So the common enemy
union history blunts fact
power drove the Euro
crushed lives without much tact
The rich victimized many poor
open door dreams through ages
royal stages of media fronts
racked up blunt wealth, things, pages
Dark demolitions guide them
plush up lem, turnover tides
confusion guides over loss
thug big boss did not confide.
I thought I would write a note about my current understanding of cosmology concerning a Universe. That is just one Universe at a time and what goes into it rather than multiple Universes concurrently, sequentially or in branches that would seem to complicate the presentation of a description of the basic elements of a simple Universe. My use of terms like branes and membranes may be inexact and/or differ from the usual lexicon meanings of theoretical physics, unsurprisingly to me because I am not a physicist. When for example I try to define the meaning of a dimension as meaning a brane, it is uncertain to me that anyone in the world of theoretical physics would agree in my use of either term. If one has three branes one could use three dimensions then as the principle value for devising math formulae regarding the dimensions of the universe I would think.
What is a brane? The initial size of a brane may be unknown. A brane may not have size until it encounters other brains, or alternatively it might have a finite size implicitly. Where there branes before the time=0 initial moment of the membrane universe? Presumably, although if time is implicit midst interacting branes solely, there may have been no time before time=0. God said ‘Let there be light’ is the most logical explanation for some cause before time existed (He being eternal). Is there an infinite number of branes existing as zero dimension points with standard or different texture/composition implicitly? Can spirit or as Leibniz said, one dimension monads exist apart from God? Theological and cosmological metaphysics can move through a spectral range of speculation easily. It is mathematical physics that need do something with matter and energy rather than leave metaphysics out in the realm of contemplation.
A universe has dimensions and field that interact together creating a concatenated phenomenon that is experienced as a Universe by sentients arising within it. It is worth realizing or regarding a brane as equivalent to a dimension, and stipulate that a brane may have unlimited size as a vector. Three branes interacting together would be a three dimensional membrane and the motion of each brane initially before time equal zero at the beginning of the membrane would determine the direction of time. Time is an apparent phenomenon that is implicit in the passage of a membrane through another. Each point in time is a point in the membrane comprised of the concatenation of branes.
I suppose it is theoretically possible that the increased rate of expansion of the Universe shortly after its start was caused by the introduction of another brane to the membrane. I don’t believe that it is reasonable to infer much about the size of branes prior to their concatenated state as a membrane by the time that passed from the Big Bang to the end of the inflaton. It is interesting to consider though for one has difficulty in thinking about branes-for-themselves or branes-in-themselves. If branes are singularities what are they made of and where are they before encountering others to make up a membrane-universe. The ancillary question arises; how do things occur in time before time or motion exists?
Branes could be compared to those glass slide rectangles of glass one places under a microscope lenses in a metaphor or analogy- since they are maybe zero or one-dimensional in-themselves. Dimension branes would be somewhat ghostly or permeable to other branes and could pass through other slides branes they encounter. Branes may have a charge or not. A charge might just be a brane structure/composition orientation. If two interacting branes were the Big Bang then a third brane arriving shortly thereafter was the inflaton continuing inflation until normalized interacting with the other two branes. If the Universe membrane began expanding faster after seven billion years maybe the branes had passed some balancing position / point of no return between them, letting them move away faster with less restraint or drag from each other. There may be no limit to the number of characteristics or qualities one could make up concerning branes and brain relationships in a membrane including how they pass through one another or encounter one another or how their fields interact with one another or if branes increase themselves in dimensions adding to themselves the dimensions of other branes so that an initial zero-dimension or one dimension brane becomes a two-dimension or three dimension brane etc.
Branes are perhaps equivalent to fields, A lecturer in physics answered a question about how zero-dimension points can exist, and if I recall correctly the reply was something to the effect that there are no intervals on a line (or vector), and so a point might have being in one dimension yet have no existence in other dimensions. Logically one could extrapolate that a one dimensional brane could be monistic and of any texture; even spirit, and yet have no existence in any other dimension until it interacts with other branes as a membrane-universe.
I wondered how fields that are equivalent to branes could allow contingent particles to exist like those present in the standard model of physics, yet the presence of a Higgs field to slow down massless particles and differentiate them in the process from massless particles thus yielding an appearance of mass with all of the energy and spin characteristic of sub-atomic particles and fields acting upon or among them seems natural enough. I of course wouldn’t be too technical on any of this; just consider part of the picture briefly and well enough to make a note about the paradigm of branes, dimensions and membranes.
If the Universe has just three dimensions the fourth dimension may be time, yet it may not. Instead it is just the change of location of the branes and contingent fields, energy and mass of them within the membrane universe. Dark energy and dark mass could obviously have innumerable explanations, and I believe that one paradigm to account for them could be presently unknown characteristics of branes interacting together in the membrane. That is so obvious that I suppose I shouldn’t bother to mention that, yet not being a physicist nothing for me concerning cosmology is too obvious or beneath value to consider.
Sure there may be countless branes in the thing that is contains branes and membrane-universes. If time is an intrinsic phenomenon of motion between brane interacting (and branes could interact in numerous ways according to their qualities, polarization(s) and inertial characteristics) then I don’t know why one should feel free to find some sort of time branch for a Multiverse that branches infinitely as if it were every possible number along a line of rational numbers that branches from each point in every vector-brane-dimension infinitely {that would also seem to require that branes act as membranes-in-themselves}). I am not saying that a time or sequence branching Multiverse with explicit and implicit time that inherently violates principles of relativity isn’t possible, or that a Multiverse with a set of force values comparable paradigmatically with the present universe being the basis for a Multiverse isn’t possible, I am simply considering the possible paradigm of a level four Multiverse in just one membrane-Universe in regard to time as motion; with the primary difference being that instead of sentient experience moving through a static membrane in a Everettian paradigm of all possible Universes already existing and mind experience switches through them to satisfy criteria of Schrodinger's wave function, time actually occurs to an observer located anywhere in the 3-brane membrane universe as change.
While the west Anglo-American imperial collusion is racing ahead at 300 m.p.h to wrap up the Clinton-Major-N.A.T.O. eastward expansion policy with every economic and military measure it can think of to defeat Russian resistance, there has been a paucity of consideration about what a post-Putin Russia would be like. Would it be a Utopia with Democrat Potty style sissified leaders that only war in just wars benevolently upon others as when President Obama intervened in Libya with a ‘kinetic military action’ to end Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi’s ( c. 1942 – 20 October 2011)s regime because he attacked the United States and Britain, because he wasn’t liked or his policy wasn’t liked or whatever?
Game theory can consider various scenarios and outcomes of for many models including political and geographic changes. The Anglo-American team of 1994 that laid the foundation for the return of Cold War and even hot war for Russian reconquista of Ukraine as an alternative to a logical peaceful development inclusive of Russia in a free enterprise pact across Western Eurasia probably didn’t consider things well with game theory modeling. Any rational historian should have known that cutting the heart out of historical Russia by removing Crimea and Ukraine would destabilize western relations with Russia in the future. Politicians would have been better off not letting their greed and lack of political wisdom get the best of them.
Game theory presently might show several possible outcomes for the present sorry state of affairs in Europe and Ukraine. I need rely on dead reckoning because I lack mathematical training in game theory, and have only a philosophical interest in it. It is obvious though that western and especially British and U.S. leaders are throwing everything they can into reinforcing their initial expansion premise that dibbed Ukraine as a sovereign nation that could be filled up with immigrants from the west and maybe eventually added to N.A.T.O. as the basic post-cold war tool for E.U. expansion and hegemony over Russia. Presently former British P.M.s are militating for a new international war crimes tribunal to convict President Putin. Probably the court would be located in a N.A.T.O. country so impartiality could be assured.
Loading up the tray against President Putin and Russian rich people and those that support the present government including sanctions on members of the DUMA is an effort to set up the possible elimination of what is regarded as a conservative Russian government to replace it with a sissified government (I got the word sissified from my spell checker when I used a different word, and remembered that the country name that the Clinton-Blair-Yeltsin team selected for the post-Soviet New Liberal World Order was Community of Independent States or C.I.S. (phonetically pronounced ‘Sis’ although President Yeltsin might have been unaware of the joke in that). In my opinion President Putin is a leader of a democracy with extraordinary Presidential powers given constitutionally to protect against external threats. He has reinforced the Yeltsin written constitution and built up free enterprise structures and constitutional government from the wreckage of the former Soviet Union. Replacing Putin probably will produce leadership to the right rather than the wuss. Replacing the entire government infrastructure might result in the break up of the Russian Federation into numerous smaller nuclear armed powers led by extremists that could accomplish in one move the ditching of sanctions against Russia and a sorting out of politics to let people vote with their feet. That scenario might produce several nations led by extremists and supportive loyalists.
What are the West’s Games Theory Models for Post-Putin Russia
I am briefly considering the outcomes of some sort of Putin defeat because of a successful western outcome in a moderately protracted Ukrainian war. I don’t believe President Putin would surrender to the west or be surrendered for war crimes or have his head parted from his body due to snap-hanging like former Dictator Saddam Hussein. Instead I would guess he might go into retirement at a Dacha with a good location and nice fishing at a lake somewhere while the Russian Federation disintegrated and the chaos of a destabilized Russia set the scene for numerous theoretical new state structures, limited nuclear wars in Eurasia between rogue missile launching personnel etc, possible biological war with the new post-state weaponized designer virus products that any PhD in biology might create in basement lab and a renewal of extremist Muslim terrorism. Great stuff for action-adventure-thriller novel writers incidentally, that could go on for twenty years or so while global warming containment efforts are put on hold indefinitely.
In my opinion such developments are all bad outcomes of the present state of the British-U. S. ‘We are the law and will prosecute you until hell freezes over with everything we have besides nuclear bombs because we don’t want you to vaporize us although you can vaporize yourself if you want’ single minded approach to the issue. I just wonder where the path they have set the world upon leads, and if any of the destinations are as good ones, or all just shitholes.
Of course a unified Russia could remain even if Ukraine sees the retreat of Russian forces. Presumably sanctions would continue on practical Russia for a lengthy period of time and political and financial realignments deleterious to not just Eurasia or especially Russia might follow. The optimal post-Cold war developments have certainly been lost already and were doomed to fail since 1994 perhaps, yet something should be done to develop models for renormalizing Russian-Western relations politically as soon as possible through diplomacy as well as condign measures ans success of the west current tunnel vision.
In democracies and corporatist entities military leadership is under civilian control. That is, a political leader controls military operations and directs military goals. Generals are given the task of carrying out the orders of the politician. The political goals may not necessarily be realistic goals militarily, nor the most efficient military goals to capture land or cities for political purposes. Many modern wars have manifested mistaken political judgment for beginning, continuing and ending. It is possible they are the result of democracy and democratic civilian leadership of the era (not to imply there are no other political structures that cause modern war). I will comment on a bit of that phenomena.
The stalled Russian attempted conquest of Ukraine is a case in point. The Russian President Vladimir Putin probably is the military director of the production and has or had (they may have changed since the start of the war) particular goals in mind. Maybe that was complete capture of all of the Ukraine along existing map definitions as it were. That goals may have been militarily unrealistic. Perhaps he should have simply have ordered the capture of large areas of land that would make a solid future state with good enough waterfront access, knowing that reinforcement of those areas against counter-attack and insurgents would be necessary to achieve a stable new normal as N.P.R. might like to say.
While the Russian military executed unattainable plans in the Ukraine, President Biden executed an exit strategy from Afghanistan earlier in another example of the power of a politician over a military of a corporatist entity. It was feasible to garrison troops to reinforce the Afghan government from secure bases over the long term, yet the President instead choose a precipitate withdrawal of all U.S. military forces that led directly to the collapse of the Afghan government. A few months later he opted to pitch in billions of dollars of advanced weapons to the Ukraine war making a decision to deepen and lengthen the period of conflict in Ukraine. Democrat leaders prefer stand off wars with advanced weapons and proxy soldiers that let others than constituents die.
The conduct of the Afghan war and effort to pacify the nation will be analyzed for years by military experts, as was a similar effort in the Vietnam war. Each conflict was under direct political control of American military forces, and each effort resulted in failure perhaps for different reasons. It may be that the disconnect between political leadership and military education is an underlying cause of the failure for politicians to set realistic military objectives in American wars of the 20th and 21st centuries and perhaps presently, by the Russian President in Ukraine.
One wonders at what point President Putin will decide to stop investing military force to take over cities that are easy to defend even as they become rubble, by a minority of force, as rats can find holes midst the concrete to strike out at snakes seeking to devour them. Large cities are bait to attract mobile armored vehicles that have needed to conceal their location from anti-tank weapons since the Cold War. Tanks today are mobile artillery and if in the open, concealed and unbunkered, are easy prey for a variety of weapons systems. New Russian tanks are faster and cheaper than U.S. tanks and actually quite good, yet rockets and drones to destroy them are far cheaper.
Civilian politicians may tend to regard tanks as big dogs able to put down runty civilian opposition in a significant mistake of judgment. If there is no modern rocketry in opposition that may have some truth to it. Civilians should stay out of the way of tanks.
In the present conflict in Ukraine it is challenging to know what President Putin actual objectives are or if they are feasible. American intentions are clear enough; unlimited supply of lightweight modern weapons to a Ukrainian resistance that would protract the conflict to defrappe Russian consolidation of regions of control over Ukraine, besides economic siege war against Russia itself to cut off the supply line to the military effort in Ukraine and lever political opposition to what is regarded in the west as an executive war by a dictator- perhaps in some error since Russia has a democracy on paper at least and President Putin is acting in accord with constitutional powers conferred in lineal progression from President Boris Yeltsin who in effect wrote the constitution of the Russian confederation that has since been amended several times.
Some would argue against a description of Russia as a democracy or a free society. In the modern era though dispensational democracy might be a better description of the relation between corporate political power, political leadership and ordinary citizens. Nearly unconditional freedom exists for many or most concurrent with legal and illegal restrictions on freedom for others deemed worthy of repression by those with power. Modern free societies do not presently exist unconditionally or even commonly so far as I know; certainly not in the United States.
Perhaps politicians that direct militaries are comparable to CEOs that hire private contractors to construct project for them . Often contractors take on projects bidding a certain price knowing there will be cost overruns the politician or the politicians financiers don't know about. Former President G.W. Bush said before the Iraq war that the mission would cost about 50 billion dollars. The actual cost was in the trillions. Many of the billions went out in non-competition contracts to favorite contractors. Because competent military people do not control the political designs or mission strategy there is generally a high likelihood that even advanced militaries can fail in modern, limited war ; the cost to civilians as collateral damage may be very high.
Ukraine; Historical Foundations of Conflict Recap Part two
At Helsinki Accord Ukraine Was Part of Russia-What Changed?
5 Sept. 2014
Western claims to have honestly expropriated Ukraine from Russia have used a few historical whoppers for pseudo-legalistic assertions of a right-of-annexation of Ukraine and Crimea to independent/western-affiliated status. The 1975 Helsinki accord that included the agreement between N.A.T.O. and the Soviet Union to not change national borders through force is an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords#Signatory_states
When the Helsinki Accord was signed Crimea and Ukraine were Russian as they had been with a few intervals for centuries. After decades of sanctions and Star Wars the Soviet Communist government bit the dust. All were glad that President Gorbachev’s glasnost and Perestroika started a cascade of commercial and political changes to end the Stalinist variety of communism that most hated everywhere except for select establishment organizational persons benefiting from the power of tyranny, and the end of the Evil Empire occurred mostly bloodlessly, yet the transition to a post-Soviet new-Russian order was difficult with uncertain course.
Governing institutions and establishments affiliated are generally reluctant to change modus operandi or modus vivendi. The cold war establishment roles were well known-the west found it easier to return to a cold war role model inherited from prior generations than to evolve a good working relationship with Russia. After digesting the eastern European nations that were given up at the end of the Soviet Union the west’s appetite for more of weakened Russia looked toward Ukraine and Crimea.
It is an historical point that gaining a Pyrrhic victory that ends up costing more than staying out of conflict is better avoided. Conflict with Russia over Ukraine-especially Eastern Ukraine and Russia’s vital Dnepr River barge traffic corridor for transport of commodities (one barge is worth 200 truckloads)-can harm the west’s commercial and security interests significantly. Finding new ways to have mutual peace and prosperity is a political method the west avoids to its monomaniacal drive for litigation and conflict as litigation through other means.
Another fiction used by the west is that of Soviet or Russian history in occupation of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states at the end of the Second World War. The false impression is commonly given that naked Soviet aggression took those states through force-and that is a perfect lie. The Soviet Union captured Eastern Europe in counterattacking against the Nazis who had invaded Russia/the Soviet Union. The Russians/Soviets kicked the Nazi butts all the way to the Baltic-all the way to Berlin and it cost them tens of millions of dead Russians. The Russians liberated the Balkans from the Nazis to in long, bloody war. The battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad were famously epic, bloody things of which innumerable movies and documentaries have been made. If the United States had experienced that sort of conflict, how soon would the United States give back those captured territories and trust their former enemies or their political cohabitants?
It took the Soviets/Russians about 50 years to give back Eastern Europe and let it become independent. The United States had built up a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons with multiple reentry warheads with a slight advantage over the more numerous Soviet-Russian warheads in quality though the Soviets had more ICBMs overall. After the Helsinki Accords and S.A.L.T. tacks the United States continued on development of new weapons technology debatably flanking the A.B.M. treaty that limited anti-ballistic missile development to basically just Moscow and Washington D.C. (we should have selected Pittsburgh instead). That was a lot of force to apply to the Evil Empire to change its borders.
When the cold war ended with the Soviet Empire disappearing by a signature of Boris Yeltsin there was no lawful government following it up. There probably should have been some sort of conservatorship applied by an international power to secure integral Russian lands such as Ukraine and Crimea in order to plainly differentiate them from lands that formerly were independent powers and not part of the Soviet sphere of influence until 1945 or later. It is notable that the Soviet Union never formerly annexed those Warsaw Pact nations it had captured from the Nazis in 1944-45.
Plainly promulgating confusion and historical falsehood putting Ukraine and Crimea into the same political category as Poland and Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Czechoslovakia in order to justify the expropriation of formerly integral parts of Russia is disingenuous. With such ordinary ignorance of history in America and perhaps Europe of Russian history the inertial characteristic of incapability of viewing historically objectively-contemporary history included, is strong. That ignorance seriously damages western political veracity and competence in addressing real political issues that would find a righteous settlement to contentious issues, such as Ukraine.
Assuring Russian right to navigate the Dnepr River and have barge access from its heartland farmlands to the world is a basic, non-negotiable point. It is also well known that Britain has had a problem with Russia since Ivan the Terrible kicked out Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor after they sailed to Murmansk in the first British voyage around the Kola Peninsula. John Paul Jones worked for the Russian-not the British navy, after the American Revolutionary War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Chancellor
Muslim fundamentalism, Market fundamentalism and Socialist fundamentalism are all threats to democracy and free enterprise globally. Each ism seeks global power. Capitalism differs from democracy as royalty differs from Islam’s dar al Islam. Cessationism is another point to consider-I acknowledge it has good and bad connotations regardless of one’s opinion about it.
America’s Republican and Democrat parties are two sides of the coin of corporatism. Democrats take the queer, abortionist side of corporatism while Republicans are the military, fake conservative branch of corporatism. Neither are moral conservatives obviously, and the media including Rush Limbaugh fall into those two corporatist sects. Market fundamentalists are superficial and non-objective on historical reasoning while the Democrat branch thinks international relations are best accomplished with drone shots and queering things up.
Britain has for hundreds of years been involved with European land battles to expand markets. That is as natural as breathing for them. British interest in the Ukraine would be antipathetic to any Russian sovereignty over it. President Bill Clinton-an Anglophile Rhodes Scholar who lived at Oxford with Hillary smoking dope but not inhaling, interacted substantially with Boris Yeltsin and in the year the U.S.A. was launching cruise missile and aircraft sorties on the former Yugoslavia got the weak Boris Yeltsin to sign away the Ukraine in a deal no subsequent Russian President would ever accept. It was a bridge to far-a part of Russia removed like it was a formerly independent nation of Eastern Europe that would be a bone of contention and a divisive wedge to destroy the peaceful development and trust between Russia and the West that would grow for decades. Allowing the wedge to develop, that rift to widen would harm the economy and security of the west for decades, especially as it could end the cooperation of Russia and the west in the battle to contain Muslin political expansion through terror-a fundamental component of the Mohammedan creed.
Why American Aggression against Russia's Dnepr Front is Unwise
15 Feb. 2015
It is difficult to keep a nation or a family together. Abraham Lincoln did that for the U.S.A. when the threat to ordinary citizens of the first people's democracy seemed greater if the house was divided to let global aristocrats dismantle it entirely defeating America in economic detail. Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to keep traditional Russia together with the same degree of resistance from financially aristocratic leaders of the west.
The misinformed and bullying Obama administration policy of developing war upon Slavic Russians of Eastern Ukraine descended from Middle and Eastern Slavs is also a proxy tool for Anglo aggression against Russia. Ruling elites sometimes move inertially forward within a political bubble of social solipsism failing to comprehend the history and vital interests of others. A sycophantic broadcast media may blow the warm smoke of pomp and circumstance up a politician's ass.
Since the First World War England has been America's master to the U.S. blaster politically speaking when Thunderdome policies present to recover lost power of the British Empire. For the U.S.A. it is an irresponsible policy inimical to U.S. national security interests.
One may roll back the clock to find Brits attacking at Sevastopol or Chancellor being expelled from Russia and forget the Russian roll back of Nazis across the broad Eastern front of the second world war, yet one ought to remember that Grand Prince Oleg of Kievan Rus, after taking the title in 882, took co of the lower Dnepr. As the historian Melvin Wren commented-he cleared the water road from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The Dnepr remains a vital Russian interest in spite of Bill Clinton’s plundering of Ukraine from a drunken President Yeltsin.
In order for the Russian people to have given up their ancestral homeland in anything but a shyster's court fashion a referendum would have needed to have been held at least 7 years after the coercive pressures of regime change under external threat and pressure had been achieved and a new stability developed. As it was President Clinton took advantage of Russian disarray and of a drunk leader to accomplish what the Imperial German leadership accomplished with Vladimir Lenin during the first worlds war-relinquishment of the Ukraine under pressure and for support in taking over.
Russians will not for generations forget that Kiev is their ancestral homeland and the Dnepr River their first core commercial highway. Though the United States’ leadership may wish to battle upon Russians with proxies in the Ukraine that policy of dividing Europe will not be a satisfactory long-range policy and is likely to be abandoned by future U.S. Presidents, yet even if it were not a war and enmity for several generations of no necessity to gravity select Wall Street-Harvard financial insiders and 10 Downing Street is wrong. Consider the sentiment if Brits were forced to give up the Thames, Chinese the Yangtze River, Americans the Potomac or Mississippi. What if Massachusetts were backed into a corner, stripped of their dirty salmon deficient rivers and sold into wage slavery? Would they like that?
Like global warming Americans must have a change of heart to reach a righteous policy. If global warming may be compared to sin, the United States must not fool itself in believing that it will evolve away from sin over time because of the bad long-term effects. Instead it must have a complete change of heart and stop sinning today; tearing out heat-absorbing asphalt highways, building electric transport infrastructure without producing greenhouse gases and so forth. It must will itself with the providence of God to being a new energetic creation.
Oleg’s successor was Igor-a son of the Viking founder of the Rurik dynasty that ruled over the Slavs of the region at their request in the beginning to provide security for Slavic commercial establishments. Igor’s ancestors later ruled in Moscow too. Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev, baptized in 988, fought in the Crimean Peninsula and brought Christianity to his empire. One of his sons; Yaroslav ruled in Novgorod at the northern end of the water road the United States seeks to expropriate entirely from the Rus. When Vladimir dies in 1005 the succession was unclear and conflict between brothers ensued. Yaroslav who came to be known as Yaroslav the Wise emerged to rule the Rus and Slavs of the Dnepr empire from Novgorod to the Crimean Peninsula. Yaroslav promulgated laws known as Russkaia Pravda- Russian Justice.
Politicians of Washington D.C. find it acceptable these days to trample on the heritage of countless generations of peoples because they have the pure military power to do so. Yet in so doing they set back for generations the reputation of the United States for pursuing justice rather than power and the expropriation of lands and possessions. In failing to at least share the Dnepr with Russia U.S. leadership is establishing enmity and a wedge that will act to undermine U.S. security for generations. It does not simply need to achieve a short-term victory with superior military power and the little nation will hush up so homosexual marriage can be established and Christianity marginalized.
“This power of God is against the wicked. God's power will not be the sinner's shield to defend him, but a sword to wound him. God's power will bind the sinner in chains. His power serves to revenge the wrong done to his mercy. He will be Almighty to damn the sinner. Now, in what condition is every unbeliever? God's power is engaged against him,
and ‘it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.' Heb 10:31.”-Thomas Watson (Divinity page 78).
Russia has a history of principalities ruled by a central Grand Prince later evolving to become named a tsar. When Kievan domination evolved and gave way to rule in Novgorod in the 13th century and while Mongols were invading the Moskva River frontier had a fort-a kreml built on it that was initially sacked by Mongols, yet on the frontier Moscow emerged as a commercial center and was a better jumping off point to resist Mongol invaders. Eventually Alexander Nevsky appointed a son to rule in Moscow. In time the principality of Moscow became the power center over the principalities of Kiev, Novgorod and Lithuania.
Centuries of war to keep Russian lands free of Mongol invaders, Muslims, Germans, Poles and Brits followed to the present day more or less. Into that history President Obama boldly goes forth where no U.S. President was rash enough to go before and engage the U.S.A. on the wrong side of a millennium long battle for Slavs to be free of oppressors in the Eurasian conflict zone of striving and suffering for freedom.
It is quite possible that with the example of the American left entirely supporting what is in effect a war of conquest by the post-cold war west upon implicit Russian lands for the benefit of foreign financial aristocrats that the European left will take a turn to the right realizing what a lot of hypocritical killers the American left are supporting aggressive wars through other means to conquer historically Russian national lands.
Wrong value theory and existential historical logic will not well-serve the American left. Europeans and others may learn that in order to force corrupt moral and political values on others a strong central government able to override the objections of affiliated states to homosexual marriage is undesirable. Too strong of a central government destroys the individual states as laboratories of democratic expression and compels them to submit to corrupting Federal judicial decisions or Chief Executive's will to wage unjust wars of expansion. New federations of nations of the future will learn from the tragic lessons of the United States I would think, yet of course foreign nations and states may be as gullible as those of the U.S.A. and repeat the failures of the past.
The political natural balance will not be achieved until Moscow at least shares the Dnepr River with whatever predators of the west are there at any given time.
Restarting the Cold War (poem)
28 Jan.2015
Cold war enigma
a fuel cell power plant
silhouetted shadows deepen
concrete Soviet blocks built to the west
waterfront plots around dark pools
research firms mining dissident ideas
corporatists, communists, advanced telecommunications networks
ad hoc ideas for consolidating absolute power
without Stalin or delay
Ants scurry along networks of varicose pipelines
innumerable jobs working underground
exhausting reproductive economic cycles of guns and butter
working jobs of field crafts
attacking rotting fruit producing mountains of molehills
freely in trade
for dusty twits, trime and singularity
Raptor rime of ancient mariner
syncopated with blackened lips
parched through waves of verdant decline
expanses of revenutionary warps of the old school
with new tools of gathering power
where trillions of stealth drones lurk in dark space
like whirlwinds of logic sold as slaves to evolution
a doctrine for combat ops droning on
as corporals of industry deadveloping time
Clouds restoring defeat from victory's jaw
disappear while peaceful ice crystals melt away
quietly tickling down to silent spring's sanctions
in a non-renewable river flow breaking up empires
where deposits from borderlands build banks
Ukraine war phenomenon is old Democrat Party Business
Recap Part 1
Maybe Ukraine’s decision to employ Hunter Biden during the Obama administration at $10,000 a month was a good war insurance investment since President Biden has billions and billions to Ukraine in its war to keep control of that country. The President Bill Von Clinton takeover plan for Ukraine made a sow’s ear of a silk purse. As Jesus changed water into wine, Democrats since 1994 hanged wine into piss. In 1994 Democrats broke a champagne bottle on the bow of an era of forced-based system of international rules; a Liberal World Order it turned out, with the nations with dominant military power making the rules. Domestically, with Ruby Ridge and Waco, and abroad in foreign wars, military and financial power forced liberal rules. In the United States The Supreme Court of Harvard made laws to reinforce corporatism’s Liberal World Order (also known as the S.W.O.- Satanic World Order since some would define slavery liberating-for-others depending on what the meaning of ‘is’ is).
I am reposting the following seven and eight year old comments on Democrat Party belligerence towards Russia just to keep things in perspective historically. The Liberal World Order narrative is nearly entirely one-sided and reinforces revisionism about Russia’s relation to Ukraine. I prefer to enter notes for my blog so I can remember what an avalanche or tsunami of proprietary, self-interest, biased information emerged in this time of war. Failing to recognize that cutting the heart out of historical Russia and relocating it to western interests would not go unchallenged led to the present conflict. Politicians seldom can talk about select international affairs truthfully, accurately or objectively and must instead use a pejorative, one-sided, proprietary approach. In the case of Ukraine that resulted in War, Cold War, economic problems, inflation and numerous completely avoidable negative consequences. A rectification or adjustment of the Yelstin-Blair-Clinton Soviet Union termination agreement in regard to Ukraine should have occurred at some point during the Obama administration at least. The last President of the Soviet Union had a gun at his head of forced options in a manner of speaking. As he brought the saga of the red experiment in the Soviet Union to an end the gun was in the hands of imperialist opportunists instead of statesmen. Twenty-eight years later rhetoric about ‘the dictator’ and ‘the war criminal’ Putin flood the airwaves along with body bags and body counts in the real world.
I realize the U.S, administration is a locomotive racing at 290 m.p.h. on a narrative and am not trying to get on board nor in its way. I just want to point out that total economic and political war against Russia may not be without deleterious consequences for the west, neither is it doomed to success. It is entirely disingenuous for the administration to express no awareness of the conservative Russian position, and dangerous to simply throw everything they have into economic and indirect war against Russia. War is terrible and a common cause of it is that of aloof politicians chasing wealth needing or tolerating war to get what they want. Politicians owned by the rich are a sad fact of modern life. In modern war politician puppeteers live in ivory towers with a cell phone in their ear. British and Catholic imperialism drew in President Clinton and P.M. Blair who later joined the Catholic Church, to renew the historical war of the west to Eastward expansion. Ukraine was a battleground between Catholic and Orthodox faith spheres of influence in the feudalism era, and I suspect that the embers of that war have never gone out entirely. I doubt that John Paul II foresaw an expanded NATO presenting a sustainable threat to Russia.
President Putin of Russia has a very tough line-up against him including the expanded N.A.T.O. war machine and vast U.S. military weapons supplies looming like ravenous mastiffs on chains eager to go for his throat to finish off Russian and Chinese resistance to Wall Street plutocratic values; held back perhaps simply by recalcitrance to risk of nuclear war. Putin was said to be a war criminal by President Biden. That is a matter for courts I suppose. I would think the United States killed hundreds of people in hospitals in Afghanistan, even one staffed by Doctors Without Borders, and killed hundreds or thousands of civilians in collateral damage, and in fact the entire Iraq war might have been a war crime since Iraq did not invade anyone nor have weapons of mass destruction as President G.W. Bush claimed. What about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Was the bogus attack on U.S. ships another excusable blunder justifying the war crime of fighting a war to kill communists?
The U.S. government’s illegal war in Iraq, if indeed the war was illegal because there wasn’t much besides a very thin legal premise for the invasion based on Iraq’s non-compliance with sanctions presumably featuring WMDs they never had, started with the U.S. reportedly killing 100,000 hapless soldiers in trenches along the border with aerial bombardment- 100,000 souls murdered in effect, without the slightest mention of a war crime. Another trivial omission from popular history by the victors. Mass murder is a prerogative of politicians that needs only journalist apologetics and narratives to pass as water under the bridge of time.
If President Biden’s son Beau was a victim of burning chemical dumps in Iraq, weren’t thousands of Iraqi civilians too? There is no mention of war crimes for U.S. Presidents since they have consistently denied being subject to the International War Crimes courts. Why is President Putin different? The U.S. Government has no memory of its own war crimes history if just wars require more than a legal technicality to start. Was it o.k. to intentionally nuke civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with hyper shock and awe just once for the U.S.A.’s convenience? The truism that history is written by the victors seems to be especially meaningful in the context of war crimes. Victory in the present age seems to mean those with unlimited wealth and ownership of broadcast media, corporations and weapons of war. It would be refreshing to have intelligent politicians that speak with candor and objective understanding once in a while.
Wars start and finish for more solid historical reasons of quantitative disputes and lack of alternative means of resolution . Legal technicalities are used as pretexts for war. The US and the Eurasian politics should be moving toward egalitarian, sustainable global economics. U.S. leadership is over-reliant on technological military supremacy, deficit spending, tax cuts for the rich and issuing no interest or low-interest loans to the richest banks so they can mint trillions of free e-dollars from thin air with which to buy the world’s business for its foreign and domestic policy of corporatism rather than a Republic’s principles of wise, well-balanced and historically informed statesmanship. Corporatism isn’t a democracy. War and Cold war and post cold-war enmity are not the right course except for incompetent, inefficient, lunatic politicians.
Why Compromise and Innovation are better than Confrontation for Ukraine
24 Sept. 2014
Compromise rather than conflict is the better course for Ukraine. Sanctions and bellicose Washington D.C. rhetoric about Russian aggression accompanied with sanctions dividing Russian and European trade and commerce ought to be replaced with realpolitik. It is better to integrate Russian-European economics rather than segregate. It is better to make closer security and trade ties trilaterally with Russia, Europe and the U.S.A. instead of increasing isolation and sanctions. When it is possible with intelligent leadership to innovate progress instead of regressing to primitive cold war posturing one should choose the smart way rather than the dumb.
Ukraine is unlikely to be harmed by making of itself something of a political laboratory for creative political merger accentuating positive, closer ties with Russia and the west simultaneously. Creative political thought did not need to die with the passing of Reagan-Gorbachev era.
Obama administration sycophants complain about the European economy slowing U.S. economic growth as if the sanctions hurting European and Russian economies haven’t anything to do with Europe’s stagnant recovery from the 2008 banking and mortgage crash largely developed through Wall Street and British, D.C. and London deregulation and failure to govern high-speed quantitative trading and packaging of bad debt for sale.
The Obama administration’s failure to comprehend Russia’s 1200 year patrimony of the Ukraine and the unlikely circumstance of a complete acceptance of de-Russification of Ukraine means that the economic and security stumbling block will continue indefinitely even if with a cold war level of simmering maneuver. That is quite different from warm and innovative relations between Europe, the United States and Russia-and that is bad for the economy of the three regions.
The reality of Ukraine permits far more real interaction and adjustment of political formality than the abstract ideological and partisan positions that Washington and its puppet politicians believe possible.
The confrontational Washington attitude does not save Ukraine from a return to the evil empire of the Soviet Union. It is quite possible for Ukrainian pluralism to include Russian interests and Ukrainian politicians with very close ties to Russia as well as the west. Ukrainian interests are in drawing benefits from east and west rather than just the west or the east. They have no need of an exclusive relationship to one side or the other beyond its borders, and neither need Ukrainian independence mean being free of affiliations and treaties with anyone beyond its borders.
Ukraine might sight trade agreements with Russia and the west simultaneously-even some of those free trade agreements that Washington leaped into as if they were the opulent new designer economic drug. Ukraine can be the state where synthetic development and inclusion of Russian-leaning separatist regions in their own Ukrainian community of independent state can satisfy the real desire for many to be more Russian culturally than western while west leaning interests can be confident of free trade, freedom of religion and security interests not being taken over by a Russian mafia or onerous policies repressing civil rights.
It is often said that most Ukrainians want democracy and a free economy, yet so do many Russians and Europeans. Realpolitik of history shows that tribal and cultural wars are right up there with wars and conflicts created by aristocracy and royalty over land. Keeping the ordinary citizen free of class caste systems isn’t easy-even the power of concentrated wealth and their media pets make it challenging for some to recognize their loss of earnings power and degradation of comparative social advantage.
Ukraine should seek its own balance in Fullerian social synthetic integration-syntegrity between Russia and Europe innovating new political structures to bring in closer Russian economic and cultural participation while drawing in the west as well. The major sticking point in getting the sanction repealed swiftly is the need for political change away from confrontationism and bellicosity with stark, de trop, black-white us and them paradigmata for ultimatums. Moving through a variety of Ukrainian political evolutions toward a realpolitik of mergism is not only possible, it is a necessary way to move economic progress forward, reduce European tension in the region and return the focus of Europe toward rebuilding the economic malaise that is still severe in several members of the EC.
Pyrrhic Victory in West's Land Grab of Formerly Russian Ukraine
April 1, 2014
The late Boris Yeltsin had dubious authority to give away the historically Russian Ukraine to independents. We are reminded of the deal Vladimir Illyich Lenin cut with the Kaiser in 1918 giving up the Ukraine to Germany in return for support in taking over Russia. Yeltsin might have expected support from the west. At the time he was not yet President of the Russian Federation, he was only President of the R.S.F.R., one of just 15 Soviet Republics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin
Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet in 1990 and oversaw its dissolution. It is difficult to say what kind of relationship Yeltsin had with Bill Clinton and the west. Perhaps they were soul brothers. In 1999 Yeltsin was 'found drunk in his underpants outside the White House'. Obviously Yeltsin power as the symbolic mirror of Yekaterinburg' termination of the Tsar/Soviet Union emerged from a stressful life in communist society trying to liberate the Russian people from Stalinism. It is worth recollecting that in a famous photo of the Bolshevik Revolutionary leaders just Stalin and Trotsky remained alive not long after Stalin took power. Trotsky of course and his family were murdered by Stalin's political rival liquidators later.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215101/Drunk-Boris-Yeltsin-outside-White-House-underpants-trying-hail-cab-wanted-pizza.html
When the Gorbachev-Yeltsin succession liberated Russia with the help of President Ronald Reagan something of an historical miracle transpired. American airhead ideologues though saw it as an opportunity to plunder the world for a corrupt high-tech derivative and resources swindling, bank frauds and hostile takeover acquisitions. Corporatism ensued to gut America's development of democracy. Americans were left eventually holding the bag of 18 trillion dollars of public debt, high unemployment and emasculation of practical sovereignty. Investment occurred in China and Mexico and globalism replaced nationalism to the detriment of all except the top 5% of Americans.
At the end of the First World War an unwise armistice and peace placed high demands on Germany leading inevitably to the second world war. Subsequently America learned to be generous with its peace terms in war. Germany was a good example as well as Japan-each nation prospered and became allies rather than subversive malcontents. The United States seems to have forgotten that lesson in the Ukraine.
President Gorbachev freely withdrew his forces from European nations occupied by the Soviets gained rolling up the Third Reich. It was the 50th anniversary of D-Day in fact, and it was historical grace that the transition occurred peacefully. Yet some viewed the liberation of Europe from Soviet communist totalitarianism as a surrender for Russia and a victory for capitalism. They consider it right to take everything possible from formerly communist countries and perpetrate a kind of forced reparations to Wall Street from the Russian Ukraine. In the long run that may be a Pyrrhic victory. In the meantime it is very disruptive economic policy for the entire world. Regressive and unjust at best that policy has potential for developing numerous worst case scenarios.
The Abstract Form of Monarchy, Corporatism, Hierarchy and Sectarian Conflict
7 May 2014
This is a starter (like Windows 7 starter I suppose) on the abstract form of hierarchical power precipitating social conflict inclusive of sectarian war. Perhaps I will write more on the issue later. One finds the U.S. Government bureaucracy stimulating wars in Syria, conflict in Egypt and strife in Ukraine with sectarianism being an issue in each instance. There are other parties involved of course, and the assignment of blame isn’t plain and simple or evens my intention here. The purpose of this post is to not the action of social hierarchy as the causative agent for religious conflict.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ wrote a brilliant conservative thesis named The Leviathan describing the right of the absolute monarch to be in effect the only real individual around whom every citizen receives light. That is an extreme representation of the nature of hierarchy manifesting in imperial, corporate and ecclesiastic power. As power and wealth are concentrated dissent is increasingly eliminated. Absolute power tolerates no dissent. Free expression and political independence dies. In the Orwellian state thought is for-itself usurped by hierarchical programming of citizens. The nature of bloody religious wars is inextricably linked to hierarchical government and church structures. Especially in Erastian or government rule of religion, yet also in established hierarchical bureaucracy doctrine is all-important. Free thought and reform are verboten. Absolute hierarchies are intolerant of doctrinal differences and any sort of pluralism politically or ecclesiastically. Thus Martin Luther’s world-changing concept of justification by faith rather than doled out by bishops.
Luther, a monk, learned of the problems of monastic life and the corruption of Rome and the papacy after visiting Rome himself. He found the sale of indulgences and more church practices that weren’t justified by Biblical guidance. Various Popes had become too powerful believing that had a right to rule not only Christians but government too. This isn’t then place for a critique of the troubles of the papal form of church government with a more equal than other bishops primate-they were at war with themselves too now and then even with as many as three rival popes at once. The issue is the hierarchical structure of the church. Pope Hildebrand thought it best for priests to be celibate in order that they would be more like an international collection of soldiers (of a spiritual sort). A Pope would be something like an Eisenhower. Pope John Paul II-just canonized, was a Polish Catholic, and Polish catholic historical efforts to take over Ukraine for Poland resulted in the formation of a half-catholic, half-orthodox Uniate Church as well as an Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Today there are Protestants in Ukraine too.
‘Bloody’ Mary Queen of Scots and England executed nearly 300 Protestants and other Catholic persecutions of Protestants occurred. She died in 1578 and with her the brief Catholic restoration. In 1572 Catholics massacred Protestants across France and Ireland in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The back and forth 16th and 17th century reprisals against the reformation of the Christian Church probably was a probably reason that the Puritan Cromwell invaded Ireland and treated them so badly in 1649. John Milton-the author of Paradise Lost was a member of Cromwell’s government. Puritans were founders of the U.S.A. too.
The Bishop’s war of 1639
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Wars
It is said to have been a prelude to the English civil war. Charles I wanted an Episcopal church form (with Bishops) instead of that of a Presbyterian (elders) structure. There are innumerable historical examples of church hierarchies ruled by government as well as of governments ruled by religious hierarchy. The problem is not religion-at least not Christian religion-as a source for conflict, but the sociological structure of hierarchies exerting the taught controlling power over citizens.
Hierarchy cannot tolerate doctrinal dissent and political free thought. The Inquisition and other government and church executions of individuals killed far more people of faith than scientifically inclined people, yet of course moderns would almost have one think that the church was a great repressor of science generally rather than its sponsor. The church with the benefit of modern science and technology ought easily move toward a priesthood of believers egalitarian structure with three ranks-beginner, intermediate and elder reading standardized with room for improve liturgies in role sharing groups. That might help the ecumenical movement, support real rather than corporate democracy and reduce international conflict.
It may seem easy to make social lies
and broadcast manure up to the skies
natural fracture of objective truth
uses cancel culture so old world dies
Evil seeks to end all good spirit
send hope to hell and all good with it
erase knowledge of God, promote itself
wealth in banks of power; leaders bit
Transport more rage of morpheme word puns
exporting crates of levolution
full circle contradictions implicit
fit duel end where mend stark key guns.
Deep night with a thousand points of light
myriad empty silos in sight
all seems right every blasted thing wrong
rockets fly so high to win the fight
Expanse of ocean, life within dies
molecules spin, warm liquids rise
constant sea slurps, gurgles slack tracks waves flip
drip echos fusion ships over size
Politics bars theonomous poor
cult of ill reason can sell the wars
alternative season could escape cost
lost original sin does win more.
Green is more valuable than gold
in partnership that is very old
ecospheric product made good by God
odd, ignorance makes saving it bold
To kill natural wealth; humans do
push it aside with bull dozers too
or add it together to make something work
lurking distractions flowing right through
Partnerships of peace merge hostile sides
end blinders and blunders of ill tides
optimal salvation may rise and win
in the wink of an eye, futures guide.
