Pragmatism , Utilitarianism and Taking a Poisoned Pawn En Passant

 The war in Ukraine, from the Biden-Blinken perspective, is necessary for two or three reasons of a dubious moral character. One is that funding the government of Ukraine slows or halts ‘Russian aggression’. The second pretext for funding the war is that to not do so would set a precedent of not resisting aggression. Plainly the first two pretexts reinforce one another.

The third reason is that Russia is trying to restore the former Soviet Union territorially. Yet it was the former Soviet Union that occupied the former Russian territory. When the Soviet Union’s leadership collapsed it was quite natural that the Russian Federation would assert its right to restore its territory including Ukraine when strong enough.

A ancillary reason for funding a war in Ukraine is Polish paranoia and fear of Russia. Apparently they perceived the effort of Russia to recover its lost land taken by the Soviet Union as trying to restore the Soviet Union. Poland had a Warsaw pact puppet communist government following the end of the second world war when Soviet Armies occupied nations captured by German Nazis. Reasonably the Soviets were slow to vacate those nations and restore capitalist regimes. Communists were after all communists and apathetically oriented toward capitalism or even national socialism that fueled the Nazi war machine.

It good time, about a half century, the Soviet government withdrew its forces stationed I Eastern European nations coinciding with the end of the Cold War. I had just completed a course in Chemical war defense when the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from East Germany. The movie ‘Total Recall’ was released about that time. It was an era of uncertainty and hope. President Reagan was way ahead of the curve of peaceful change at the time. Some politicians never did catch that wave, such as Bill Clinton and Joe Biden.

One historian wrote in a text book on Russia circa 2000 that the Russian Federation had been given a bloody stump by the amputation of Russia into several nations at the end of the Cold War v 1.0 and that how the west addressed the problem was problematic. The legal firm of Clinton, Biden, Blinken and Obama decided the only acceptable way was to accept Vladimir Lenin’s internal divisions of Russia into administrative entities and apply those districts, rather than that of nations, to the post-Soviet states. Ukraine had never been an independent nation before the west decreed it so, while the Russian Federation was just recovering from being water boarded and drowned by communists for 70 years.

Russia recovered its Crimean land during the Obama administration and began its recovery of Eastern Ukraine following the election of Joe Biden. President Putin was too aware of the Biden, Blinken, Obama, Clinton lawyer’s approach to and attitude about the independence of Ukraine. It was less unbiased that the Supreme Court of the United States was in decided making the Dred Scott decision.

A neutral, unbiased court did not exist in the west for Russian to seek compensation in for the theft of Ukraine from Russia. In fact the west played on fears of the former Soviet Union returning that would seek to conquer eastern Europe that were completely false. As I mentioned earlier Russia only sought to recover lost regions of Russia and that definitely did not include formerly independent Eastern European nations. Russian leadership was not crazy though that of the west may have unbalanced an irrationally exuberant in its global expansion economically at the end of the Cold War 1.0. Perhaps Polish leadership and that of England sought to use U.S. military power as a lever for traditional European expansion into Russia. Ukraine plainly was a paradigm for European colonialism in an era when colonialism was dead. Anisotropic military power permitted carpet-bagging hegemony when the west took poisoned pawn Ukraine en passant in 1994.

Decades ago I read a good little philosophy collection edited by JJC Smart on Utilitarianism. I seem to recall a point-counterpoint dialogue between Smart and Williams in the work with Smart advocating for utilitarianism and Williams arguing for particular moral decisions instead of those based on formulas (such as the greatest good for the greatest number of people). Williams’ approach is relevant in the case of the Ukraine conflict when the Biden administration have used logical paradigms to advocate for the necessity of funding weapons for the war. Nothing is said by the administration about particular profits and investments gained by funding the conflict and splattering hundreds of thousands of human beings instead of seeking a fair, negotiated peace settlement dividing Ukraine between the principal belligerents (not including the U.S.A.), instead statements are made that a precedent would be set for not fighting against aggressions and aggressors.

There are a pair of problems with that logic. One is that there aren’t valid legal precedents for war between nations although victors and more powerful alliances may put losers and sometimes (rarely) others on trial. Instead of the phrase ‘history is written by the victors’ that is generally valid only in a totalitarian society, a more accurate cliché would be ‘war crimes trials are held by the victors’.

The other problem with the logic is that rather than legal precedents or abstract moral rules being applied to real politics and issues such as the moral right to engage in war, pragmatism and particulars rather than formulas determine the decision of a powerful nation such as the United States of America to commence or support war. Regardless of what sort of conclusion that present Ukraine war takes, the decisions by future Presidents of the united States to engage in foreign wars or to fund foreign wars will be made with particular reasons and circumstances informing the decisions rather than solely abstract philosophical and moral principles. At any rate it would be challenging to say that American leaders have always gone to war or fund foreign wars for reasons concerning abstract moral and logical circumstances. The choice to not intervene in the Rwandan genocide was made more for logistical reasons rather than those of local utilitarian values.

If there is an abstract moral consideration that ought to take priority over particular circumstances it should be the value of human life. In diplomacy one should understand that people will sacrifice their lives sometimes to put their nation back together or to have freedom from oppression. Neutral third parties with power to arbitrate should seek to create lasting peaceful and fair relations between belligerent nations rather than to throw in whole hog for one side most useful to the third party arbitrator.

Sartre writing in Being and Nothingess touched upon the subject of colonialism and colonialist attitudes and language use (addressed more fully in a later tome The Critique of Dialectical Reason). Language too, as well as signs and other semiotic symbols may become ossified. Ossified praxis in the proprietary vocabulary of colonialist dehumanizes its victims. Even history may be warped and bent to serve colonial interests. ‘News’ reported on events and political rationale emphasizes the viewpoint of colonists. The Biden administration’s failure to comprehend the Russian point of view on its historical claim to Ukraine is a typical-even an archetypal example of the ignorance and bias in language implicit structurally with adverse colonialism displacing natives. The phenomenon is so 20^th century (Sartre developed his description perhaps considering French colonial missions and wars in Indochina and Algeria) and harmful to American global interests economically and as human beings trustworthy to other human beings.

Creating peace directly and fairly with optimal economic operations for all is requisite in this era of declining ecosphere health that is a consequence of human economic practices based on natural resource exploitation (of non sustainable resources). While humans fight one another the environment continues decay. Oceans are warming, oxygen in oceans decreasing and acidification rising, not to mention excess atmospheric heating, biospheric habitat loss of mass species extinction.

Age and Immigrant Status Verification Software

 The state of Alaska legislature is in the process of developing restriction for access to pornography sites such that age verification would be required, as well as to create a social media account. One couldn’t just become a twitter tor X user without parental consent. Besides asking age sites might want to know if a user is a citizen of the U.S.A. or works for the Chinese Ministry of State Security or whatever. Does any government really know who lives in the U.S.A. these days, and do the left care? recently read a novel centering on the concept of genetic engineering and hacking to grind out upgrades to one’s own genome under the table. There was also a more concerning idea of actors using ethnic genomic strings for triggers in manufactured, synthetic lethal viruses.

So I wondered about commercial requirements for age verification and where that might lead. Would age and identity verification include demands for D.N.A. samples, fingerprints and iris scans eventually since they can have surplus value for social tracking and compiling a D.N.A. database for the world (useful in the novel for eliminating dissidents).

Identity and age verification could evolve to that stage because it should become too easy to produce and market fake I.D. generating software. With I.D. templates for each state included in a package for a couple easy payments of $19.95 a consumer might produce thousands of fake I.D.s that would pass the computer camera upload to age verification software.

State government I.D. templates in fake I.D. generating software would let the consumer drop his real photo, the photo of what he would look like in a decade, or an artificial intelligence generated image of a qualified individual of any race. For simplicity the program might have an A.I. select matching ethnic, name, address, photo, fingerprint and other identifiers that though fictitious are credible. If the A.I. database is expanded to include state birth and death records the capacity for the A.I. to spoof I.D.s would be nearly without limit for practical purposes of deceiving commercial requirements for age verifying I.D.s

Paper dollars are difficult to counterfeit because of the physical medium. If all that were required was a photograph of a dollar counterfeiting would become unlimited and the dollar as insubstantial as those electronic entities passed by the Federal Reserve to commercial banks as zero interest loans, simply of no value though. Government should not solve one new tech problem with solutions that create a cascade of other problems that they apparently don’t foresee.

Porn Stars, Politicians and Journalists on Retainer

 The show trial of former TV star of The Apprentice Donald Trump for declaring payments to a journalist to be retainer payments to a lawyer raises interesting points about why the rich can get tax deductions for retainers and why lawyers are regarded as superior to other workers in regard to qualification for tax deductions. If Mr Trump had paid a cousin a million dollars a year and declared that a legal retainer instead of modest payments for retaining a journalist to suppress dubious newspaper articles about him it is probable that Mr. Trump, or Mister Donald as might be said in Disneyland, would be on the campaign trail instead of being in the public stocks in a manner of speaking, for journalists to pie.

The rich can afford to pay a retainer to a barista to make that special latte when or wherever they need one. They can keep an illegal alien on retainer to stand in line to buy a bus or concert ticket for them sparing hours of agony. The special illegal alien agent knows how to cut out those line cutting illegal aliens with skill and their services are valuable, yet New York tax law would socially discriminate between retainers paid to upper class lawyers and patrons and services provided by poor baristas yearning to breath free.

While poor students struggle to find payments for community colleges rich students at Columbus college in New York coalesced as if they were Young Nazis for Hamas to hate Israel with raucous protests while giving tenting a bad name and being considered for student loan forgiveness for loans exceeding the lifetime earnings of some ostracized, homeless poor people earn in a lifetime.

While rich anti-Jewish college students are skipping classes to degrade the academic quality of the U.S.A. in support of a terror organization that beheaded babies, the President of the United States has promised to find ways to cancel more than $100,00 each for loans of the Columbus students in an effort to buy their votes in November. News update; Joe Biden almost always forgets campaign promises after being elected. In fact he forgot being Vice President of the United States.

If Hamas isn’t removed from power in the Gaza more terrorism and war will probably return in a few years with more and probably greater numbers of civilian casualties because weapons keep improving in quality. Hamas uses civilians as bargaining chips to remain in power. Badly educated American students are the best military survival tactic for Hamas available now. Hamas hopes to keep sanctuary in Southern Gaza in order to return to full political over over all the Gaza after Israel troops withdraw. In the next conflict they are likely to attack Israel when clouds of buzzing drones assembled beneath hospitals in weapons laboratories. Students might ask themselves what the world would be like today if Adolph Hitler and his loyalists had found a lasting sanctuary in Munich 1945 because the League of Nations had wanted to prevent civilian casualties of people that had voted Adolph Hitler Chancellor of Germany.

Honest working poor janitors attending the same school might provide great clean up skills and be put on retainer by Donald Trump yet New York tax law would dishonor the janitor’s social value and declare them unequal and unfit for being on retainers for purposes of tax deductions in comparison to lawyers. Journalists are regarded by tax laws as inferior beings and citizens in comparison to lawyers.

Certainly one might stipulate that American broadcast journalists have the lowest Graduate Records Exam scores of any college major or minor field of study and that they are the least trusted ‘people’ of all American occupations. Ordinary people may hate their perfidy, Machiavellian neon-racketeering organized crime approach to ‘news’ with dittoed sycophancy yet fair minded citizens must ask; are they really inferior human beings in comparison to lawyers? If the Donald had given excellent janitors the payments instead of a journalist New York prosecutors might have let him do a Michael Jackson moonwalk from court instead of a John Gotti perp walk to court. Prosecutorial discretion allows vast left wing conspiracies to come out from the shadows and sewers into broad daylight as if given Wesley Snipes inoculations against vampirism.

Were lawyers deemed essential workers during the Covid 19 pandemic? When people were dying in New York and hospitals full, when the unknown effects of the virus were substantial and grocery store clerks risked their lives, especially if they were older. Could Donald Trump have received a tax deduction for keeping a grocery store delivery clerk on retainer if he had afforded to keep food delivery workers on retainer, and get a tax deduction equal to that of the dubiously essential lawyer the state prefers?

How can a retainer for a lawyer be essential if the poor cannot afford to keep one? Couldn’t the rich equally benefit from public defenders as the poor hired on the spot? Is there such a shortage of lawyers that the rich need have tax deductions to keep one retained on reserve while the poor can’t afford to keep a box of crackers on reserve?

Equal protection of the law is necessary for a democracy. Lawyers, baristas, janitors and grocery clerks provide equally valuable services, or ought to before the law. While it is challenging to claim that a porn star is an essential worker and service, or that a broadcast journalist is a better quality human than a porn star, the law should regard them as equally entitled to tax exempt status on someone’s tax form declared for being paid a retainer. One should be free to pay a retainer or reservation for services to a member of any occupation and receive an equal tax exemption, or none should receive them at all.

Mr. Trump and the Retainer Paid to a Journalist

 So far as I have learned Donald Trump is on trial for 34 counts of paying a journalist not to publish bad news about him. Trump's attorney apparently called it a legal retainer instead of a journalist retainer on New York tax forms, yet if the deduction would be the same in any case what is the difference? Trump is said to have paid some sort of National Enquirer executive to have repressed bad stories. The public was led to believe that Mr. Trump's bag man/lawyer wearing a trench coat was meeting Story Daniels- a porn star- in dark wet New York City alleys late at night to pay her "hush money" for services rendered to the candidate.

Donald Trump's 2016 campaign expenses legitimately included suppressing bad propaganda/news as well as promoting good propaganda/news. The cost of bad publicity declaring Trump a lem could have assured his election loss. bad publicity from journalists can destroy business and lives. A sociologist once said in a college course that if a community forms a bad opinion about one through gossip and propaganda the best thing to do for the individual is to move.

So Mr. Trump is sitting in a New York City courtroom instead of being on the campaign trail because the Democrat state of New York found some legal language it can charge him with. Retainers paid to journalists should be regarded as equal to those paid to lawyers. Each serve as mouthpieces to the public putting out good or bad words in relation to how they are paid. All of the oft repeated "thirty-four felony counts" will exact a costly toll on the Republican party candidate at the polls even if the blue state jury acquits him of the charges in its own sweet time.

Former Presidents Can't Get An Unbiased Jury

A former President of the United States cannot get a fair trial in America. The jury pool is also the electorate and lived under the former President’s power and policy. The electorate tends toward liking or hating former Presidents in relation to how the Man or woman’s policies affected them.

For every prospective juror the politic and policies of the former President form part of the life experience of the juror.  Jurors don’t usually have a pre-existing subjective relationships with those a trial's defendant. For jurors the politics of a former President comprise part of his or her character. If they hated the policies they hate the former President and vice versa.

Richard Nixon could never have found an unbiased juror in the nation if he had faced a criminal trial brought by democrats who largely hated him as much as they hate Donald Trump. If Joe Biden loses the 2024 election and runs again in 2028 some voters would prefer that hate his policies wouldn’t mind if he were convicted of a few hundred felony counts of and sentenced to hard labor and isolation at Devils Island though ts unlikely that Republican prosecutors would cook up charges as have Democrats for former President Trump. 

Barrack Obama brought to trial would not find an unbiased jury in America. Prospective Democrat jurors interviewed in the courtroom in the Presence of Barrack might feel a tingle run up their legs or answer voir dire questions with rising inflection at the end of a sentence to make any sort of statement sound like a question. Republicans against homosexual marriage, abortion and fomenting foreign wars that cause hundreds of thousands of casualties might be disgusted with Mr. Obama before they even heard a word from the jury box about the criminal issues of the trial.

Those jurors that claim to be unbiased perhaps are liars or self-deceiving. Judges and prosecutors too may have implicit bias shared with jurors of the electorate in addition to that of being appointed to their job by Democrat or Republicans working within the policy guidelines of the former President. A former President is the one American who cannot get an unbiased jury within the borders of the United States- not even illegal aliens that hate Donald Trump for building a border security wall or love Joe Biden for sending the money for a border wall to stimulate war in Europe and gamble that Armageddon won’t be a fallout derivative of the chaos and economic disaster instead would be unbiased f they had the chance to be on the jury of a former President.

Before Spending 60 Billion Dollars in Ukraine for Homicide

Before the House and Senate vote to spend 60 billion dollars to finance war against Russia in Ukraine it would be a good idea to consider history and other factors that weigh against it. Voting for homicide instead of peace may be a mark against one standing at the day of judgment. 

When President Johnson awarded contracts to Brown and Root to build military bases in South Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict it kicked off a financial insider relationship for war profiteering that continued in various forms even to the Iraq war in which Halliburton that had bought Kellogg Brown and Root was given no-bid contracts for similar support work in Iraq. There are numerous corporations and politicians that have made war a necessary economic activity for the United States. Instead of bringing about a negotiating peace settlement with Russia in Ukraine that Russians can live with as well as Ukrainians the administration prefers peace through homicide. They share the narrow viewpoint of Ukraine's President Zelinsky that will accept only the entirety of former Russian Ukraine for itself. U.S. leadership should have a global rather than a west Ukrainian viewpoint. The United States loses security and economic advantages if peace does not arrive through a negotiated settlement with Russia in Ukraine. The belligerence between the U.S.A. and Russia need directly end, including sanctions, and full normal diplomatic relations restored.

The United States has a recent history about starting wars with lies as the casus belli and the lie that Russia has no rightful claim to Ukraine is such a thing. Like the lie about about Vietnamese naval vessels attacking U.S. ships that prompted the Senate to vote for L.B.J.’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the lie about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that got the ball rolling on the ‘Coalition of the Willing's' U. S. led war to remove the evil dictator Saddam Hussein despite the protests of the U.N. and France in particular, the pretext for financing war upon Russia trying to recover the lands of Ukraine lost in the carpet-bagging Clinton era is bunk. There would be nothing easier than restoring peace and world order based on truth and integrity, yet of course the plagiarizing forever candidate for office Joe Biden could not see anything of peace in his world view at all.

Early in the 20th century-during the first world war, European Communists sought to revolt against Tsar Nicholas Romanov in Russia. Russian communists were of course successful in revolting from above...that is elite communists dedicated to revolution conquered a Russian government weakened by war with Germany and other powers as well as the Tsar’s own incompetence. V.I. Lenin cut a deal with the German government to return to Moscow in a sealed train to lead the revolution that swiftly won. Lenin ceded Ukraine to Germany in return for peace with Germany as he took Russia out of the war. That giveaway of what he had no right to give probably stimulated Hitler later on to conquer all of Russia.

Yet Russia had experimented with democracy as early as 1905. A constitutional government and congress appeared. Before the communist revolution a government that was free and constitutionally founded; the Kerensky government, came briefly into power in Russia. Soviet Communists destroyed the nascent democracy of Russia and took control. When the last president of the Soviet Union; Boris Yeltsin, end its formal existence and decided for himself, with President Bill Clinton’s supervision, to part out the Soviet Union and cut off the Ukraine from Russia the stage was set for the present war since Democrats after 1992 would never renegotiate the severance or provide Russia with any compensation other than some used dental equipment President Clinton sent to Russia.

The communist takeover of a free democracy later deciding to return the subjugated nation to a free status with democracy again, yet reapportions the break up as it prefers instead of restoring the national boundaries as they were before the communist takeover is a good model for how modern nations can be redistributed to X parties non-violently.  The Clinton-Biden technique is now a politically validated historical precedent for expropriating and redistributing a targeted nation’s properties using internal and external forces to rack up a nation with communism and then break it up using a designed evolutionary strike of the billiard cue ball of democratic party perfidy.

Political opportunists may launder the public debt away and seize control of a new nation without violence if the media are cooperative with the ploy. It is possible that in the future, if the United State’s economy collapses completely and divided political sentiments and other disasters occur that a communist government may rise to power and end the United States and yet later quit communist governance. At that time the United States could be broken up into several nations that vaguely resemble lines of the terminal Soviet States political districts. The 33 trillion or 100 trillion dollar public debt would of course be repudiated by Communist rulers and several new nations following it would be offensive to those rulers of whatever rump United States of America that existed following the end of Soviet America.

 When Ronald Reagan brought about the end of the Soviet Union through peaceful means working with President Gorbachev there was a semi-plain reflection of the events during the first world war that ended the existence of a free though aristocratic Russia and brought in communist dictatorship. President Boris Yeltsin took power and brought into existence the end of the Soviet state and Communist Government through elite means from the top that probably with de facto popular support. The people want to be part of western culture and free enterprise that had brought a better life to the west and promised to do so for Russia too. The Community of Independent States-  the C.I.S. (pronounced Sis) was the successor to the Soviet Union. Before his death Yeltsin taking charge in Russia wrote the Russian constitution that resembles generally that of the U.S.A.  He also gave the President Super-powers when needed to defend the state against internal and external  challenges. Unfortunately Boris Yeltsin did not seek nor receive financial compensation for Russia as it relenquished Ukraine. What was it worth in 1992- a trillion dollars or two? 

The Ukraine was part of Russia before the communist takeover and Lenin’s submission of it to Germany in return for being placed in office and securing peace for his new state. Boris Yeltsin reflected that coerced submission of Ukraine to a dominant foreign military power of the United States led by William Jefferson Clinton and N.A.T.O.. The Soviets communists recovered the lost Ukraine while defeating German Nazis on the Eastern front during the Second World War. President Putin and Russia are attempting to recover Ukraine for Russia following its effect theft by President Clinton, te Democrat party and N.A.T.O. presently. From a global economic standpoint it probably doesn’t matter who owns Ukraine if they are selling its agricultural products on the free market.

Renegotiating the manifestly unfair Russian loss of the Ukraine to the west when Boris Yeltsin gave it up and Russia was yet too weak to dispute that should have been an obvious duty for Western leaders to take on. The Second World War was precipitated in part by the west’s seizure of select German industrial land and vast reparations forced on it. F’ing over Russia at th end end of the Cold War was not a way build long term international political stability. Chasing after that policy of political self-destruction is like throwing good money after bad, making investments in long-term nuclear brinksmanship and hate without any need to do so beside the tunnel vision of the Democrat party in coveting a shiny object. The diplomacy of the U.S. Sect. Of State with Americans is underwhelming. The poor don’t need another stimulus check or it is at least beneath consideration because it might cause inflation they may believe. If the State Departments preference to escalate the war instead of negotiating a peace settlement works and N.A.T.O. become a hungry tiger on Ukraine’s swollen far eastern border with Russia eyeballing Moscow with Napoleon and Hitler’s eyes (one each) the U.S.A. in effect loses. Winning is losing if Russia does not keep Crimea and Eastern Ukraine through a negotiated peace because a lasting hostility between Russia and the west will become the new normal. The brink of nuclear war will be a hot possibility along with all of the tension going with it. The Sect of State hasn’t explained how that would be good for the United States or the Democrat Party’s Ukrainian homeland security.

Russia probably would have been glad to settle with the Crimea and its present Eastern Ukraine real estate, and probably still would if the west had leaders bright enough to seek that instead of pretending that Mr. Putin is some kind of Hitler invading Poland during the Second World War. That pretense is a big lie; a political lie of propaganda of tremendous scale that shows how disinterested the Biden administration is in recognizing the truth. 

Democrats have sought to prevent Donald Trump from taking back the White House because of the fear that he would find peace on good terms with Russia and end the Ukraine war against Russia. Democrats spent four year unsuccessfully trying to prove the big lie that Russians made a large clandestine contribution to getting Donald  Trump elected in 2016. Incidentally the flurry of criminal trials against Donald Trump during the 2024 Presidential race is the best bit of election interference ever made against a Presidential candidate. There isn’t such a thing as a former President that won’t suffer from pre-trial publicity or a Presidential candidate that won’t suffer from judicial gag orders. Virtually all of the charges against the former President occur in blue states or with democrat prosecutors and judges. It would be better if the trials waited until after the election, and if necessary until after Mr. Trump serves another four years as President of the United States.

  A fellow set himself on fire in front of the building in New York City where Donald Trump is on trial for allegedly listing payments to a porn star as business or campaign expenses. Plainly the payments if made were both business and campaign expenses since each it would have been better for Mr. Trump to suppress publication of the relationship if it happened for business and campaign purposes. Making payments to avoid negative publicity is as legitimate as making payments for positive publicity. If the payments had been made to conceal actual criminal activity by the candidate- such as a burglary into the Democrat national Committee that would have been a different matter. So far as I know it is not illegal to practice sex with a porn star even if delicious, sad, duplicitous or unfaithful. Probably it is less harmful than having a student intern provide oral service in the Oval office of the White House. President’s cannot be tried for crimes committed in office to a certain extent with conditional immunity, and lying about the affair to Congress was the crime or misdemeanor rather than the scandalous act itself that Sweden seemed to support and award a Nobel Prize to someone named Bloble for. Sweden recently joined N.A.T.O. and supports the Democrat war on Russia via Ukraine.

The flaming protester had pamphlets about a Ponzi scheme and conspiracies. I don’t know if Jeffrey Epstein was mentioned, yet Democrat finance for the U.S. budget does have elements of a Ponzi scheme about it. Wealth is concentrated at the top and yet the deficit spending annually for a government not adequately funded by taxing the rich is unsustainable. Meanwhile the Mexican border goes without adequate defense against millions of illegal migrants to the U.S. that provide cheaper labor and keep wages down. Democrats seem to want to enrich the rich and give good union jobs to Democrats while letting public debt grow to 40 trillion dollars or more if President Biden finishes another term.  The unsustainable economy is a like a Ponzi scheme that could crash from terrorism, a third world war, the crash of the dollar and so forth.

Maybe younger representatives may not be familiar with how much effort went in to ending the Cold War and bringing about world peace. Not only does the world ecosphere need to be fixed, global poverty need in some way to be eliminated when for the past seventy years environmentalists have warned about the limit to population growth because of the inability of the natural resources of the Earth to sustain even the present population without a complete revision of global economic methods. It need convert into one with environmental economics of sustainability. President Biden is a nominal candidate that selects political works that will assure his re-election. Not only did he not accomplish a three trillion dollar end global warming program that he low-bid on in 2020, he has not even mentioned any effort of comparable, minimal scale in the 2024 campaign.

It is necessary to have peace with Russia to work on shared interests such as preventing nuclear war, restoring environmental health, ending global terrorism, demilitarizing the high Arctic and prevent future disasters from emerging technologies like artificial intelligence etc. In order to reduce escalating military expenditures and try to balance the federal budget faster a President need seek peace with Russia directly acknowledging the failure of the parting of the Soviet Union to restore the Ukraine to Russia. Instead of ignoring the Russian claim as if it had no validity or credibility at all a president of the U.S. should recognize it and yet settle the dispute in such a way as to satisfy the Ukraine and Russia with a fair apportionment of the land. King Solomon said he would cut in half the baby the two women claimed to be mothers of. Politicians are not like those mothers, well not like one of them at least, and so it would rational to actualize Solomon’s order and cut the Ukraine in half.

The world economy is being divided into two camps. Those that support the big lie and theft by politicians to benefit the rich support the west, while those that oppose a corrupt first world order support Russia or are at least neutral on the issue. India need support Russia for pragmatic reasons. Because of the war and dire threats by N.A.T.O. upon Russia, Russia has been forced to become a partner with China economically and militarily instead of being a good middle partner for east and west. India, already concerned with China and Pakistan, need to be on good terms with Russia in order to get a little help in keeping Chinese tensions over some land disputes in check. Russia can appeal to China to keep things cool and let India be a junior partner of each. The India, China, Russia economic and informal military alliance has tremendous population and potential power and is being reinforced by the 19th century policy of trying to expand western nations with hostile military policy toward Russia or other nations such as are in Africa.

Europe will eventual renormalize relations with Russia because they are contiguous neighbors with vast natural mineral resources. As in sanction breakers during the era of Saddam Hussein Europeans too will seek financial advantages by trading under the table with Russia over the sanctions era. When the hostilities and sanctions eventually end the consequences for the United States that were economically deleterious probably will continue for some time while Europe will integrate with the new Russian-Chines and Indian powerhouse. President Biden can put high tariffs on Chinese Steel imports in order to protect U.S. Steel and the Japanese corporation that bought it a couple of weeks ago from unfair competition, yet the entire Biden approach to intentional relations is so astoundingly stupid that it is breathtaking and shocking simultaneously. If President Biden and a daft Congress don’t incite World War Three eventually because of their entirely unnecessary policy game of chicken head-on crash tensor expecting Russia eventually to quit and be less willing to resist the west than Afghanistan, Vietnam et al would be something of a miracle.