The freedom to write

 The freedom to write and publish is a necessary element of the genus freedom. Freedom occurs within restricted parameters that support being and continuum. If God had not set parameters for the physics of the Universe to actualize in, with fewer or more dimensions, life would not be possible as Paul Ehrenfest observed. If a nation does not have stability and continuity, research and writing may be precluded by chaos.

Obviously one could be forced to write for the communist party in order to avoid imprisonment and that writer could not be said to be free. Freedom to write that is actually free implicitly requires freedom from coercion to write what is not one’s opinion.

Why China isn't a democracy

 As I understand it, China has a one-party system and is intolerant of political pluralism and diversity of political opinions. China represses free speech, free assembly and so forth that are regarded as essential for democracy.

The Chinese communist party began as a militant, revolutionary party. Perhaps there aren’t ideal conditions for the start of democracy. The United States had a minority of philosophically minded colonists that had a financial incentive to revolt against royalty and the like that had legal class supremacy. China had a troubled start to the 20th century with revolt against royalty, civil war and a battle against Japanese invasion. The military leadership of the C.P.C. emerged victorious on the mainland and continued on to civilian leadership.

Communist theory from Marx and Lenin and on to Mao I suppose is about the dictatorship of the proletariat and one-party rule and that isn’t an ideal environment for political pluralism. The F.S.U. allowed political pluralism to develop in Russia yet it is obviously challenging for a developing political ruling class in a reforming nation to allow strong opposition parties to develop that might purge the former insiders if they were to take power. Evidently the development of Democracy in non-frontier or wilderness environments is a little more, or a lot more difficult to bring into effect.

Wealth of course does tend to trump political balances and China in letting a mixed capitalist-socialist political economy to develop may be able to disregard traditional approaches to creating or allowing one’s own political opposition or replacement class of foreign proletarian migrants that would in dynamic opposition create the tension of multi-party democracy and satisfy the masses with unsustainable, temporary prosperity (the entire world has natural resource and demographic sustainability issues).

Shrinking of time and space- not Earth, socially speaking

Generally that statement referred to the proliferation of technology that has shrunk travel times several orders of magnitude. It is a social reference rather than one of cosmology. Someone wrote an essay on the topic comparing traditional cultures to modern ones in the 1960s if I member correctly. They noted that a Russian villager circa 1800 might never travel farther than 30 miles from their home in their lifetime on foot. That was contrasted with the average modern American who travels hundreds of thousands or millions of miles.

Of course one can purchase an around the world plane ticket for a couple of weeks salary these days, and Europe is just a few hours away by air for any citizen with a passport. Distance has shrank so much that it tends to spoil modern perspectives of things. I have rode a bike every mile between Alaska and South Florida and border to border and seen cars whizzing past crossing the nation in what- a couple of days where it took me quite a bit more time.

Star Trek faster than light across the Universe is the paradigm many moderns are thinking about and looking for as they trample the ecosphere of the Earth as it is just a platform for their machines transporting their persons; they have a certain misunderstanding about where the world is located apparently and don’t value the God-given nature and qualities of the planetary environment well enough to care for it as well as good gardeners conserve that mansion’s appearance in Beverly Hills.

What Jefferson meant by; 'tyranny prevails when good men do nothing'

 He could have been referring to citizens failing to read philosophy or failing to be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. When the tyranny of worldliness and pure materialize dominated over spirit people can become enslaved to principles of evil over spirit. With the degradation of spiritual values and lack of faith a long dark eternity under ungodly imperial authority glimmers like hope of more wealth at the end of the tunnel- and it might be the fires of hell they perceive dimply.

W. Shakespeare of course mentioned much ado about nothing, and what valuable lessons one can learn from that I am not certain of. One should not make nothing of it of course. Sartre published his title ‘Being and Nothingness’ and illustrated a little of what nothingness is- fundamentally an absence I believe it was.

Of course Jefferson might have believed citizens or people should be proactive rather than complacent and satisfied with their position in life, or alternatively he may have felt that anything besides his political preferences are as good as nothing, or doing nothing useful. If he was just finding an oblique way of saying that everyone should revolt or the tyrant King George III prevails every time- maybe he was correct. Globalism is assuredly encroaching upon the U.S.A. with reverse colonization driving Americans toward being corporate lackeys without anything good to say about strong nationalism that defends boundaries, properties of rights and equal protection of the laws.

Maybe Jefferson could foresee that Amazon, Facebook and Apple would have dominant social media influence or that wealth would be too concentrated and Wall Street and the Dow would soar over 34000. I am not certain

Social change vs continuity

 The United States is and has been experiencing continuous change. Socially and demographically the present U.S.A. isn’t much like it was even twenty years ago. The question today might be more a matter of how to keep what is good about the nation intact.

The problems of political wisdom and philosophy of governance that a modern, large nation like the U.S. experiences are compounded with the rapid growth of knowledge as well as population, technology and cultural profusion of globalism within what was formerly a more unified populace. Politicians are just individuals and an individual's personal knowledge is limited. Limited personal knowledge in a complex society limits the potential for innovation and change. Because the social and infrastructure constructs that already are present are easier to understand and operate than the challenge of inventing new infrastructures that are definitely possible with if the knowledge of all the people of the nation were combined into one mind, and because the horizon of understanding everything that exists already in human knowledge is beyond personal understanding of any individual, fundamental technical progress or change outside the existing paradigms is improbable.

Some changes are good, some bad and some ugly; constant and reliable elements that allow social stability and continuity are equally as necessary as change.

Arnold Toynbee noted that one of the reasons civilizations fail is that they cannot change their basic infrastructure; once a civilization (or nation in the case of the U.S.A. is built up and established it, vested interests and culture grow around it that resist newer ways. Toynbee used the ancient Greek city-states as an example; they could not federate in the way Roman did and failed to the new power that conquered them.

Comparing Donald Trump with the fascist paradigm

Donald Trump was an independent-spirited business and media celebrity elected by popular vote who accomplished much of what he set out to do. He ran and was elected as a Republican on a neo-populist platform. President Trump’s policies were implemented through legal means and weren’t at all fascist. His inability to manage the Covid crisis better was consistent with his inability to conserve the ecosphere as each interfered with his concept of political economy and the good of the people. Donald Trump didn’t have the best ideas from my point of view and created a lack of confidence even for some of his 2016 supporters that he could manage the crisis or save Alaska from the worst sort of environmental plundering. He was hated by the left who attacked him throughout his administration in every way they legally could.

Fascism is unpopular in Europe by many because of the war and great loss of life it made, yet it did arise in Germany through the National Socialist party with Adolph Hitler as the leader sent by the Wehrmacht to take it over with his charisma. The Storm Troopers were about 80% former socialists to start with and they may have believed that Hitler would lead Germany to become a socialist Utopia. The business model of corporatism invented by Mussolini that was actualized in part before the war with the Keynesian deficit spending, autobahn construction and military spending was a key part of the fascist phenomenon.

It is easy to conflate political items especially with pejorative motivations for partisan propaganda or advantage objectives in regard to Mr. Trump, fascism and socialism. Fascism can arise with charismatic leaders from the left or right, as can imperialism. Caesar was a populist who established imperialism upon the Roman Republic that had created the eponymous fascism simply in reference to the sticks or faces that were brought out at the head of a parade in times of war when a war leader was made dictator for a year. Hitler was a charismatic populist, nationalist war veteran who believed Germany could have won the first war and were beaten by the armistice and (in Hitler's opinion) 'treacherous' Jews and others that had a revolution to remove the German aristocracy and Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Jewish Zionists of course were active in Europe then trying to find a place to establish a homeland since they had been purged from nations in Eurasia periodically for about 1800 years. Germans had experienced a revolution and Germans had helped put Lenin in power in Russia with Russia and the Soviet Union them becoming a large eastern threat. Bolshevik leadership had a large Jewish component such as Leon Bronstein aka Trotsky.

European history was complex, convoluted, unstable and troubled- there were other issues such as the rise of modern technology that made the masses dissatisfied with the concentration of wealth and royalty generally. The United States isn’t like that at all- it does have internal proletariats yet it arose without much of the baggage that afflicted Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses

European socialists had theoretical support form Karl Marx of course and the revolutions against royalty in separate nations might have made the international as well as national politics more complex. Socialists were trans-national and people could largely identify as socialists, bourgeois, petty bourgeois or aristocratically oriented. The United States isn’t like that. Antifah and others that acerbically regard Mr. Trump as a fascist are in a European paradigm that does not relate much to American history.

The contemporary cancel culture from my point of view is part of a process of formerly unempowered political elements flexing their political muscles. They tend to hate successful, chauvinistic businessmen and politicians. It is very dangerous for any Democrat male politician that might be a potential presidential candidate these days- they tend to be taken down in some way or other. They hate Donald Trump with a passion.

Donald Trump hasn’t the speaking charisma of Hitler or Barrack Obama and tends to be a little caustic sounding like a bad, condescending raven sometimes. Yet he does at least nominally represent the interests of American citizens first, rather than the international or whatever the we are the worlders are called. The core of the United States from the 1950s and 60’s economy were real people too as was their legacy under such withering attack these days.

Donald Trump is a flawed individual and there are racists that support him though they are not the majority of the Republican party or of people that voted for him in 2020.

Some might fabricate noble end/goals to justify wicked means

 Aren't the means in 'end justifies the means' scenarios, ends-for-themselves?

Since asking this question I realized that some could use the end simply to justify the means. Means that are dubiously moral could be excused so far as PR goes if attached to some noble end such as creating Utopia. Until the Utopia or whatever is actualized any sort of ruthless means could be justified or propped up with reference to the goal that is the end.

An example would be that means or methods A through B are wicked, yet the noble and very important goal/end #5 is of great social importance.

A + B+ C + D = 5 is morally acceptable for those that believe the end justifies the means when it is true

however

If A + B + C + D ≠ 5, or A + B+ C + D does not add up to produce goal/end 5 it is immoral.

I would guess that is an example of consequential from one point of view.

Practically speaking though if one has a fine goal of such importance that it allows all manner of crime or political fascism as means to accomplish then many people enjoying the luxury of superior felony-edge over their fellow human might just make up noble ends to justify their crooked or evil means.

Concerning the 'when' of the collapse of the world

 Too many answers that are somewhat superfluous to choose from for an answer on the topic of when the world will collapse. The world could be compared to a souffle’ that is on the brink of collapse, yet it might be more like a lemon meringue pie with the frilly stuff actually somewhat solid or foamy in the better cases, and that could be compared to the inner Earth with various levels of hot stone running toward magma and deep within a nickel iron core of chewy nougat for science fiction league extra-terrestrial mole-mining engines from deep space. One might prefer something more serious than the house of cards kind of thing though.

There is apparently 3x the water in the oceans located 400 miles down in the Earth’s transition zone. Not much danger of the plates floating over convection currents to deflate like an air mattress floating on the ocean though. So one can move on from that.

Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over - ExtremeTech

After decades of theorizing and searching, scientists are reporting that they've finally found a massive reservoir of water in the Earth's mantle -- a reservoir so vast that could fill the Earth's oceans three times over. As always, the more we understand about how the Earth formed, and how its multitude of interior layers continue to function, the more accurately we can predict the future. Weather, sea levels, climate change -- these are all closely linked to the tectonic activity that endlessly churns away beneath our feet.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184564-scientists-discover-an-ocean-400-miles-beneath-our-feet-that-could-fill-our-oceans-three-times-over

If the world is entangled massless particles in the Higgs field that have a relative third dimension because they slow to sub-light speed in the viscous cosmologically constant gooeyness of it- it might be compared to hand sanitizer gel I suppose, then the world and Universe could collapse from three dimensions to two any second now. One can be certain or precise about that obviously; time is just an apparent quality of the three dimensional mass moving or jostling about in the Higgs field, thus for massless particles not trapped into being mass time may not exist. That brings up all kinds of questions plainly concerning what the Higgs field is in-itself and why does it have time at all.

If time does not exist for zero-dimension points believed to be the foundation of matter when it is energy before it expands or something into one-dimension strings, how can they ever exist for a moment. If time does not exist for zero-dimension points of energy that is something to consider as it pertains to the ‘whenness’ of the collapse of the Universe and the place called the firmament or stardusty-clumped planet Y’Earth.

It might be better to consider the planetary economy and the voracious consumption of natural resources going on by the 8 billion people living in-the-word and of it- a collapse of the resource base and global economy could happen by the turn of the century or sooner through various kinds of military conflict or viral wmds. Optimistically though the planet might return to some new general Christian ethics and try to repair the damage its caused to the Environment, to the poor and others living on Earth. Perhaps that is unlikely yet it isn’t impossible.

With very good sense and intelligence that allows better political ideas and social coordination the people of the world might just squeak through hard times ahead in the next two centuries with new means of food production in zero gravity food-growing bubbles with potatoes the size of Manhattan or Rhode Island being grown like vast centrist fungal planets in forests underground, dehydrated and sent to Earth if special delivery packages that won’t burn up in the atmosphere. Anything is possible really. Otherwise James Lovelock and Jacques Cousteau each said humanity had about 200 or 300 years to go before the collapse of the bubble of human civilization.

If Russia hadn't sold Alaska- what Alaska would be today

 If Russia hadn’t sold Alaska to the United States…what an interesting question of alternative history. Russia sold Alaska to the United States to prevent the British from getting it. That was a good idea for Britain with Alaska in their royal swag bag could have attacked Russia through Siberia across the Bering Strait.

By the year 1867 Russia promyshlenniki had taken most of the valuable furs that were easily accessible. The United States with its victory over the confederacy was still young and energetic with an expanding economy. Russia ended its own slavery-like institution of serfdom right after the ending of slavery in the U.S.A., and Britain had supported the southern states in the U.S. civil war; since Russia couldn’t very well afford to defend on Eastern and Western frontiers the Tsar probably thought it was better to have an ally with the U.S.A. rather than an opponent or worse- Brits, on the Eastern front.

European history and politics of an alternative nature based on real history is beyond the scope of my comment. I am no expert on European history either. One observes the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and the growing power of neo-Germany that might have been a concern of Russia that was not misplaced. Germany defeated the Tsar’s Russian army in 1914 rather swiftly in 1914 leading the way to end Russian aristocracy and enabling the rise of the Red Bolsheviki (if I may use that term).

England and Germany were great industrial powers presenting a grim specter to the west of dark clouds of war sometime in the future. France actually made and donated the Statue of Liberty during the 1870s after the loss to Prussia. Alaska was a better gift providing needed cash.

Russian entry into World War I

Russia entered World War I in the three days succeeding July 28, 1914 — beginning with Austria-Hungary 's declaration of war against Serbia , a Russian ally. Via St Petersburg , the Russian Empire sent an ultimatum to Vienna warning Austria-Hungary not to attack Serbia. Following the invasion of Serbia, Russia began to mobilize its very large reserve army. Consequently, on July 31, the German Empire in Berlin demanded Russian demobilization. There was no response; hence, on the same day, Germany declared war on Russia. In accordance with its war plan, Germany ignored Russia and moved first against France by declaring war on August 3, and by sending its main armies through Belgium to surround Paris. The threat to France caused Britain to declare war on Germany on August 4. The main belligerents had been established. (The Ottoman Empire soon joined the Central Powers and fought Russia along their border.) Historians researching the causes of World War I have emphasised the role of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Scholarly consensus has typically minimised Russian involvement in the outbreak of this mass conflict. Key elements were Russia's defence of Orthodox Serbia , its pan-Slavic roles, its treaty obligations with France, and its concern with protecting its status as a great power. However, historian Sean McMeekin has emphasised Russian plans to expand its empire southward and to seize Constantinople as an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea. [1] Archduke Franz Ferdinand , heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated by Bosnian Serbs on 28 June 1914 due to Austria-Hungary's annexation of the largely Slavic province. Vienna was unable to find evidence that the Serbian state had sponsored this assassination but, one month later, it issued an ultimatum to Serbia , which it knew would be rejected and thus lead to war. Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia to be deserving of punishment for the assassination. Although Russia had no formal treaty obligation to Serbia, it wanted to control the Balkans, and had a long-term perspective toward gaining a military advantage over Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia had incentive to delay militarization, and the majority of its leaders wanted to avoid war. However, Russia had the support of France and feared that a failure to defend Serbia would lead to the loss of Russian credibility, constituting a major political defeat in its goal of controlling the Balkans. [2] Tsar Nicholas II mobilized Russian forces on 30 July 1914 to threaten Austria-Hungary if it invaded Serbia. Christopher Clark stated: "The Russian general mobilisation [of 30 July] was one of the most momentous decisions of the July crisis ". The first general mobilization occurred before the German government had declared a state of impending war. [3] Germany felt threatened by Russia, responding with its own mobilization and a declaration of war on 1 August 1914. At the outset of hostilities, Russian forces led offensives against both Germany and Austr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_entry_into_World_War_I

I don’t believe the history of Alaska reasonably could have gone another way than it did unless at some earlier time Napoleon and Suvarov and become one force with Tsarina Catherine the Great and Napoleon able to get along and together dominate all of northern Eurasia extending to North America destroying the British in the process and letting Canada join the U.S.A. as five or six new states. In that case Russia would have probably kept Alaska and built a bridge or Causeway long ago affecting global warming earlier by stopping the flow of cool Arctic water south in that part of the world. Instead Napoleon spent his time avoiding a battle with Suvarov (who retired undefeated) and the rest is history.

In reply to 'did capitalism build civilization?'

The historian Arnold Toynbee wrote that 23 civilizations have existed in world history. One could argue that some ancient ones existed for reasons other than monetary policy or the form of economy reasonably well in some of the ancient empires like that of Sumeria and Egypt, or rather, the form of social organization was more important than a free market. When kings, emperors and royals owned everything trade and work still occurred yet there was sometimes no middle class of capitalists building up their wealth ; many people were still slaves. Political liberation and freedom from idol worship needed to develop before people could conduct their lives in civilization with more autonomy.

One might alternatively argue rather realistically that capital is anything of value, so a social order that increases to reach a level recognized as a civilization implicitly had to build up capital in the form of structures, people, ideas, culture etc. The state and political economy may have many forms of production, ownership, political power, allocation of resources. Exclusivity can take many forms too- even socialism and communism have elements of exclusivity in economics.

Toynbee in his last major work wrote that there is just one world civilization today. It has a lot of capital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2lJUOv0hLA fall of Summeria