional solutions and the left favors new solutions.  Neither are perfect by any means.  However, it's relatively unlikely that old solutions can be used to solve new problems.  These old solutions have a comforting familiarity, but, they don't work now, anymore, in general.  On the other hand, trying fundamentally new approaches is a leap into the unknown, quite literally.  It's not clear where it will lead.  On the other hand, if present approaches aren't working, what alternative is there?  The communists hate the old approaches because they don't work.  The capitalists hate the new approaches, because they often don't work either.  However, what alternative is there, to trying new approaches, when current approaches do not work anymore? #media #politics #geopolitics #history #philosophyofhistory #economics #extremism #capitalism #communism #philosophy #metaphysics #donaldtrump #trump #imperialism #politicalscience

On the nature of human conflict

Billions of years ago, as lighting forced energy into the primeval atmosphere and oceans of the Earth, this infusion of energy forged and fused new bonds between the existing chemical compounds, and much more complex chemicals were built fairly quickly.  We tend to call these "organic compounds", but, really, all highly complex molecules tend to be called biochemicals, simply because only such complex chemical compounds can form the bases for what we call living organisms, which are, by their very nature, highly complex.  There is no such thing as a living being that is as simple as the average rock, or grain as sand. Now, of course, all chemical compounds have different properties, different tendencies to attract other chemicals of different types, different levels of stability.  And, it is perfectly natural, and inevitable, that certain chemical compounds might have more of a tendency to attract and accumulate related and highly similar chemical compounds than others, mimicking and expanding their original structure rather spontaneously.  And, of course, that is really all we need for life.  Self-replication.   I believe we are seeing, almost in its primeval form, this process in the current behavior of Donald Trump.  Donald Trump is a vain, self-absorbed old man, who has gotten his way his entire life.  Now, he is totally senile, and doesn't know what he is doing, but, his primeval instincts remain, from instinctive memories billions of years old.  Donald Trump is trying to replicate himself in influencing the world, and in totally destroying the White House, and Washington D.C.  Like primeval life forms, Donald Trump is attracting the people and materials he needs to try to achieve this goal of making the world in general, and Washington D.C. in particular, resemble his own bizarre and disgusting self as much as possible.  And, it is truly awful to behold. I think we can see in the origins of life, also, the origins of all human conflict, and all warfare, throughout history.  Different groups of people, attempting to impose their own visions, their own selves, their own natures on other groups of people, who are also playing the same game of attempted self-replication.  And, because this is all living beings have ever really done, there is nothing whatsoever more important than this eternal dance of self-replication, at all costs, however destructive it may indeed be, to everything, and anything. #philosophy #metaphysics #biology #biochemistry #originoflife #exobiology #history #philosophyofhistory #politicalscience #chemistry #donaldtrump #trump #funny #psychology #psychoanalysis

Why the Chinese people continue to support the CCP

China was in a state of civil war for 150 years before Maozedong unified the entire nation once more under communism.   Mao had been an excellent opposition leader -- brilliant, creative, honest, just, kind, wise, democratic, courageous.  Once he had taken full control of the country, Mao degenerated into a kind of extreme Chinese Emperor.  He attempted extreme policies, and slaughtered tens of millions.  Nevertheless, the Chinese communist state endured.  The apparatus of the state was too powerful to be overthrown, and faith in Mao -- who was indeed a brilliant and charismatic man -- kept people going and loyal, for the most part, until his death in the 1970's.  At that point, the pragmatic, practical and comparatively moderate Dengxiaoping took over, and did actually drastically reduce both human rights violations and poverty in the nation of China, something that Maozedong was failing at rather badly for most of his administration, in any case.   Nevertheless, even Deng was forced to engage in some systematic violence which the Chinese people still haven't forgiven him for:  the Tiananmen Square massacre. Students had been protesting for increased democracy in 1989, as the prosperity of the country increased, and these protests became rather aggressive displays of passive resistance, and spread nationwide.  There wasn't violence, but, there was open defiance, including of the People's Liberation Army.  Deng feared a return to open civil war, he wanted to end the problem quickly so, seeing the local military were unwilling to fire on the students, he brought in outside forces, and they killed certainly hundreds, and thousands of protesting students.  This ended it.  There was no uprising, or rebellion.   Why, exactly?  Well, I suppose, up to a point anyway, the people may have actually agreed with Deng, once he put his foot down.  OK, they thought, maybe we aren't ready for full democracy, maybe we would go back to open civil war again, slaughtering each other for nothing.  And, things aren't so bad now, they are improving.  So, as Mao managed to keep people under control with his charisma, Deng managed to keep people under control by providing steady economic progress.  And, to some extent, that general model -- follow us, we will make you more prosperous than you are today -- has been followed by all Chinese leaders since.  And, it seems to work. But, it's a bit more complicated than that.  The fact is, despite the complaints of "authoritarianism" in China, incarceration rates are vastly lower than in the US.  China is a highly controlled society, in which surveillance is rampant and absolute for Chinese citizens, but, actually, this seems to keep crime rates rather low, in general.  So, people have little likelihood of actually getting into trouble with the law.  If they do, they have little chance of escape, of course.  It's a balance.  But, given the overpopulation of China, and its history of poverty and civil war, the government really isn't doing that badly, on the whole.  And, the population is expected to massively drop this century, back to the level it was in 1950 -- about 600 millions, from a peak of about 1.6 billion.  Potentially, China could be a rather prosperous and nice place to live by 2100, all thanks to the communists.  Nevertheless, when I suggest that China could become more "democratic" with fewer people and more prosperity, Chinese "monitors" online tend to get their backs up. They don't like the idea.  Perhaps, I should qualify what I mean by "democracy".  I do not necessarily mean the specific trappings of Western democracies, which, are distrusted by the Chinese leadership.  I merely mean, that the authorities could be less controlling, since there would be less danger of social instability in a society with fewer people, and more prosperity, and that being less controlling might enable these people to be even more productive. #china #ccp #communism #maozedong #dengxiaoping #law #authoritarianism #polticalrepression #politicalscience #history #philosophyofhistory #tiananmen #democracy #geopolitics #economics

The wings of Empire

If you're curious about how the battle between Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin played out in the early years of the Russian Revolution, I've never seen a better illustration of it than the second half of the series The Wings of Empire, below. The entire series details the years 1913 to 1921 in Russia, and brilliantly captures the exciting dynamics of this period of extreme upheaveal in Russian history. The second half focuses specifically on the communist takeover led by Lenin and Trotsky, initially assisted by the Kaiser's Germany, and eventually takes in the escalating confrontation between Trotsky and Stalin for power. If you ever thought that Trotsky was a "soft" leader compared to Stalin, this series should totally dispel that illusion. It was Leon Trotsky who instituted the Soviet Gulag and mass killings, it was Leon Trotsky who ordered the Tsar and his entire family to be executed. Stalin was at this period little more than a high level bureaucrat keeping records and amassing information, and that's exactly how Trotsky treated him. The crux of this existential conflict betweent these two young, ambitious, brilliant and powerful men is summarized in a stunning scene in which Trotsky gives Stalin a public dressing down for being too big for his boots. Trotsky tells Stalin that he is merely a pawn on the great chessboard of Soviet power. When Stalin walks away a colleague asks him what that was all about. Stalin's reply? He smiles and says "Comrade Trotsky has challenged me to play a game of chess with him. I've accepted." This dynamic between the quiet, calm, calculating Josef Stalin -- never flustered, always thoughtful and reserved -- and the histrionic but brilliant Leon Trotsky is most compelling, as we see Stalin slowly evolve his web of power almost invisibly to his arrogant adversary, Trotsky. In my view, anyway, the real issue that decides the result of this contest is simply that Stalin was much, much tougher than Trotsky. Stalin had had an extremely difficult life. Born into the family of a moderately successful shoemaker and small businessman, who eventually fell on hard times, and ended up dying in a drunken brawl as a destitute alcholic, Stalin was nutured by his loving mother, who hoped he would become an Orthodox Priest. Stalin had a useless left arm, and was just five foot three inches tall. A crippled dwarf basically. It's surprising he survived at all, in the incredibly rough environment of his native Georgia, and in cruel and backward Tsarist Russia. But, survive he did, and did study to be a priest, and even wrote some good poetry in his teens that is still included in compilations of Georgian verse. He left the seminary with a license to teach, but not to be a priest, he rebelled against the tyrannical brotherhood, and became a practicing communist. He led the life of a wandering revolutionary and gangster, in and out of prison, spending years surviving entirely on his own north of the arctic circle in Siberia. He became a master of manipulation and survival. These skills proved invaluable. In contrast, Leon Trotsky had led a life of comparative privilege, the son of wealthy Jewish Russian parents, well educated, becoming a professional writer and journalist. Trotsky wrote and spoke brilliantly, better than Stalin certainly, but, writing and speaking were all Trotsky really knew how to do. He never had a chance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By9_IkJKbzs #history #philosophyofhistory #russia #communism #ussr #stalin #lenin #trotsky #film #movies #politicalscience #russianrevolution

The problem with mathematics

Mathematicians frequently claim that mathematics is the language of nature, of reality itself. This seems a bit counter-intuitive, since what constitutes mathematics, and what doesn't, is entirely decided internally, by mathematicians themselves, there is no objective standard used, it is an introspective, subjective process, rather like determining the aesthetic value of a piece of music. Very much like that, actually. However, a fairly high standard of universal agreement amongst all mathematicians is required, there is generally no acrimonious debate between mathematicians, it is a comparatively serene branch of knowledge, in general. But, isn't this all a kind of illusion? After all, how can reality be decided by committee, even with universal agreement, internally? Don't you have to actually experience reality, and decide for yourself? This is the problem with the very concept of mathematics. It directly implies that all reality is implicit from committee agreement on the processes of introspection. And, this is why scientists who use mathematics as the ultimate standard of truth frequently become so confused about it. They see their equations, they see their data, they conclude that that is the end of the argument. However, really, it's just the beginning. Their data is selected, often arbitrarily, often selectively to prove a point. The mathematics employed to model the data is merely an consensus agreement on human processes of introspection, nothing more. Mathematics is just a convention, it could be seen as the ultimate form of social conformity. So, how can we possibly get important original new ideas out of it? How can mathematics do anything more than recreate, over and over again, the committee agreements of mathematicians, from which it was originally derived? Now, of course, mathematics does have its uses. Mathematics is an excellent means of communicating standard ideas, in standard ways, between professionals, particularly engineers, who employ it all the time. Since there is universal agreement on it, everyone knows what it is, and what it means, once they have been trained in it. Unfortunately, many scientists, particularly physcists these days, make the mistake of confusing universal agreement, with the whole of reality. People can universally agree on all kinds of things, and completely miss the mark. Happens all the time. So, actually, mathematics can, and frequently does, confuse our perceptions of reality itself. Also, because of the committee nature of the field of mathematics, it tends to stifle real creativity, real originality, which is individualistic in nature. So, let us think of mathematics the same way we think of money. Mathematics is an excellent servant, but, a poor master. #mathematics #science #philosophyofscience #physics #philosophy #metaphysics #engineering #philosophyofmathematics #creativity

What Trump has in mind for the November elections

While Trump's overall approval ratings are not actually desperately bad, at somewhere between an average of 36% and 39%, depending on which averages you look at, if you look at his ratings for strong approval specifically, they are awfully bad, at just 14% overall, with no one really disputing these facts lately. In other words, only slightly more than one in ten Americans actually think Trump is doing a very good job, and would take any significant trouble for him. That may well include going to the polls to vote for Republicans, you know. Given these facts, Donald Trump, being the shrewd, practical survivor he is, is adopting a strategy to optimize his chances of political survival, and likely actual personal physical survival as well, for himself, and for his entire family, which, actually, is also under considerable risk of attack from Iran, among other mortal enemies. And, Trump is actually telegraphing percisely what he has in mind, quite clearly at this stage. He is saying, over and over again, that the American people are not mad at him, they are mad at the Republicans in Congress. He has also quite recently filed a 5 billion dollar lawsuit and threatened FCC action against a prominent major network journalist merely for suggesting that Trump's capacity to influence Republican primaries isn't quite what it was, and doesn't always work very well these days. He is also vehemently disputing all the polls saying that he isn't very popular anymore with the American people. So, what is Trump trying to tell us exactly here? I think it's pretty clear really. Trump is saying, to Republicans specifically, I'm still very popular, popular enough to sink you all, and you can be sure I will sink you all, if you don't stand by me, in my hour of need. And, Trump knows pretty well now, that is hour of need is almost certainly going to come along next year. Kalshi is now giving nearly a 70% chance of Trump being impeached, about as high as it's ever been. And, while Trump doesn't mind really being impeached that much these days, he definitely does not want to be removed from office prematurely. First of all, Trump really doesn't want to be the first President to have that happen to him, that would make him look like a loser and a jerk, and everyone would laugh at him, now, and in the future. Doesn't appeal to him at all. Secondly, if Trump is impeached, normally anyway, his family loses all secret service protection, and Trump's youngest son Barron Trump has just had a 10 million dollar bounty put on his head by the Iranian government on Iranian government TV. Actually, his daughter Ivanka Trump has also had serious plots directed against her by the Iranians as well, so, Trump is concerned that once the limitless shield of US government secret service protection is dropped, his entire line of descent could go extinct, to the third or fourth generation, very quickly indeed, courtesy of the Iranian government. Do you think Trump has figured out yet that murdering the Iranian Supreme Leader might not have been such a great idea, after all? Hard to say. I think Trump is actually fond of his family, for the most part. Thirdly, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, there is a very strong probability that Trump will actually be imprisoned on some pretext or other, as well. SCOTUS cannot protect him from the wrath of the American people, if they are angry enough at him. The reason I say this, is because we are beginning to see that Trump is facing the same perfect political storm that brought down Richard Nixon some half a century ago. Richard Nixon didn't resign out of a sense of honor, and wanting to save the American people the trauma of an impeachment trial in the senate he thought he could win. Nixon knew Republicans had had enough of him, that he had lost his support base, and they didn't want to go down with him. Nixon knew that he was facing removal and imprisonment if he didn't resign. The deal was, resign, and we'll let you go. The combination of staglation, economic discomfort for most Americans, failure in war, and the sense that this can all be attributed to dishonesty and criminal activity over a long period of time, is beginning to have a telling effect on Trump's support base, and making it shrink considerably, now, just like with Richard Nixon. There is also the fact that Trump is so much trouble and so disruptive, all the time, that it's getting to the point that very few powerful people on any point of the political spectrum really want him around anymore, at all. They want him under control. Which means locked up. Trump, like Richard Nixon, was a protege and disciple of the late Roy Cohn, a leader of the communist witch hunts in the 1950's, along with disgraced Senator Joseph Macarthy. Roy Cohn believed in demagoguery pursued to the ultimate extent, just like Nixon and Trump. Double down, never back down, intimidate everyone, all the time. Behave like a mob boss. Roy Cohn has his license to practice law revoked shortly before his death from aides. Richard Nixon was forced to resign, or face impeachment, removal and imprisonment, his own Party was dropping him, he was electoral poison, Republicans would have supported Democrats to take Nixon down. Trump wants to avoid this, at all costs. So, what Trump is trying to do, being Trump, is to intimidate the Republicans to hold the line, and continue to support him, no matter what happens in the elections this November. Trump knows that the Democrats are going to take a solid majority in the House of Representatives in November, despite his frantic calls for redistricting. He also knows they will probably take the Senate too. However, even though there are 22 Republican Senators up for reelection, and it is statistically possible that Democrats could actually have more than enough Senators to impeach anyone they want to at the federal level come January, most of these seats are in deep Red territory on the electoral map, and it seems highly improbable that the Democrats can take 20 of them. You never now, but, highly unlikely. So, in all probability, the Democrats will need Republican support to actually remove Trump from office. Now, if the Democrats merely get three or four Senate seats, enough to tie up the Senate, or a bare majority, Trump can probably hang on. This isn't enough to convince Republicans in deep red states to jump ship, or that Trump is totally toothlesss to attack them, and destroy their careers. However, suppose that Democrats take six to eight Senate seats, and fifty or sixty House seats, and flip control of Florida and Texas at the State level. Suppose they do as well as that, or better? If Republicans feel the survival of their Party, and their political careers are at risk, Trump can hurl all the threat he wants, it will just make them angrier at him, and more certain that he must be removed, and brought under control. So, the American people will really be deciding Trump's ultimate fate in November. #politics #geopolitics #uscongress #usconstitution #impeachment #richardnixon #trump #donaldtrump #uselections #psychology #psychoanalysis #secretservice #barrontrump #ivankatrump #barontrump #assassinations #ussupremecourt #iran #roycohn #macarthyism #history #ushistory #law

The problem with JRR Tolkien

JRR Tolkien created a magical world in which he superimposed the medieval sagas onto a vision of British prehistory, in order to create a kind of cultural mythology for the British people, somewhat along the lines of what Wagner did for Germany in the Ring Cycle of Operas. However, was this necessarily a very good thing? I'm not sure if Tolkien's brains got a bit addled by his experiences in WWI, but, this was fairly common, and he might be a pretty good example of this. Tolkien creates an intensely racist, militarist, nationalist world in the distant prehistorical past, at a time when there simply weren't enough people in the world for this to even be possible. There were no cities, there were no armies, there was no war, in distant prehistory. Human beings, or even near human beings like Neanderthals got along with each other very well indeed, it is a myth now disproven that Neanderthals were wiped out by modern men, or even outcompeted by them, they were overspecialized and were destroyed by climate change, they were almost all gone already by the time modern man arrived on the scene, and they interbred and were cherished by modern men, while they still survived. Tolkien's fantasies are actually poisonous, racist, militarist fantasies that project the sicknesses of the twentieth century mind onto the idyllic pacifism of deep prehistory, as Wagner's operatic fantasies projected Nazism onto the Ring of the Nibelungen, which is precisely what Adolf Hitler saw in them. The sick, predatory capitalism of the twentieth century spawned two world wars, and created these psychological diseases of paranoid racism and militarism. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens when rats are crowded into a cage. They prey upon their own. #tolkien #archaeology #anthropology #pacifism #history #philosophyofhistory #fantasy #lordoftherings #medievalsagas #medievalhistory #britishhistory #militarism #racism #prehistory #sociology #psychology #psychoanalysis #neanderthals #homosapiens #capitalism #wwi #wwii #overpopulation

The prime directive

For a long time now, scientists have been puzzled about the fact that, while there are clearly a great many solar systems harboring earth-like worlds, temperate worlds with atmospheres capable of supporting life, we haven't encountered the slightest trace of intelligent life anywhere in the entire universe. Especially not right here on earth! Ha-Ha, just kidding. Nevertheless, it does seem odd that we see no evidence of intelligent beings anywhere, and that no intelligent beings seem to have any interest in us, at all. Well, maybe not so very strange, given the way human beings act, but, you get the idea, anyway. Now, there are a number of fairly simple explanations for this fact. One is simply that it's so difficult to travel in outer space -- something we're becoming more and more aware of actually -- that no beings of any type have actually succeeded in crossing the enormous spaces between solar systems, that light-years of distance simply are too difficult for any living beings to travel and survive. So, no extraterrestrials have visited us, because they simply don't know how to get here, and never will. But, just to go back a bit, we should really ask, what makes us think that there should be any extraterrestrials at all, anyway? In fact, this is primarily an Age of Enlightenment idea, deriving from the very close connection that existed at the time between Science and Christianity. The view that scientists, who were mostly also theologians at the time had, was that it simply didn't make any sense for God to have created other worlds if there were no intelligent beings there to worship him, and do his bidding. Now, I know, this sounds pretty weird today, but, that was their rationale for it. Really! And, of course, once this idea became current in scientific thinking, even people like the French philosopher Voltaire, who was basically an atheist, adopted it, and actually wrote science fiction about all the interesting exterrestrial beings who lived on the various planets in our solar system, no matter how inhospitable those planets might be. Now, of course, by now, we accept that actually most worlds certainly don't have intelligent beings on them, or probably life of any type, because their environments are simply incompatible with any form of life that our biochemists are currently capable of understanding. However, that still leaves the possibility, as our astronomers are demonstrating these days, that there are still a great many worlds that do have life, or even intelligent life on them. Certainly a significant percentage of solar systems do have worlds with temperatures, and even atmospheres perfectly consistent with the development of life as we understand it, and there seems no particular reason why they shouldn't have life as we understand it on them. Now, there are perhaps 100 million stars in our galaxy, and 100 million galaxies in the universe, so, in this particular numbers game, it seems pretty certain there are an awful lot of worlds with so kind of life out there. So, again, why haven't any of these life forms chosen to grace us with their company? Are we really so repulsive as all that? The thing is, there are a number of quite real bottlenecks between merely having life -- single-celled organisms, microorganisms, bacteria, maybe simple fungi -- and having complex life forms life like sharks, dinosaurs, mammals -- let alone intelligent life like human beings. For a billion years well after life developed on earth, there was virtually no change in it at all, and no development at all. This is known as "boring earth". Also, "slimeworld". And, in all probability the vast majority of life-bearing planets in our galaxy, and in the entire universe are actually "slimeworlds", that is to say, perfectly hospitable to life as we know it, but, actually, having no complex life forms at all, simply because they didn't evolve, had no reason to evolve, and might or might not eventually evolve. What brought about complex life on earth? It happened about 700 million years ago, and, it was called snowball earth. The entire planet froze over, all of it. The land, the oceans, everything. 90% of all life on earth was wiped out. The oceans froze to a depth of 1000 feet or more. Life only continued to exist in meltwater on glaciers, and near hydrothermal vents in the deep oceans. However, after 50 million years or so, volcanoes began pumping warming hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, and with virtually no life to absorb the carbon dioxide, this created a global warming effect that melted everything, and sent enormous quantities of nutrients from all this melted ice into the oceans. This terrific concentration of elements greatly accelerated the development of complex life forms to absorb it. Thus, complex life developed very quickly. And, here we are. Now, we actually have no idea whatsoever how probable or improbable the occurrence of snowball earths really is. But, they are almost certainly not inevitable. And without them, the complex life forms, and intelligent life, simply would not have the time to develop before stars became too hot to support life. No acceleration of evolution from snowball earth melting, no complex or intelligent life. Very simple. So, we have the "rare earth" hypothesis, that the reason we have not encountered extraterrestrial alien visitors, is simply because there aren't any other intelligent life forms, yet, anyway. We are the first one to get through the filter, as it were. There's plenty of life. But, no other intelligent life. Personally, I think this is much too extreme a position. Why should snowball earths be so extremely rare? I suspect they have occurred, and led to the development of complex life, when they melted, on other occasions. But, this might not happen so often. Say, perhaps only 1 in 10,000 planets capable of supporting life actually develop complex life forms, and even intelligent life. Say 10% of solar systems contain planets capable of supporting life. That would still leave us with 1000 intelligent life forms on different planets in our galaxy. Now, that's a lot of different types of intelligent beings in our galaxy, 1000 different species. However, they would be very , very spread out. Way, way spread out, hundreds of light years from each other. Between them would be nothing but space, barren planets, and slime worlds for the taking. They might even have the ability to travel in space, and to different solar systems. But, maybe not far enough to find us, or any other intelligent species. And, even if they did, wouldn't they tend either to avoid us, for fear of conflict, or out of respect for disturbing our own culture? I suspect they would. After all, if there are tens of thousands of empty, easily terriformed life bearing slime worlds readily for the taking in their vicinity, why would they want to bother us? Wouldn't they actually be afraid of doing so, for fear of being even more isolated in a huge universe, empty of intelligent companions. There would be no basis for conflict or war whatsoever, no scarcity of resources, only a scarcity of intelligent beings. There would almost be an instinctive "prime directive", rather like Star Trek's, but, intuitive, not to harm or control any new, intelligent life form. They would be considered too valuable. And, actually before the concentration of human beings in early proto-civilizations starting about 12,000 years ago, there was no war between human beings. The Neanderthals were wiped out by climate change, they were too hyper-specialized. Human beings interbred with them, and probably cherished them. Our folk memories of the elves or the Cyclops likely stem from the Neanderthals. We did not destroy them, the climate destroyed them. Indeed, prior to the proto-civilizations, mankind lived in eternal peace, there was no shortage of land and space, the enemy was always the environment, other human beings, even of distinct species, like Neanderthals, were friends, and allies. If humanity can somehow find a way to reach for and colonize and terraform this limitless resource of slime worlds throughout the galaxy, we will never fight each other again. There will be no need. And, if by chance, we encounter other intelligent beings somewhere, they will certainly be our friends and allies, in surviving and thriving in a limitless but dangerous universe. #biology #exobiology #biochemistry #climatology #terraforming #astrophysics #startrek #sciencefiction #anthropology #archaeology #earlycivilizations #war #sociology #spacetravel #NASA #extraterrestriallife #slimeearth #snowballearth #neanderthals #homosapiens #philosophyofhistory #rareearth #enlightenment #peace #history

What's in a name?

Donald Trump, for reasons best known to himself -- and I mean that quite literally in this case, no one else seems to know, at all -- has chosen to rename Lake Ontario, "Lake America", at least for purposes of American map makers. I very much doubt anyone else will pay any attention at all. Now, whatever else you might say about him, Donald Trump is indeed rather interesting. He likes to try things out for fun. I guess this is an example of it. Or, maybe not. Maybe there's some purpose to renaming Lake Ontario, "Lake America", that seems to elude the rest of us, for some reason. This morning I was listening to NPR radio, and, they suggested that this was for the purpose of acquiring "leverage" with Canada in the contentious -- of course, everything with Donald Trump is contentious -- trade negotiations and tariff negotiations that are currently occurring between the US and Canada. Why would this name change give Donald Trump "leverage" in pressuring Canada during trade negotiations? What's in a name? Surely, Canadians would merely see this gesture as a silly and irrelevant kind of grandstanding by a disinformation specialist somewhat past his prime, who is no longer capable of discerning when his disinformation will be effective, and when it will merely be be laughed off as a kind of ridiculous joke. Put another way, Donald Trump has become a salesman who no longer has anything to sell. What is more interesting, however, is why exactly Donald Trump did this, since its impact on trade negotiations is necessarily absolutely nill. What is Trump thinking, exactly? Obviously, Trump must be thinking that this name change somehow does give him some kind of leverage in his negotations with Canada on trade and tariffs. Why, exactly? I suppose NPR is just going along with this assumption of Trump, perhaps out of some kind of loyalty to the US President, or, perhaps just to create a kind of excitement about it to generate good ratings for their news programs. Probably the latter, actually. But in Trump's case, I think he really is incapable of thinking, or at least publicly stating, that he is helpless or incompetent. He just can't do it. He never has. So, Trump must believe that he really is accomplishing something by this particular name change, simply because it's about the only thing he can think of doing. Trump's self-imposed logic goes something like this -- This name change is all I can do to Canada I am Donald Trump, and am very important Therefore, this name change must be very important. Q.E.D. Something like that, anyway. You see, in Trumpland, which is all Trump has going on in his brain anymore, Trump's self-imposed logic rules. Always. #philosophy #metaphysics #epistemology #logic #semantics #linguistics #philology #geopolitics #trump #donaldtrump #canada #freetrade #tariffs #psychology #psychoanalysis #npr #funny

All hail King Harold, the greatest of British Kings, and the last!

All hail King Harold, the greatest of British Kings, and the last! So, why exactly has Prince Harry decided to move back to England? And why do the "working royals" look so unhappy about it? Actually, it's quite simple. Harry can do anything he wants to the working royals, and the working royals can't do anything at all, to him. Harry is a private citizen, he makes his own money, his wife Megan Markle is an accomplished Hollywood actress. The Royals are an obsolete institution of questionable popularity even in England these days, and the current British government may be the farthest left leaning in all of British history. The Royals are on a very tight leash, their every move and facial expression is subject to intense social control and public scrutiny. Harry cannot possibly lose this battle against them. But, what is this battle about, exactly? Harry is now only fifth in line to the throne, King William and his primary descendents, his three children, are all ahead of him in line for the throne. So, Harry really has no possibilty whatsoever of becoming King, even if that were worth the trouble these days, which is somewhat dubious. So, what does Harry want, that actually he could possibly get? Harry has been consumed with rage since childhood about the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who he adored, and still adores, as a kind of Goddess. While he tends to say publicly that he blames the media for Diana's death, I doubt he is quite that naive by this stage. I suspect that, quite correctly, he blames the Royal Family, and the institution of the Royal Family itself for her death, and that is probably quite justifiable. Whether they actually ordered her assassination because she was going to have an Arab baby out of wedlock, or whether they just hounded her and ostracized her and threatened her into a state in which she was unable to protect herself, it is the "working royals" who drove Diana to her death, one can say with reasonable certainty. And Harry knows this, very well. So, Harry wants to finish the job that his mother Diana started, but the Royals prevented, by arranging for her death, one way, or another. And, Harry is going to do just that. Harry is going to destroy the British Royal Family, once and for all, and that will be the end of the Institution of the British Royalty! #royals #royalfamily #princeharry #britain #princewilliam #kingcharles #princessdiana #philosophyofhistory #britishhistory

The Iranians have put a ten million dollar bounty on Barron Trump's little head

Well, what can we say? The Iranians have put a ten million dollar bounty on Barron Trump's little 21 year old head. Yes indeed, they have, you can confirm this online, it is true, although it is certainly being downplayed somewhat in the American media. What is his father Donald Trump's response? -- Mission accomplished, in Iran. Interesting, eh? So, the purpose of the Iranian War was to get a ten million dollar bounty put on his youngest son's head? I guess he never really liked him much, right? Just kidding. I actually don't think Barron Trump has done very much to the Iranians personally, although he undoubtedly shares in his family's corrupt and exploitive tendencies to some degree, no question there. So, why exactly have the Iranians decided to make it very difficult indeed for Barron Trump to get a good deal of life insurance? What's that about? Well, first of all, I believe the Iranians want to do unto Trump, as Trump did unto them. He killed that which was most dear to them, their Supreme Leader. So, the Iranians want to kill what is most dear to Donald Trump, and to let him know in advance that it will happen, and there is nothing whatsoever he can do about it. After all, Trump is himself 80 years old, and will have secret service protection for the rest of his worthless existence. So, the Iranians might not be able to kill him, and there's no great satisfaction in killing an 80 year old walking heart attack anyway, right? Secondly, it does make the notion that Trump is actively engaged in negotiations with the Iranians, and that the Iranians are "desperate to make a deal" -- something Trump has been using to manipulate the markets for many months now -- an exceedingly difficult sell, even for a really terrific salesman like Donald Trump. From now on, it's pretty clear the Iranians are just telling Trump to go to Hell, literally, and that's about it. Thirdly, it's hard for Trump to project that image of an all powerful crime fighter, if, even with all his money and power, he can't even protect his own son. Will the Iranians actually succeed in killing Barron Trump? Yes, I do believe they will. Iran is becoming more and more powerful, and the US is getting weaker. The Iranians are relentless. Look what they did to Salman Rushdie, 20 years after the Fatwa against him was lifted? Now, Barron Trump will have more protection, but there was no 10 million dollar bounty on Salman Rushdie. Most of the world's population would kill for 10 million dollars wouldn't they? And, critically, the US government does not normally provide secret service protection to family members of US presidents after they leave office. And, also, most Americans really don't like Barron Trump that much, so, would they be willing to pay for his security indefinitely? And, how long will the Trump money last, and how perfect a protection can that provide. Getting the picture here? #funny #law #crime #geopolitics #donaldtrump #trump #iran #justice #barrontrump #deathpenalty #capitalpunishment #maga #markets #murder #executions #secretservice

What the American Founding Fathers really had in mind.

Americans are still taught that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other so called "founding fathers" of the United States were superhuman and Saintly beings, with almost Godlike wisdom, knowledge, courage, virtue and personal willpower. This is currently being challenged somewhat, as Donald Trump attempts to go even farther down this road, pretending that no one in the history of planet earth was comparable to them, and that America represents the eternal image of true perfection for all mankind, himself especially. Essentially, Trump has pushed this concept to a reducto ad absurdam, and there is some pushback now. Indeed, for the first time in recent history, we now have credible political candidates in the Democratic Party, arguing for extremely fundamental changes in the nature of US government, such as the elimination of the US Presidency, the US Senate, and the US Supreme Court, all of which are currently leaning towards extreme right wing positions, and led by Donald Trump. But, what did the Americans fighting the American Revolution really have in mind, and why were they revolting, exactly, and against what? The British themselves were actually quite puzzled about this, since, for the most part, successful Americans were doing rather better materially at the time of the American Revolution than they themselves were! This is why the fighting slogan "No taxation without representation" was so disingenuous. The British were being taxed at 25 times the rate of the Americans for their rather limited "representation", this was certainly the last thing that Americans really wanted! So, what did Americans really want? The issue really was, more than anything, British controls over American westward expansion into Indian territories. The Americans wanted unlimited opportunities to steal and exploit Indian lands, while the British, not actually living permanently in America, preferred a somewhat more limited and restricted approach to stealing and exploiting Indian lands. And, I'm afraid this is precisely what the Founding Fathers of the US had in mind, and very little else. All the rest is just window dressing, all the high flown phrases, all the noble conceptions of human liberty and freedom in the US Constitution really mean absolutely nothing whatsoever, they are merely an elaborate dissimulation and rationalization of theft, murder, rape and greed. Actually, only about a third of the American population were even in support of the American revolutionaries, about a third were opposed and supported the British, and about a third didn't really care one way or the other. So, how did the American Revolutionaries manage to win, given they didn't even have majority support in their own population, and the British were the most powerful nation in the world? Well, fact is, without massive and ultimately suicidal support from Louis XVI of France, they wouldn't have stood a chance! So, let's add revenge as another one of the motivations here, revenge of the French for their defeat on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec, some 15 years prior to the start of the American Revolution. #history #ushistory #philosophyofhistory #usrevolution #usconstitution #washington #franklin #jefferson #foundingfathers #politicalscience #sociology

The eerie similarities between the Spartacist uprising of 1919, and the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, in Germany

Historians frequently try to draw parallels between Hitler's failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, and Benito Mussolini's incredibly successful march on Rome, a couple of years before. While, it's true, both Mussolini and Hitler were fascists, the actual development and implementation and immediate consequences of the Beer Hall Putsch look much, much closer to the Spartacist uprising of 1919 than they do to Mussolini's bloodless coup against the existing Italian regime a couple of years before, that brought him to power for almost 25 years. German Communist leader Rosa Luxemburg led the Spartacist uprising rather against her will, of course, in response to general dissatisfaction just before and just after the end of WWI in Germany. From the standpoint of the victorious allies, particularly Britain and France, the Spartacists were OK as long as they were still at war with the Kaiser's Germany. However, once Germany surrendered, and the Kaiser abdicated, the allies perceived that their greatest enemy, and their greatest threat, was no longer German nationalism, but Russian communism, and it's potential to spread worldwide, including to their own countries. So, the German Spartacists themselves became the main enemy, as far as France and Britain were concerned. A lack of understanding of this fact may explain why Rosa Luxemburg allowed herself to be talked into getting involved, since she knew it would fail. Was she suicidal? This seems highly unlikely. However, when you engage in armed uprisings against the established government, and you fail, you are very likely to be executed for treason, for your trouble, as was inevitably the case with Rosa Luxemburg. She must have thought that, as a woman, and a sincere, and popular idealist, she would perhaps be deported, or given a short prison sentence, rather than a summary execution, as turned out to be the case. She clearly underestimated the extent of the hostility of the German, French and British authorities -- all of whom were involved in controlling Germany at this point in time -- to her Communist movement. I'm speculating here, of course, I don't think we really know what she was thinking, but, this presumed ignorance of the real motivations of the allied authorities, who were clearly involved actively in militarily suppressing the Spartacists in Germany in 1919, may explain her willingness to effectively seal her own doom in this fashion. On the other hand, we know precisely what Adolf Hitler's motivations were in attempting to execute the Beer Hall Putsch, several years later. Hitler had absolute power within the Nazi party, he made sure of that. Most Nazis recognized that there was little possibility of a successful government coup at this time, anywhere in Germany. Although the economy was in tatters, no one really saw an alternative. The Nazis were a fringe movement still, the communists were distrusted because of the repression and ongoing civil war in Soviet Russia. So, why did Hitler act? I tend to think that Hitler had had a death wish at least since early in WWI, when he was the sole non-casualty, and one of few survivors when his entire battalion was wiped out, save himself, in his first week of active combat, in 1914. Imagine poor Adolf Hitler, the son of a civil servant, a Bohemian artist, suddenly turned into the God of Death! Why, he was Mr. PTSD! And, if we look at his behavior from that point in time -- his volunteering for suicide missions, his insane courage leading to the Iron Cross first class, his subsequent fearless political career leading to one catastrophic confrontation after another, and then WWII, and his eventual and inevitable suicide with his new wife Eva Braun -- we can see this as Hitler struggling almost to find his own death, which he had missed so many years earlier! So, rather than actually trying to emulate Mussolini, as he claimed, I suspect Hitler may actually have been trying to emulate Rosa Luxemburg, and her death leading a cause! And, indeed, Hitler barely escaped death several times during the Beer Hall Putsch, and was shot rather seriously. He even threatened to kill himself if the leader of Bohemia didn't cede power to him. Hitler put a revolver to his own head! Now that is a little unusual, and psychologically significant, don't you think? It is profoundly ironic that Adolf Hitler not only survived the Beer Hall Putsch, but that it became the entire basis of his ultimate rise to absolute power in Germany. Is this what Rosa Luxemburg was hoping for herself when she led the Spartacist revolt? That she would perhaps get a short prison sentence, like Hitler did, and emerge a great leader of a communist Germany? #history #comparativehistory #philosophyofhistory #sociology #nazis #fascists #communists #psychology #psychoanalysis #germany #ussr #spartacists #hitler #wwi #wwii

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

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

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

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

The problem with "elites"

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