If I Knew a Half Century Ago What I Know Now

 I was considering what the world would have been like if I knew the future a half century ago. That is, if I knew then what I know now. Since I like to consider and write about contemporary history, wouldn’t the future have never become what it was if I wrote about events consistently with accuracy before they occurred?

In my opinion the greatest change would have been that of the Reagan administration. If I had written before the 1980 election that the conservative Republican President would change the political landscape so much in international relations and with the Soviet Union as to bring about the end of the Cold War then that circumstance might not have occurred. Imagine instead if the end of the Cold war in December 1988 when the Soviet began drawing down the Red Army from East Germany were replaced by a Clinton-Biden-Obomb-em-Harris, Yellin, Stoltenberg axis of mooning administrations elevating the world to the brink of nuclear war as at the present time in history.

Presidents intelligent enough to find ways to peace when the outlook is for the dark and stormy clouds of nuclear winter are rare. Snoopy writing from his dog house writer’s loft given a knowledge of the pinball courses of political relations with future knowledge; knowing the whipsaws of changes in presidential administrations and approaches to achieving a stable and peaceful world order where ecological progress and full, meaningful life opportunities for all within a freedom of spirit social paradigm, would be a paradox. Political analysis are limited in validity to a context of limited omniscience or rather, no omniscience at all  in regard to the temporal exstasis in which space-time flows. There is no Snoopy sniffing the future of world destiny that will bark at the approach of evil and wag for the good. Presidents instead need use rational prioritization of political concerns to actualize good developments instead of actualizing existential desires emanated from their own desires. Social reality isn’t an existential extension of personal egoism as it may seem for Democrat Party leaders, it is an interactive, heterodox fact where sharing of Ukraine is all that is required to restore historical balance for the time being.

Harris Rolls Dice on Winning Ukraine without Nuclear War (How the World May End)

 When I learned that the Biden-Starmer-Harris crew were considering giving permission to Ukraine to attack Russia with N.A.T.O. long range missiles Friday the 13^th (does that increase the gravity or the irony) that was the first time in my life that I had considered the prospect that nuclear war could follow Saturday. The Harris-Biden-Starmer team is playing nuclear chicken with Russia; a game at a higher level with potential for liberal deaths for all.

Following several years of top hand on the baseball bat mode of escalation with Russia in the use of conventional weapons to turn the tide of war there way, the Harris-Biden-Starmer entity failed to recognize the different context having nearly reached the W.M.D. level. It is a glass ceiling completely opaque to the Starmer-Harris-Biden entity. They should not aspire to reach that top floor.

I could think about the second weekend of NFL football games and the lesser, peripheral concern of potential global thermonuclear war brought to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world thanks to the historically illiteracy of the Harris-Biden-Starmer entity as a multi-tasking venture. When the first N.B.A. game is played in late October concerns about nuclear war will be muted with remote control. For most Americans it is more convenient to focus on important issues such as football, and not on unrewarding ones like terrorists with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The Ukraine-the borderlands, have been a target of western conquest for centuries. Poland, France and Germany among others have invaded Russia to seize land. The gamble that Russia won’t use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction to defend its historical region of existence when pummeled by a vast array of western military power is a bad one. It is a paradox that mothers against drunk driving would probably advocate Harris for President if they did such endorsements yet would not have a concern about candidate Harris’ full-bodied support of war with Russia over Ukraine. The Democrat feminine vote evidently does not regard nuclear war as anything more than externality or a bluff, yet it isn’t.

If N.A.T.O. begins attacking deep within Russia with Ukrainian cut outs the premise is that Russia cannot retaliate on the west because all of the N.A.T.O. nations would attack en mass because of treaty obligations. There are numerous cut outs available for Russia to use to attack London, Paris, Amsterdam and Los Angeles with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. ISIS, Hezbollah, Taliban and other Muslim groups in contact with Russia’s Iranian allies come to mind; they might be too happy to supply clandestine infiltrators to deliver a gallon of novachuck nerve agent, a suitcase nuke in a homeless guy’s backpack or a designer virus. Plausible deniability would cover each as the nuclear weapons could have been stolen during the era following the end of the Soviet Union when they were left unsecured across former Soviet territories.

India and China’s leaders met recently with President Putin perhaps to discuss what response should be taken to a war upgraded to an existential threat on Russia’s existence by the Biden-Harris-Starmer entity. Tactical nuclear weapons- perhaps neutron bombs with the beryllium sheathing absent, might be employed to counter Ukrainian advances into Russia along with or without full-bodied N.A.T.O. invasions of Russia after the initial round of weapons fo mass destruction are deployed. Russia hasn’t proven ability to defeat conventional western attack on Russia. Candidate Harris called Candidate Trump ‘weak’ at the debate and said that Putin would ‘eat his lunch’. Ms. Harris is a completely enthusiastic votary of Democrat Kool-Aid narratives on Russian-Ukraine-Clinton history. She is determined that conventional war to recover all of Ukraine for western power need proceed. Plainly Candidate Harris is incompetent with global economics, history and military affairs and acts with a cognitive deficit in failing to perceive the likelihood of nuclear war with her partisan, one-sided war policy. The war is harmful to U.S. economic interests and is an existential and possibly Eleatic ,Empirical, Metaphysical and even pluralist threat as well. No matter how hard Ms. Harris acts to spend hundreds of billions more on that war it will fail militarily syncopation even though she may intend to litigate nuclear war and win.

I should point out the the late Harvard historian Henry Kissinger was against the war, and other professors of Russian history realized that Russia would not accept the loss of all of Ukraine and the Crimea without a fight. The political insanity of the Democrat party is barely making a ripple on their political pond of thought. Drunk with power Democrats believe they cannot lose and need not share Ukraine with its historical Russian owner, and in that regard they are probably wrong. It is bad risk to gamble on world civilization not ending with nuclear brinkswomanship continuing year to year.

Before closing this post I will try presenting the conflict from a Russian point of view so far as I understand it. Russia regards the Ukraine as part of Russia stolen by the west repeatedly and lately at the end of the Cold War. Because President Clinton stole Ukraine once more by levering the last Soviet President Boris Yeltsin into giving it up to an independent status instead of insisting that Russia keep it, Democrat Presidents ever since have reinforced the theft and developed a belligerent attitude toward Russia by building up N.A.T.O. membership after the end of the Cold War when peace and economic development should have made that unnecessary. For Russia the west plainly was intending something that wasn’t good, and preparing for a war that it probably realized would need to occur eventually when Russia recovered from the break up of the Soviet Union and was militarily stronger.

Western leadership has historically made war on Russia to take as much of the country as it could, usually without success, Hitler and Napoleon among others. They are pretending with false consciousness that Ukraine is historically an independent nation like that of Germany, England and Poland etc and that Russia is simply waging a war of aggression. That is a dissimulation of historical truth, yet a dissimulation they would assert so far as to bring the world to the brink of nuclear conflict over Ukraine. Sharing Ukraine perhaps with a border along the Dnepr would be a practical political adjustment yet is one that so far the west has eschewed in preference to war.

The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine and that was partially matched by N.A.T.O. members. The unelected President of Western Ukraine wants to use U.S. and N.A.T.O weapons to attack old Russia as well as recovered Russian Ukraine targets like the Donbas and Crimea. Russian leadership apparently will stipulate and tolerate

to a certain extent N.A.T.O. weapons being used in Ukraine, because Russia too can use third party supplied weapons in Ukraine. Yet N.A.T.O. weapons used to attack outside Ukraine; to attack old Russia would be different. For Russia to be equal it would need to attack N.A.T.O. members in retaliation. Ukraine is the bone of contention and N.A.T.O. members and old Russia should be left out of targeting with missiles for parity. Evidently the British P.M. and other leaders want to argue against parity and equanimity and claim that Ukraine is already an independent nation that Russia is attacking and therefore N.A.T.O. weapons can be used to attack Russia. That is itself is a new doctrine with the premise that any nation regarded by N.A.T.O. as having invaded another can be targeted with N.A.T.O. missiles. The nuclear war at the end of the road is not a civil argument over property among lawyers.

Cause for World War III simplified

Fact Checking; "It Takes a Village" (Utopia)

 Was village life the compassionate conservative Utopia it is sometimes held by liberals to be? Villages did have muddy streets with Neo-feral pigs running amok about them eating whatever they could find. Outhouse were often within walking distance unlike modern urban areas where one need walk a mile to find a Starbucks with toilets that can be utilized for the purchase of a seven-dollar mochafrappe.

  Village life in European locales allowed accountant free peasant living since the local Nobel owned the land and crops produced by countless hours of toil and sweat. Women’s rights to labor in the home annually during their reproductive years followed the ecstatic pleasure of the Nobel taking first use of a newly wed wife on the wedding night followed by a few decades of servicing the oaf.

  Peasants received free military service opportunities with rival Nobels often being at war. Nobel lands were bucolic settings for the original cores of Hatfields and McCoys. Student loans were forgiven a priori for peasants because they received no education besides practical free on the job training in careers servitude swine herding, haying, mucking stables and such for the Nobel. Peasants in Utopian primitive communism shared equally in starvation during lean times when the Nobel’s wars cost the peasant’s winter food supplies in taxes to finance. The Lord Jesus was nearly stoned and thrown from a cliff in his own home village. Swift prosecution of non-conformist ideas with death by villagers saved the public the exorbitant costs of appellate judicial review.

Occasionally bouts of bubonic plague were liberally compensated with no-cost burials for villagers. Foreign imports weren’t much of a problem in not much existing with copious tariffs on goods costing fewer than 800 quid snipping that sort of direct trade off by the balls. Nobels knew the wisdom of stopping villagers from engaging in direct trade with foreign producers that cut out the Nobel middlemen that owned big table retailers.

Conclusion; Village life was somewhat Utopian although it was mostly village idiots that believed it smoking dope for aesthetic relativism.

 

Democrat Part of Deceit, Accusations and Lies

 Democrats are the party of accusations, lies and deceits. After they started the civil war to keep their tradition of slavery alive and lost they were kept out of the Presidential office until F.D.R.- a northerner, took office to usher in the Second World War. Sure Hitler was to blame, yet F.D.R. did lead the U.S.A. into a war that some genius might have found a way to honorably avoid through some clever theoretical politics.

President Truman faced the same challenge as F.D.R. in having a war thrust upon him in Korea and failing to find a way to develop a theoretical political way of settling the dispute without armed conflict. He did however fire General MacArthur who wanted to end the communist regime in China then. The present Chinese government in a way may be regarded as the legacy of the Democrat Party’s Harry Truman, who also dropped the first two atomic bombs ever used in war.

The Democrat Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson each got the Vietnam war started and burning strongly for more than a decade without being able to find a way to avoid or conclude it. Kennedy and Johnson also failed to do anything more than exacerbate the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs were notable incidents, Francis Gary Power’s U-2 flight was shot down in Soviet air space. No reduction of nuclear arms build up occurred during Kennedy and Johnson administrations-quite the opposite in fact developed.

President Nixon- a Republican elected in 1968 after  Democrat youth rioting outside the Chicago Democrat National convention could not prevent the party from running the Minnesotan Hubert Humphrey from taking the party nomination to lose in November, ended the Vietnam War with a gradual draw down and sent the late Henry Kissinger to Beijing (or Peking as it was known too) to begin diplomacy to develop normal diplomatic relations and economic ties. That process continued after Nixon was forced from office for the Watergate burglar, Nixon said that he thought the country was undergoing civil war.

President Reagan- a Republican, ended the Cold War working with Soviet President Gorbachev. He hoped to end the threat of nuclear weapons and to develop a united, peaceful Europe and world economic environment.

President Clinton- a Democrat, was convicted of perjury lying to congress. He took the Ukraine- the borderlands, away from Russia where it belonged, from the totally weak final Soviet President Boris Yeltsin in the transition to a post Soviet new world order. Of all the nations that ad there full independence restored by the Soviet troop withdrawal starting at the end of the Reagan administration, Russia was the only nation that lost land rather than recovering it, like Germany had for instance. The theft of Ukraine from re-emerging Russia  set the stage for the present Ukraine-Russia war.

Democrats under the Obama and Biden administrations built up N.A.T.O. eastward in former Warsaw Pact nations presenting an existential threat to Russia. They supplied vast weapons inventories to Ukraine even before the Crimean reconquista by the armed forces of Russia. Following the reconquista  a vast range of sanctions, dire threats and imprecations were placed on Russia and Russians-including seizures of the assets of Russian millionaires and billionaires, some of whom had economically benefited the Clinton Foundation. The countdown to conflict in Ukraine steadily built until climax after the election of President Biden.

Democrats elected just lawyers for President after Harry Truman’s one term administration. They returned to the successful F.D.R. model of lawyers who felt law and government structures were entirely malleable tools for Democrat Party power, in effect made to support Democrat party goals. The modern civil rights movements came to be understood as the anti-strait white male civil rights movement. Special interests rights were custom legislated. Antipathetic language became proscribed as ‘hate speech’. The concept of law as impartial justice that should prevail in democracy was lost.

 In democracy the purpose of the law isn’t to implement an abstract concept of justice or retribution. Its essential reason for being to to let individuals live securely and pursue their self-interest. In an authoritarian government alternatively the purpose of law is to reinforce the power and will of the ruling class. Though the democrats have not gone full-hog authoritarian or royal, that is the direction they are headed. Sometimes the particular genius of a ruling class needed to take power is to have the support of the masses in so doing. Plebeians supported Julius Caesar. His son Octavian known as Augustus was more  the most powerful Senator rather than emperor yet still required support of the commons.

After Charles Darwin’s publication his evolution theory and the rise of pragmatism and investigations into truth theory gradually people lost faith in not only the belief in God and the veracity of the Bible, because of its different creation narrative fro that of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, fascism developed in Europe and a concept that truth was entirely subjective arose. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics brought even the nature of reality to be questioned. Secularists might well believe nothing is real and that subjective epistemology and subjective perception actual determined what the content of the objective world is that was subjectively perceived. That idea was itself incomplete, and reality was not solipsistically homodox (is that a word?), it was instead heterodox though far more complex than was or could be definitively understood, even by philosophers and cosmologists.

Even so the popular notion that truth was self-defined and proprietary made lying more acceptable. Democrats gradually learned to apply the premise of ‘kill them all and let God sort them out later with truth replacement theory. With truth replacement theory it is better to accuse first, best and far more often than to be a passive defender with lame opposition denials to accusations. Political pejorative use-truths (ref Sartre) were justifiable and common. The big lie; the colonialist’s false interpretation of events, became normal for the Democrat Party and intensified following Al Gore’s loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election where after the party went full lunatic use-truth civil war with Republicans, though that was suspended for a time after the Sept 11, 2001 terror attacks. 

Democrats use-truths brought them to full accusatory mode on President Trump’s first term of office when they brought with all of their power the accusation of Russian collusion with Donald Trump to become elected. It was a ludicrous and false charge continued for years, followed by an impeachment and every possible charge they could send his way. Democrat Party lawyers continued their prosecutorial mode even running a former prosecuting attorney for President vs Donald Trump seeking re-election. For Democrats prosecuting Russia in  with all conventional weapons in order to win the court battle for truth (the Democrat Party has an historically false narrative of Russia’s relation to Ukraine) will continue until nuclear war is achieved and victory is theirs. With the existential criteria of subjective definition of truth the Democrat Party isn’t able to quit its prosecution of war for there is no other means (what is peace and sharing?).

Because the mainstream broadcast media and much of the main Internet social media corporations fill their ranks with Democrat Party affirmative action legacy employees that media entirely supports the Democrat Party narrative use-truths. Because Democrat Presidents founded so many wars and military conflicts (even President Obomba fomented several Middle East and North African conflicts and helped build up the anti-Russia approach for European and N.A.T.O. politics militarily) and are totally invested in war with Russia over Ukraine (possibly just in Ukraine) there is no main stream broadcast media opposition to the war as there was in Vietnam. American youthful voters and Democrat Party members are somewhat paralyzed into inaction in opposition to the party narrative and what is likely to develop into a nuclear war. The passivity of the left acquiescing to war-mongering leadership is a amazing yet edifying spectacle to experience. Maybe an explanation is the Democrat support for legal and copious dope to pacify the public.

Proxima Centauri B nine years Distant with Electro-Mag Accelerator?

 

Proxima B is the nearest planet in another star system that might allow humans to live on it with appropriate adaptations. Primarily that would entail creating a way to filter out x-rays from the sun. With conventional chemical rocket space craft it would require 80,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri B, yet if travelling at half of the speed of light the time required for the journey would be somewhere around 8 or 9 years. That 4.26 light year distance would not seem so far with initial electro-magnetic acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b#:~:text=The%20stability%20of%20an%20atmosphere,X%2Drays%2C%20as%20Earth

It is possible to create a very vast electro-magnetic accelerator somewhere within the solar system that would be 100-300 million to a trillion miles in length capable of moving a charged module habitat inside to half light speed. The spacecraft would coast the rest of the way and use ion engines to begin slowing down with the help of gravity fields of stars on the far side. E-mag accelerators may be temporal and exist just when launches are required and could be built in a variety of ways using solar and/or nuclear power sources, perhaps with solar system planetary configurations at optimal configuration to host participating fields. Just a thought.

Why Destroy the I.S.S.?

 Why destroy the Space Station instead of moving it to L-5 or L-3 for storage? Why did Biden-Harris give Space X a contract to destroy the I.S.S. by burning it up in the Earth’s atmosphere instead of lifting it up to L-5? Should N.A.S.A. have Boeing take up bodies for cremation on the station during its fiery descent in order to make a profit? At L-5 would the I.S.S. be useful as ballast for a tethered new station or for wreck ‘diving’ for future recreational astronauts? Is it as simple as putting up and taking down a pup tent? Does N.A.S.A. have so many places in space where people can live that they don’t mind destroying actual existing structure? What about sticking an ion engine on it for a slow boost upward to L-5?

N.A.S.A. seems to lack a high frontier psychology regarding camps and safe emergency places in case something went wrong and optimal plans didn’t develop without a hitch. Pioneers don’t treat frontier posts as disposable items to jettison as soon as they can build a new one somewhere else. Like old spare farmhouses of the west that were abandoned decades before when a new home was built, old forts and farm homes and space stations should remain in existence as just in case facilities.

The I.S.S. in safe storage at a Lagrange point might be used for some presently unforeseen purpose like being an anchor point for various kinds of telescopes or communications devices. Like an old English mansion in might have additions some day to give it a new use. One might set some housekeeping and construction robot to work in it and let out the atmosphere while new components are added. Just throwing away past projects is the mind set of urban consumers of a disposable culture rather than of those accustomed to frontier challenges. What would the first explorers of Antarctica have given for a safe, warm place with a food supply on their return from the South Pole?

Kamala Harris Wants a Soviet Approach to School Security

 

With another Democrat era school shooting in Georgia Vice President Harris has advocated for the Soviet state security apparatus of internal security including schools. That is to disarm the public and terrorize political opposition throwing them into the Gulag whenever possible. The late Soviet Union had great internal security because the public were too frightened to commit crimes. Democrats may admire the living in fear lifestyle with everyone effectively locked down. Plutonium was kept on shelves in an unguarded warehouse near Moscow with just a padlock on the door for security. With strict wage and price controls, being found with an unauthorized crust of bread in one’s coat pocket was enough to merit a five-year sentence.

One-party systems seek total control of the external social world as a way to enforce the absolute power of the state. Schools have great security with no violent crimes. Yet the approach is abhorrent to free people and one the U.S.A. should not follow. School security in the United States can be made emulating the way federal buildings across the nation developed security after the McVeigh bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City.

Democrats cannot be serious about school security with a King Canute approach to rolling back the tide of the Second Amendment with a command. Democrats are so myopic on their approach to politics that they fail to understand the consequences of their political acts when taking rash, short-term proplits. When the Soviet Union restored to national control all of the nations and properties it have taken after they came t power a half century after the end of the Second World War the only nation that was left out was Russia- President Bill Clinton arranged to wrest the Ukraine from Russia and deem it an independent nation, that it never before in history had been. That rash, importunate act was reinforced by following Democrat party U.S. Presidents unto the present day, compelling Russia to fight for its homeland when other nations including East Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Serbia etc had it given to them with the support of the West and N.A.T.O.

Perhaps Democrats sought to neutralize the nascent free enterprise based Russian state and turn it back toward communism by forcing it to defend itself against the encroachment and terrorism of the west. Russia had no choice besides renewing strongest possible relations with Socialist China and North Korea while Democrat Presidents in the United States were trying to rebuild union membership numbers and power. Democrat politicians have a Closer my atheist Utopian Soviet Union god draw I unto thee fatal attraction.

Vice-President Harris’ husband recently said, in so many words, that now is the time for Israel to surrender to the demands of Hamas to return to power and to have control of the Gaza-Egyptian border in order to reload with weapons for another round of war in a year or two in exchange for the return of 100 Israeli hostages. I believe that spouses of political leaders generally should not be unelected loose canons on deck weighing in on political matters. Yet the V.P’.s spouse did provide a window into the unreasoning of the Democrat presidential candidate for 2024 who probably shares the same opinion as her bigger spouse. Restoring terrorist hostage takers to political power must be the dumbest possible choice. The hostages unfortunately aren’t likely to be returned unless Hamas is beaten and they are returned in exchange for safe passage to a country without extradition. political opinions can have disastrous consequences for future Israel. Another Hamas administration probably would have more drones than it could find space for in its vast tunnel network to send in a while to blow up Jews in Israel. Iran is pretty good at manufacturing drones.