Mertz Met with Zelensky to Plan 2027 Counter-Attack Round 3.0

The German Chancellor met with Ukraine’s Leading Comedian in Chief to plan the 2027 counter-offensive against Russia, aimed at creating Lebensraum for Germany through Ukraine.

It will be a campaign featuring new weapons and missiles — a mini Operation Barbarossa. Ukrainian expatriates living in Europe will be rounded up and trained as super-warriors, charging concertina wire with berserker fury. Just a few thousand, or perhaps tens of thousands, will be lost. That is a price Germany is willing to pay.

Some are interested in Germany’s role in designing its first major land battle since the Battle of the Bulge. The Wehrmacht will probably not participate directly, except as covert advisers, battle planners and ordinance suppliers. The war is without question, senseless.

Germany declared War on Russia August 1, 1914, and again June 22nd 1941 to start a 1600 mile wide front of invasion from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and over the Ukraine. Maybe the third time's the charm as it allows Ukrainians to be the boots on the ground, yet is a principal in what may become the Third World War in 2027 or 2028.

Pope Leo's Card on the Iran War; Enter the Dragon Phenomenon

 Pope Leo's entry into politics on the side of the anti-Trump crowd reminds me of Pope Benedict's criticism of Muslim radicals and the subsequent vacating of the papacy by Benedict. The political realm is dangerous for Christians to form opinions about publicly if they wish to be consistent with Biblical precepts. Christians are generally free to comply with the laws of a nation if not in direct conflict with the Bible or their conscience.

Pope Leo is a U.S. citizen and subject to U.S. laws. His opinions regarding U.S. foreign policy are implicitly partisan opinions and subject to counter-attack by the President of the United States. He can mail in his vote in the next U.S. Presidential election from the Vatican. It is a sort of battle of the twin towers for rhetorical dominance- comparable to the battles between groups in Italy from structures like the leaning tower of Pisa in the Medieval era (12th century). War is a continuation of politics through other means. The better remedy to wars in a world with original sin is to lure the donkey forward with the attraction of greed and away from conflict. Appeals to better human nature or 'better angels' are effective  perhaps, with Christians and less so with the majority of people.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/stick-to-matters-of-morality-jd-vance-tells-vatican-to-stay-out-of-us-politics-amid-trumppope-row/articleshow/130250208.cms

There is a mid-term election this year and using 'unnecessary wars' is a big part of the Democrat's platform for the event. I got an email from Friends of the Earth this morning making those points. I saw Adam Schiff on television swelling his political self-promotion so far as humanly possible with an attack on Trump in support of a new war powers resolution vote- quite hypocritical for Democrats incidentally; in the middle of an undecided war- perhaps to encourage Iran and certainly as a key talking point for the mid-term campaigns.

The Pope did not feel the slaughter of Iranian civilians in a national uprising against the theocracy was sufficient justification for military intervention by the U.S. Even if he dismissed the ascension to creation of multiple nuclear weapons as something that could be peacefully resolved (an unrealistic opinion), supporting non-intervention to the mass slaughter of civilian protesters that was wasn't yet over is a kind of evil itself. One might not want to refer to that kind of acceptance as a gospel paradigm. Jesus referred to Jerusalem being destroyed 37 years before the event, and a million Jews lost their lives in 70 A.D. In the time, if a military intervention was possible then (and it wasn't), that should have occurred. Jesus said he would have saved the Jews if it were possible, yet they could not believe, and so they were lost.

Matthew 23: 29-37

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[c]”

Gemini-"The Iranian government carried out a massive crackdown on citizens in early 2026 to suppress an unprecedented nationwide uprising that directly threatened the survival of the Islamic Republic. While official figures are lower, some internal estimates from Iran's Health Ministry and leaked documents from the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) suggest the toll may have reached 30,000 to 36,500 deaths during the peak of the violence in January 2026. 

Why the Deaths Occurred (The Crackdown)

The high casualty rate resulted from a "shoot-to-kill" policy ordered by senior officials to "crush the protests by any means necessary" and spread fear."

Gemini-Pope Leo XIV, the first U.S.-born pontiff, has recently issued strong rebukes of President Donald Trump's rhetoric and the ongoing Iran war. 

• Response to Threats: On April 7, 2026, Pope Leo called President Trump's threat that an entire "civilization will die tonight" in Iran "truly unacceptable". He emphasized that such threats against an entire population are a moral issue and violate international law.
• Call for an "Off-Ramp": The Pope has urged the President to find an "off-ramp" to end the conflict and has referred to the U.S. military offensive as a "delusion of omnipotence".
• "No Fear" of the Administration: Following Trump’s subsequent attacks labeling the Pope as "weak on crime" and "terrible for foreign policy," Pope Leo stated on April 13, 2026, that he has "no fear" of the Trump administration. He maintains that his messages of peace and reconciliation are rooted in the Gospel.
• Rejection of War: In his Palm Sunday homily, the Pope warned that God "does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war" and noted that Jesus cannot be used to justify any conflict.
• Call to Action: He has encouraged individuals to contact their political leaders and members of Congress to ask them to work for peace and reject war. 

The President has doubled down on his criticism, stating he will not apologize for his comments and accusing the Pope of "catering to the radical left". -end of recap

Pope Leo failed to discern that politics does not invariably fit into neat little categories that can be reasonably decided on a purely Biblical basis. On complex issues, a church leader would do well to heed Wittgenstein’s dictum: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Before throwing his hat into the political arena, he should think twice and speak once — first harmonizing the various issues through careful study and understanding, rather than rushing into declarations and suggestions.

Take the Iran war, for instance. It was a matter of preempting the final phases of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran had already produced and stockpiled hundreds of kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% — a level with no credible civilian justification and only a short technical step away from weapons-grade 90%. Further enriching that stockpile to 90% would require relatively little additional effort, bringing Iran perilously close to multiple nuclear devices. People rightly care about such thresholds. Would Pope Leo have anathematized military action if it had been the Islamic State, rather than Iran, racing toward that same dangerous enrichment level while developing long-range delivery systems?

Philosophically, political leaders sometimes face Hobson’s choices — forced options where they must select the lesser of two evils, because inaction itself becomes the worst outcome. Pope Leo, however, was not in a forced option position regarding the Iran conflict. His are voluntary statements that muddy the waters. More carefully worded anti-war expressions would be better.

He could have stated that wars are terrible and that he does not recommend them perhaps elucidating suggestions as to how to contain the Shi'a government's will to have nuclear weapons peacefully. For a Christian leader, that is generally the proper limit of commentary. A thoughtful Christian may acknowledge that some wars can be just and moral, even while recognizing the profound weight of original sin and the immense opportunity costs that war imposes upon the peace we all hope would prevail.

In this case, the campaign to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons capability — a direct threat to the United States and Israel — qualifies as a just war. Separately, Hezbollah’s decades-long attacks on Israel from southern Lebanon, enabled and directed by Iran, provide their own independent justification. Israel’s operations in Lebanon to create a defensive buffer zone against these persistent threats constitute a just war in and of themselves, separable from the Iran nuclear issue.

Pope Leo appears to show greater tolerance for the left’s support of the Ukraine war and its refusal to allow any negotiated settlement that would let Russia retain the Donbass. European leaders openly pursue the westward expansion of the EU and would like to place thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of drones along the Russian borders. Hungary’s incoming Prime Minister Péter Magyar will vote to allow the EU to give Zelensky the €90 billion euro loan to fund two additional years of war.

Pope Leo was a partisan on Ukraine's side by default when he made a:

"Condemnation of "Imperialism": Pope Leo has stated that Russia is committing "evil" in Ukraine and, even before his papacy, characterized the conflict as an imperialist war designed to conquer territory."-Gemini

The entire Ukraine was part of Russia and the the Soviet Union for most of the 20th century. Historians new that wresting it away when Russia was recovering after 50 years of communist rule would bring about a war unless politicians were wise enough to share it.

In my view, Pope Leo demonstrated little understanding of Europe’s historic efforts to subdue or shrink Russia, the Venezuelan people’s struggle for freedom from the Chávez/Maduro regime, or the legitimate right of Israel and the United States to defend themselves against nuclear blackmail from an extremist Iranian regime — and against proxy attacks from groups like Hezbollah.

The world faces immense troubles in economics, the environment, and politics — compounded by violence, bribery, misunderstanding, fanaticism, and competing belief systems ranging from atheism and Islam to Christianity and socialism. Faith in God does not automatically confer political omniscience. Powerful leaders, even popes, require a circumspect, well-informed outlook if they hope to contribute meaningfully to a realpolitik balance that offers both stabilization and genuine prospects for human freedom and progress.

Securing Borders and Elections: Why Ideas Matter More Than Party Loyalty

Friends of the Earth emailed me asking for my signature on a petition against Donald Trump. They claimed he has started unnecessary wars in Venezuela and Iran. However, there were valid reasons for those conflicts.

Iran was enriching uranium to 60% — a level with no realistic peaceful purpose — and could relatively easily reach the 90% weapons-grade level required for nuclear weapons. Many Americans consider a nuclear-armed Iran with missiles capable of striking U.S. cities unacceptable.

Venezuela had been ruled by a dictator who suppressed free enterprise, empowered gangs and bureaucrats, and drove the country into economic collapse. Removing that regime offered a chance to restore liberty and opportunity.

I appreciate Friends of the Earth’s passion for the environment, but we must choose politicians based on ideas and principles — not personalities or party loyalty.

Even though Donald Trump’s ideas are generally preferable to those of the Democrats on national security, borders, energy, and economic realism, they are still not adequate on their own to directly correct the serious ecological insults to the Earth and its atmosphere. We urgently need a genuine policy of ecological economics — yet neither major party is seriously pursuing it.

Democrats, in particular, seem afraid to take clear, practical stands on critical issues: securing borders, verifying voter eligibility, raising wages for working Americans, increasing taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and managing a fair transition to sustainable economics as the economy rapidly shifts toward robotic and AI-driven production.

Instead, the Democratic Party has largely become a vehicle for anti-Trump hatred and cults of personality. That approach offers no real solutions.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Dow has risen roughly 1,500% while median household income has grown only about 30% in real terms. This massive disconnect, along with exploding public debt and wealth concentration not seen since the Gilded Age, shows how badly we need better ideas.

I support a strong, practical environmental agenda for a sustainable planet — but it can only succeed with a secure nation, secure borders, and a sustainable citizenry first. Without secure elections and secure borders, even the best environmental goals will fail.

Elections should be decided by substantive ideas and principles, not tribal hatred or personality cults. That’s why many Americans back Trump: not because of his style, but because — imperfect as they are — his ideas currently align better with the real challenges facing the country.

Divergence; Dow Skyrockets and Wages Stagnate for Decades

 It was remarkable when President Obama compelled Democrats to renew the Bush II tax cuts, and only Bernie Sanders voted against it. Social Security is set to become insolvent in five or six years, and politicians are paralyzed regarding fixes. Making everyone contribute a proportionate amount of income would fix it, yet the rich are effectively exempt. The populace has become used to not taxing the rich proportionately or even progressively and instead letting public debt accumulate — and that does not even make up for the loss of tax revenue.

The Dow has risen more than 1,566% since the end of the Cold War, while U.S. median income has risen only about 30%. Wages are largely stagnant or even in relative decline, while the concentration of wealth has reached levels not seen in human history — except perhaps in the British Empire at its peak.

A nation needs its rich to participate with an egalitarian spirit politically. Sharing the economic burden should be a privilege for the rich. The ancient Spartan system that Plato and Socrates so admired — which they saw as a model for the Republic, with a few tweaks such as placing a pair of philosophers as kings in the ideal society — was remarkably egalitarian.

Capitalism does value individual enterprise, yet lacking public egalitarianism and realism, it promotes accumulation beyond a rational level, even to the detriment of a nation’s economic well-being and that of its citizens. It is not a guaranteed “basketball Jones” that makes a virtue of greed. There is no formula that exempts the citizenry from having an adequate level of economic realism, such as pure greed for its own sake asked Gemini about that-

Gary- Could the Dow be over-valued? I recall when it was at 3000-5000 just before the end of the cold war. Now it often reaches 50,000, yet wages haven’t gone up an order of magnitutde to keep pace. How has the Dow become hyper-inflated while wages have stagnated adjusted for inflation since the end of the Cold Wat and for men in the U.S.A., since the 1970s?

Could the stock market crash without the economy crashing. A downward adjustment to 25,000 would be regarded as a crash yet it would seem more of a rectification to me.

Gemini-The divergence between the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and typical American wages is one of the most significant shifts in modern economic history. While the Dow has climbed from around 3,000 in 1990 to nearly 50,000 today (an increase of ~1,566%), real median household income has grown much more slowly, rising from roughly $64,000 in 1990 to about $84,000 in late 2024 (inflation-adjusted, ~31% growth). 

Why the Stock Market Outpaced Wages

Several structural factors have caused the Dow to "hyper-inflate" relative to labor earnings:

• Capital vs. Labor: Since 1980, the return on capital (stocks, real estate) has consistently outstripped the rate of overall economic growth, while the link between worker productivity and pay has largely severed.
• Global Corporate Profits: The Dow tracks 30 large, multinational corporations. These companies can increase profits by expanding into global markets or cutting domestic labor costs—actions that boost stock prices even if U.S. wages remain flat.
• Monetary Policy: Decades of low interest rates and "money printing" (quantitative easing) have driven investors toward stocks to find returns, inflating asset prices.
• Declining Labor Power: Factors like globalization, automation, and the decline of unions have reduced the bargaining power of workers, particularly men in manufacturing and trade sectors since the 1970s. 

Could the Market Crash Without the Economy?

Yes, it is possible. A "stock market crash" is a sudden, sharp decline in stock prices, while an "economic crash" (recession) is a decline in actual production and employment. 

• The "Rectification" Scenario: If stock prices have become detached from the underlying earnings of companies, a major drop (like your suggested move to 25,000) could be seen as a "valuation adjustment" or "rectification".
• Historical Precedents: In 1987, the Dow fell 22.6% in a single day (Black Monday), yet the broader U.S. economy did not enter a recession immediately afterward.
• The Wealth Effect: However, a massive crash often triggers an economic slowdown because it reduces consumer confidence and makes it harder for companies to raise money for expansion. 

Comparison: Dow vs. Real Wages

Metric	Late Cold War (c. 1990)	Current (April 2026)	Approximate Growth
Dow Jones (DJIA)	~3,000	48,185	+1,500%
Real Median Household Income	~$64,000	~$84,000	+31%
Real Median Male Earnings	~$47,000	~$60,000	+28%

Note: All income figures are adjusted for inflation to current 

Gary- P.S. (edited by Grok) With the world increasingly splitting into competing economic blocs amid sanctions, wars, and shifting alliances, the Dow — which has risen dramatically on the back of overseas investment and globalization — may face a significant downward rectification. A correction toward the 25,000 level is conceivable if multinational profit streams shrink and supply-chain costs rise under deglobalization pressures. At the same time, a more secure-border, domestically focused U.S. economy could see genuine improvements: tighter labor markets potentially lifting wages for many workers, reshoring of manufacturing, and broader economic realism that reduces reliance on public debt and overseas leverage. Whether this decoupling occurs smoothly remains uncertain, but the era of easy global gains for asset prices while median incomes stagnate appears to be ending. A nation that encourages its wealthy to share the economic burden proportionately would be better positioned for sustainable prosperity.

Prospects for Continuing Ukraine War Upgraded with Orban's Loss in Hungary

 Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is out after 16 years in office. The opposition party has won a super-majority, and a new Prime Minister is taking office: Péter Magyar (whose surname means "Hungarian" — "magyarok" is the Hungarian plural for Hungarians/Magyars). The people who have lived in Hungary since approximately 896 A.D. are known as Magyars. The populist Orbán was defeated by a rival populist with a different cultural spin.

Viktor Orbán was a supporter of the Russian position in Ukraine and blocked a €90 billion (roughly $103 billion) EU loan to Ukraine that was intended to buy weapons and sustain the war effort for a couple more years. In recent months, Ukraine had been reluctant to repair the war-damaged Druzhba pipeline carrying Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia. In March 2026, President Zelenskyy stated he would prefer not to restore it, citing the dangers of Russian attacks on repair crews and questioning why Ukraine should prioritize a pipeline benefiting a hostile actor. Hungary and Slovakia accused Ukraine of using the disruption as blackmail. Under pressure and through European Commission mediation, Zelenskyy later agreed to complete repairs by this spring with EU assistance, though he noted he could not guarantee the pipeline's safety from future attacks during the ongoing war. With the change in Hungarian government, Budapest is now likely to drop its objections and give its assent to the EU loan.

With the price of oil currently rather high — about $102 per barrel — Russia will continue to see increased revenue from selling more oil to Europe once flows resume.

Western European diplomats are the fundamental problem in reaching a conclusion to the war. Instead of loaning €90 billion for more destruction and death in Ukraine and Russia, settling the war directly — with borders largely in place except for a Ukrainian withdrawal from the Donbas — and investing that €90 billion in rebuilding Ukraine and Russia with new technology would be far preferable. Western European leaders, however, believe that Russian control of former Russian Imperial then Soviet areas in Ukraine (seized since 2014 when Russia was relatively stronger, not in 1991) is so advantageous that they are willing to spend at least a trillion dollars and risk World War Three to secure it, station troops, and deploy hundreds of thousands of AI-equipped drones on the western Russian border.

That paradigm is illogical, especially given the opportunity cost: the loss of peace, prosperity, and swift ecological-economic reconstruction of the region if forward-thinking eco-economists and ecologists are given real input.

Patch Paradigm for 2033 Social Security Insolvency

 A patch made by Gemini and I today; Social Security is heading toward a "cliff" in the early 2030s. If we do nothing, everyone—including the poorest seniors—faces an automatic 23% benefit cut. Most politicians argue over a binary choice: slash benefits for everyone or hike payroll taxes on every worker.

We’ve been crunching the numbers on a third way. By combining surgical "means testing" with a lift on the high-earner tax cap, we can protect the most vulnerable and buy the system at least 30 more years of solvency without raising taxes on the middle class.

The 4-Pillar Strategy

Our plan moves away from a "one-size-fits-all" entitlement and toward a system that prioritizes those who truly rely on it to survive.

1. The "Success Cap" (Means Testing at $50,000)
We propose a hard income cutoff. If an individual’s annual income from all other sources (pensions, IRAs, investments) reaches $50,000, their Social Security benefits stop for that year. While this only affects a small percentage of high-wealth retirees, it ensures the fund isn't subsidizing those who already have a comfortable private safety net.

2. Reducing Benefits for the Top 30%
The current benefit formula is already "progressive," but not enough. We would adjust the "bend points" to slow the growth of monthly checks for the top 30% of lifetime earners. This generates significant long-term savings by focusing payouts on the middle and lower brackets.

3. Lifting the Payroll Tax Cap
Currently, income above $184,500 (for 2026) isn't taxed for Social Security. We would lift this cap, applying the 6.2% payroll tax to all earnings. Crucially, to maximize savings, these extra taxes would not result in higher benefit checks for those high earners later on. This is the "engine" of the plan, closing over half of the funding gap on its own.

4. The "Poverty Floor" (20% Boost for the Most Vulnerable)
We don't just want to save the system; we want to make it better for those at the bottom. We propose increasing monthly benefits by 10% for the poorest 20% of retirees. This ensures that while we ask the wealthy to step back, we are actively lifting the most vulnerable seniors out of poverty. Social security is a social insurance program rather than a direct savings account.

Does the Math Work?

By combining these four measures, we create a "Progressive Rebalance." While increasing benefits for the poor costs money, the savings from the $50k means test, the top 30% reduction, and lifting the tax cap more than offset it.

The Result: This plan likely pushes the "insolvency date" from 2033 well into the 2060s. It isn't a permanent 75-year fix (which would likely require a small 1% tax increase for everyone), but it is an approximate 30-year patch that keeps the promise of Social Security alive for the next generation without touching the paychecks of average working families.

The European Union Doesn’t Sympathize with American Concerns About a Nuclear Iran

 The European Union hates President Trump. Apparently he isn’t enough of a malleable unit to their liking, and so they wish they had Joe Biden or a reasonable facsimile as President. The EU hates the Iran war because it makes oil prices rise. Even though the administration and Israel have real concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapons, the EU doesn’t care. They just want cheap oil and hate Donald Trump.

So I asked the well-known world geopolitical strategic analyst Dr. Hyrim Pinkerstrom what the likely outcome of the Iran war fallout between the U.S.A. and the EU will be.

Wasabi Tabasconi: Will N.A.T.O. remain a strong bulwark against Soviet Russians?

Dr. Pinkerstrom: No, not at all. The U.S.A. will no longer defend Europe from anyone—not even nuclear threats.

Wasabi Tabasconi: Winston Churchill said the only thing to fear is fear itself; are you afraid of the EU losing that courage? Cynics have commented that the only danger to Europe is Europe itself.

Dr. Pinkerstrom: Of course not. With the United States gone from interfering in continental affairs, the world will become a more peaceful and prosperous place. Germany and Japan will develop nuclear weapons and France will increase its stockpile, transforming from a force de frappe to a force de défense active. A number of peace agreements between Germany and France, and Britain and Japan, will assure responsible use of nuclear weapons in case of insult to the security interests of the greater co-prosperity sphere.

Wasabi Tabasconi: Germany and Japan were once enemies of the United States. To this day, many Americans oppose them having nuclear weapons just as strongly as they oppose Iran getting them.

Dr. Pinkerstrom: Some Americans harbor prejudice against Germany and Japan possessing nuclear weapons—racism still lingers in high places. The world would actually be far safer with a more multi-polar distribution of nuclear bombs. No one would feel jealous or underprivileged.

Wasabi Tabasconi: The former enemies of the United States that are regarded as American allies now are becoming alienated and siding with Iran in the present conflict. The media and deep establishment of the United States have regarded Russia and China- former allies, as enemies today. Where is the logic of trying to be consistent regarding positions of 'nembranes' flowing in different relative directions?

Dr. Pinkerstrom; You must be joking. Differential calculus of AI has solved that problem in Hilbert Space

Wasabi Tabasconi: I suppose Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons too in order to increase the balance in favor of peace?

Dr. Pinkerstrom: That would be the best way to keep the peace globally. Iran, Pakistan and India are the leading edge of peaceful nuclear programs. Wars occur only through failures to recognize that Europe has need of cheap oil, as British P.M. Starmer commented recently: ‘I am sick of Donald Trump’.