Turkey Had No Troops in Combat in W.W. 2

Turkey had no combat troops in the Second World War. Because they were on the German side in the First World War and lost much of their empire as a result, they had to be neutral for most of the Second Great War. President Trump was silly enough to criticize Kurdish neutrality in the Second War as a premise for betraying their trust and allow the Kurds to attack them yesterday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/trump-defends-allowing-turkish-offensive-on-kurds-in-syria-they-didnt-help-us-in-ww2.html

President Trump should not use such bad history dissimulations flippantly to justify international treachery and potentially war crimes by the Turks- they are the people that perpetrated an Armenian genocide after all. It is unfortunate that President Trump is so d__n rich and stands to make a profit off the Presidency like the Democrats. If there was anyone electable besides  who was running that wasn't a Democrat the President would probably lose the 2020 election in a landslide.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/11/schweizer-mcleod-hunter-biden-helped-china-acquire-strategically-sensitive-assets/

Kurds apparently were on the allied side during World War Two. They had people under British command in Iraq.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/9/1891413/-The-Kurds-did-help-the-Allies-in-WWII

Treacherous policy changes done with no public debate and carried out like a burglary make one wonder if the President is having his strings pulled by foreign puppeteers. President Trump may have essential airhead blonde syndrome with  inflated. narcissistic self-opinion of his I.Q. and intelligence. In pursuing his own family economic interests and land holdings overseas he threw American Kurdish allies to imperial wolves. He should donate Mar a Lago to charity to show his contempt for land-owning that he finds a fault with the Kurds since they actual want a homeland to live upon. 

https://www.newsweek.com/us-troops-syria-turkey-1464727

Short-sighted an reversible policy like abandoning the Kurds may be of financial value to the President, yet it is harmful to American interests. Imagine what U.S. Middle east policy would have been if the Kurds hadn't aligned their interests with those of the United States. The President cannot be so ignorant of the history of Germany and Turkey/Ottoman Empire as to want the Turks to swell back into those spaces. 

It is unfortunate that the U.S.A. has leadership choices between corrupt, decadent evil party cadre at war on half of the people of the United States through other means,  seeking to flood it with illegal aliens, and a golden blonde narcissist. Hair color doesn't make one instance of a human brighter than another.

The bottom of the barrel defaults to lead because intelligent folks may not want the responsibility for 21 trillion dollars of public debt. 

Sartre, Camus, Existentialism and Marxism

Sartre's major works haven't communism in them. It is a fact that he wrote part of The Critique of Dialectical Reason in the Soviet Union- in 1958 I believe it was, yet that work isn't about communism. It is existentialism in a social context. It is a brilliant work. He blew out an eye while writing the 700+ pages…a dedicated writer.

In the Critique Sartre described the way people interact as a bunch of individuals with an existential framework. Later, in the 1960s or 70s he was interviewed in a book titled; Between Existentialism and Marxism. In my opinion Sartre realistically analyzed the continental location of France between the Soviet Union and N.A.T.O. forces to the west (he had been a prisoner of war in the Second World War) philosophically. Maybe he wasn't for Armageddon on the Seine. He considered the phenomenal and existential situation of France phenomenally, as an existential circumstance. In my opinion Sartre was the earliest transitional intellectual figure leading post-Stalinist Russia in a new, synthetic direction.

Sartre never joined the communist party yet he certainly was in bed with them sometimes. He seemed to want to keep his partisan red street creds yet I wonder if that wasn’t a bit of a Trojan horse that would let him influence east and west alike toward existentialism, phenomenalism and social self-reflection by the masses such that they would be conscientious and aware they could make society for-themselves, better.

The split with Camus seems by consensus to have been one about means to revolt to socialism- violent or non-violent. Interesting since Sartre himself was probably the last guy to practice violence. 

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-camus-and-sartre-split-up-over-the-question-of-how-to-be-free

My Opinion of Karl Marx's Work

I read a couple of Marx's books a long time ago; Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. The material was also covered briefly in a Sociology course (101). Karl Marx was a brilliant sociologist- of that there is no question. His analysis and description of the problems England had in his day were on the mark. He understood the problems that England experienced during the Industrial revolution when so many 'peasants' were forced off rural land and migrated into London and other cities to work in the factories.

The factories had bad working conditions generally. Nowadays in the U.S.A. there is the federal Office of Safety and Health and several other ways that work conditions are not allowed to be too oppressive and unhealthy. England had nothing like that and people worked very long hours including children and sometimes women. That was what Marx saw and described when he was working at a library in London.

Marx like American revolutionaries had no care for aristocracy. There were still a lot of royal governments in Europe so his wish to revolt was unwelcome in the nations he had been kicked out of. Marx was also Jewish and Jews had an identity crisis in Europe in that era and hoped for a nation of their own to live in since they were victimized by pogroms in Russia and other countries. Marx had a bifurcated political motive for revolt. I think some Jews like Trotsky and some of the Jews that were leaders in the German revolution near the end of the First World War had a desire to revolt as a substitute for having a Jewish state to move to. Some Jews sought to establish a Jewish state in Europe. Perhaps one can compare their troubles to that of the Kurds. President Trump recently dropped them cold and was of no help in establishing a Kurdish state. It is a good time to do that and Turkey and Syria could have been incentivized to give Kurds land and recognition in exchange for 2x the land they give Kurds from annexations of Syrian land that few would be heartbroken about the Assad government losing some land.

As I understood Marx, he was a great analyst yet ironically a fairly uncreative economist. When he associates the capitalists with the aristocracy as their lap dogs, he might have been a modern talking about the relationship of the broadcast media to the 1% that owns the media. Marx felt that capitalists were the next phase in rich powerful minorities oppressing the majority. He was right about that it turned out.

Plainly Marx was not a good designer of a new economic system to replace the aristocracy and capitalism. That is a problem the Democrat party has today; they just aren’t good at reforming capitalism to make it more egalitarian and to pay off public debt and restore the ecosphere to health. A democracy works best with robust free enterprise enabled through all of the people having adequate start-up capital normally.The Communist manifesto was written by Marx for a fee, yet it was more of a work for hire than a free exposition of his own thought. He wrote it for some Communist group- I don’t recall the name, and it became popular. So Marx was a good analyst, historian and sociologist with a misapplication of Hegelian metaphysics and a non-functional economic program.

Democracy has all of the tools it needs to raise taxes to a high enough level that wealth and power wouldn’t be over-concentrated to the diminution of democracy. It could reform capitalism with some regulation to make it serve the people and restore the ecosphere. The trouble is that Democrats aren’t too well informed about ecological economics and actually just want to be like republicans themselves with lots of wealth and adequate decadence and immorality.

In a democracy the people are sovereign rather than a tiny minority as in aristocracy or plutocracy.. The people need to actually use their power to prevent concentration of wealth and power if they want to be sovereign. Certainly royals were not reluctant to rule and benefit themselves more than the people.

Taxation is a part of a government. The people cannot expect government to provide free services. I would look around and see original sin as responsible for social ills, rather than forced redistribution incidentally. Redistribution is something of an obsolete concept anyway since capital in many ways isn’t easy to redistribute. I am more for changing the way capitalism works and to regulate it so it serves everyone equally well as citizens, rather than special interests and those destroying global and national ecospheric health.

Communism had to fail, it hadn't a functional economic system for progress. Marx had theories like value added and alienation of labor obviously, yet those phenomena don't require communism for correction. Marx saw everything that was bad and leaped to the conclusion that it could all be fixed in the communist system. Communism works directly against individual initiative and creativity- it doesn't really evolve well so much as keep everything more like ancient Egypt- unchanging for thousands of years with a few pyramid projects and ruling elites over-seeing everything. Capitalism without intelligent regulation is like a plague of locusts consuming the ecospheric health. No system of economics can replace intelligent leadership with good ideas in a democracy. If capitalism is failing now (concentrating wealth and destroying ecosphere health) it is because government hasn't good leaders and is unaware of how to lead to reform.

Shouldn't Some Auto Insurance Be Pay-Per-Mile?

Shouldn't some auto insurance be pay-per-mile or for when the vehicle is used rather than monthly? If there are people that would buy an electric car or jeep if they could afford it some people might not want to pay for insurance every month on a vehicle used just a few times a month or year? Some people would not be willing to shell out $100 a month for auto insurance when they just might only use the vehicle a day or two for transport of supplies, and ride a bike to work, or boat, the rest of the time.

Retired people might be a prime group to benefit from pay per mile auto insurance that might be more like a credit card's structure- even some with no annual fees. I wonder if pay per mile auto insurance presently exists?

About the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction

Analytic truths are self-consistent without reliance on something besides the internal logic for truth. Synthetic propositions involve something outside the statement. They are somewhat more like algebra with variables that can make a statement true or false depending on what they are. So the logic of math may be implicitly true (if it isn't false), yet mathematical statements may be analytically false. True math statements require verification, or something beyond themselves- for axioms or whatever, at some point need to be accepted as true for the rest of the math to follow. That premise is why Quine thought the synthetic-analytic distinction wasn't valid, so far as I get from reading the article on the analytic-synthetic distinction. A synthetic proposition that everyone knows is true such as "the Earth has been around a long time" is like a math axiom in just being accepted as true with some verification from experience. The epistemological criterion of the analytic-synthetic distinction is unavoidably challenging like Descartes' paradigm from the Meditations on a Method- verification of anything including experience originates inwardly and is an association of ideas and percepts with thought. Self-standing truth is God- everything else requires verification through association. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Matthew 27:22-25 and Moral Responsibility

 Matthew 27:22-25 seems like an assumption (a claim) of legal and moral responsibility for the execution of Jesus. Though they were a necessary enabling act for the worldly execution, since Pilate was agreeable to letting Jesus go, the Jews had no right to take responsibility for it was pre-destined by God. God knew people are doomed to work evil because of original sin. The history of the Jews in the books of the prophets is a great exercise in futility as well as faith. The consequences of the execution could have been said to be the destruction of Jerusalem with a million deaths that followed in an apocalypse, yet also the Lord's victory over death and actualization of the other prophecies. The Lord was the greatest prophet of the Bible as well as the Son of God. God can sort out the issues of free will and responsibility better than mankind. The end of the old covenant and transition to the new was costly. Redemption of those of faith in the Lord from the criterion of original sin through his atoning sacrifice is the greatest, or most meaningful event in history concerning human destiny.


Matthew 27-

22-Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”

23-Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”

But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

24-When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”

25-And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

A Method for Learning Philosophy

Reading western philosophy is a life-long project (that one can complete generally by about age 40 with a lot of reading. Start with Plato's books where he narrates the dialogues and conversations of Socrates. Then proceed up along an historical timeline all the way to the 21st century. There are numerous books summarizing Western philosophy such as those by Will and Ariel Durant, Betrand Russell and Frederick  Copleston.. Read primary books by famous western philosophers and learn for yourself what ideas they developed, and how those ideas built upon one another's ideas constructively;each philosopher had a place in history. Some such as Socrates, Kant, Hegel and Hume, Berkeley, J.S. Mill and Jeremy Betham are essential reading. One may read people like Schopenhauer and Nitzsche for more depth, and eventually move into the Vienna circle era and with those associated with it developing formal logic. Sartre was a novel expositor of French rationalism continuing in the tradition of Rene' Descartes. Aristotle , Liebnitz and Frege developed logic. 

Linguistic philosophy is based on logic and the structure of words and meaning, and that is great stuff and useful in numerous areas today with such obvious applications as in computational logic. The twentieth century was something of a renaissance for philosophy with epistemogical inquires using formal logic, inward and outward meanings of words and objects shedding light. Classical ideas about nominalism and pluralism, knower and known and so forth were informed with ideas from modern physics and logic. 

William James and John Dewey continued practical applications of philosophy. America had people like R.W. Emerson and C.S. Pierce yet Saul Kripke, P.F. Strawson and W.V.O. Quine wrote informatively about the mind/language/external reality interface with logical analysis. Eventually while reading philosophy one should read a few of the works by great historians such as Arnold Toynbee (A Study of History) and then read in a third thread the major works of Eastern philosophers (Nakamura's 'Ways of Thinking of Eastern People' is good) such as Confucius, Lao Tzu, Sakyamuni Buddha, and histories of the founders of the major and minor religions such as Mani and Manichaeanism, Zoroaster and Muhammad. 

One would do well to keep a King James version of the Bible around and read that forever, here and there as the spirit moves one. There are innumerable stops on the way of reading history and philosophy together, such as the history and life of St. Augustine, neo-Platonism such as Plotinus (with the Enneads), Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Empedocles and so forth. There are even pre-Socratic philosophers with great ideas; for example, Parmenides and Heraclitus. It is necessary to learn a scientific history of cosmology and quantum mechanics as well. Philosophy does exist in a real Universe with quite a bit to consider. 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNmENSiview