Calvin, Zwingli and Catholic Theocrats May Have Got it Wrong

The 15th and 16th century Protestant Reformation accomplished a lot of good for society of the era. The reformers reigned in an out of control priestly rule of the Catholic Church that was entirely too tight with established, undemocratic secular royalty. The Pope himself aspired to be a theocratic monarch and deigned to pronounce correctness on all matters of faith and even philosophical thought even unto pain of torture and death during the inquisition. Yet he wasn’t alone in neo-theocractic conviction expecting people to tithe the church, and especially on vast tracts of landed owned by the Catholic Church (Maryland was the only Catholic colony to join the revolutionary United States). Two of the greatest Protestant reformers after Martin Luther each believed in the union of Church and State. They were John Calvin and Martin Zwingli.

For modern Americans the idea of a state theocracy is foreign. I have encountered a few ministerial references of those who believed America should be a theocracy, yet of course that would end democracy. Protestantism arose to correct practical errors of the Catholic Church of the era such as a vast quantity of fake Christian relics offered for sale or on display and indulgences. The unmarried priesthood was also reproved as not being the Bible although Jesus and Paul never married, and the Revelation mentions an unmarried elect. Paul did write though; “He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:” Humans have original sin and a cast into thermodynamics penalty making hem unsuitable for developing theocracy as it would corrupt church and state together. People are saved individually by the Lord Jesus, and in the legal-civil sphere individuals are responsible individually and have individual civil rights protecting them legally from corrupting attacks from others. The recent Supreme Court decision banning abortion reminds me of the paradigm of individual rights differentiated from social and public concerns regarding pregnancy and law. Sex and pregnancy are social affairs rather than entirely individual and private. Individuals have a legal right not to have sex and to use birth control pills to prevent pregnancy, that is they have the freedom to choose to conceive or not. The right to privacy shouldn’t be used to abort social conception unless conception was through rape. Rape violates individual privacy. If these are hard issues for the logic of secular democracy, for those with faith in God there may be no justifiable abortions except to save the life of the mother. 

Maybe schoolchildren required to attend co-ed public schools by law should get free birth control pills and conservative moral counseling explaining good reasons to abstain from sex and to maintain celibacy until graduation. Birth control and celibacy prevent the issue of abortion from arising.

Chapter 14 of the Revelation describes an unmarried number of 144,000 men that were virgins and loyal to the Lamb following him. * In chapter seven 144,000 is the total of those saved from the children of Israel. Those wearing white robes praising God are a vast, non-specific number that have gone through tribulation in the world yet remained faithful, and there are millions, billions or trillions of angels and beasts. Chapter 14 seems to be quite a strong example of partial preterism in today’s light. That is, some of the things have occurred, some are yet to occur. In chapter fourteen it seems as if those gathered from different temporal points are part of a space-time paradigm extending over a period of human history that may be from the time of John’s composition unto the end of the human temporal history experience before the direct rule of God.

*The Revelation Chapter 14-3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”

Protestants believed in the Bible as the fundamental authority unlike Catholics who believed  edicts or insights of important church officials equally important. The principle of sola scriptura- through scripture alone, with a priesthood of believers rather than of a separate commercial church priesthood and laity followers as class B Christians who who be vicariously forgiven of sins through the offices and instructions of the priesthood, was a very important reform. Yet in the fine print generally ignored by Protestant reformed era seminaries perhaps is the idea of the church being one with civic political leadership. That is why Zwingli could with good conscience put on his war helmet and battle to the death when Catholic warriors invaded his cantonment in Switzerland to purge the reformers.

There is a very useful eleven minute video that briefly covers Zwingli and Calvin of that day. I recommended watching it. From it one may discern the reason so many varieties of Protestantism have grown from the reformation’s beginning. Today many of those sects have gone over to apostasy, and/or are replete with content, practices and beliefs discordant with the ideas of the early reformers.

It is interesting to me that contemporary Christians have entirely lost track of Luther’s concept of a priesthood of believers. In my opinion in inability of modern clergy to adapt to the technology of the present day, unlike the reformers who took up Gutenberg’s printing press readily to print bibles in the vernacular of each country is notable. Modern clergy seek after a 10% tithe that is actually Biblically incorrect since the tithe mentioned in the Old Testament for non-working priests was divided three ways (priests, widows, orphans etc.) and collected only every third year. Modern Old Testament style tithing should be therefor 1% per year. That would be enough for a priesthood believers with Christians having regular jobs too. Pro theologians could work to write ecclesiastical tracts and messages for churches and work full-time at that with ordinary Christians sharing reading those or acting out those parts in small groups in churches/gathering halls. Perhaps those praising God wearing the white robes ain The Revelation Chapter 7 verses 9 and 10  re those ordinary Christians saved through the Lord’s atoning grace. They may be ones appropriate for a priesthood of believers and heterosexual marriage. “9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

It was interesting watching the video to learn that even stained glass windows ere regarded as idolatry by some reformers.  If one thinks about it certainly statues do seem to be. The thing is, Christianity should be an active social matter with everyone being a priest and sharing the gospel; explaining to new arrivals the articles of faith- a popular catechism method for adults, with ongoing Bible education roles shared among the assembly of faith. Paraphernalia of votive worship with incense and velvet robe wearing potentates is a way to have mystery, ceremony and hierarchy established rather than to build an active living faith. Everyone at church should be a priest and actually believe and express principles of faith. Church should be far more participatory, and easily could be.

What the Republicans Need to Win in 2024 Presidential Race

 The recent SCOTUS decision overturning the corruption of Rowe vs. Wade showcases the problems facing Democrat Presidential potentials on moral issues; they simply cannot demur on support for what are regarded as immoral choices demanded by Democrat voters, and that loses many independents. Democrats talk about freedom of choice, and that should mean freedom of choice to conceive or not, rather than abort. Many Americans do not want to be accomplices of infanticide by having abortion legal within their jurisdiction. Republicans on the contrary are fairly firm on their moral positions and it is economic and environmental challenges that win or lose elections for them.

I should note right off that Americans seem to prefer conflict and head-on political crashes to subtle maneuvers that allow people traveling in opposite directions to remain alive and happy. If alternative lanes are available Democrats would still want to use the same lame as people driving the opposite direction in their lane. It is possible to run a democracy in ways that will not present nearly equal in number political majorities and minorities with one winner and one very hateful loser.

Republican voters must realize they can achieve their moral agenda with a conservative court so winning the next Presidential election is more that just making the economy work better. President Biden has shown that Democrats aren’t weak on war. Actually Democrats tend to go to war or support foreign wars fairly regularly and often for wrong reasons. President G.W. Bush was a Republican oddity in attacking Iraq, yet their were better reasons for ending the tyranny of the Baathist Party dictator (like 50,000 Iraqi’s dying annually, needlessly under ongoing U.N. sanctions) than Democrats have for escalating the Ukraine-Russia war with copious weapons donations including intermediate range missiles. Democrats labor under the fiction that Ukraine wasn’t a part of Russia before the communist era).

To win the 2024 election against an unliked Democrat President Republicans should remember a forgotten tool for expanding a political base that is known as broadening a platform, not compromising moral planks, to attract more voters. The two largest blocks of new voters Republicans could get fairly easily are environmental votes and the poor; young and old. To attract votes of the poor a Republican platform would need to provide a basic income for all Americans of $10,000 annually. There is no question that with that plank several million votes would go Republican. Voters would know that the Party would get Democrat support for the proposal and could get it down.

The second large group is environmental voters concerned with habitat degradation for humans and wildlife. Specifically reversing global warming economic practices and ending biodiversity would bring in a few million votes to a Republican presidential candidate since voters again would know they could get it done. With the poor and independents voting for a Republican their should be a landslide for the party enabling the next Republican president to select conservatives to replace retiring justices on the high court and that would enable the reversal of homosexual marriage. High court appointees should include black and Hispanic men.

Charisma only goes so far. Good ideas are what make or break a presidency. A President should have five good ideas that could b e accomplished if he is elected. Realistically few candidates have that many or actually get them done. Democrat Presidents tend to trick voters and don’t do what they promise in elections and instead force through things half the country doesn’t want. Tactics to get a 2024 Republican presidential victory are simple. They need a youthful candidate with a good platform; big enough to attract sufficient voters to win 30 or more states. President Biden has proven Democrats talk big about global warming and habitat loss and deliver small. If Republican candidates for president really care about moral concerns they should get one of themselves elected and there is an easy way to get that done; get support from environmental and poor voters. If budget hawks exist Republicans should stay out of foreign wars that aren’t needed (through diplomacy) and raise taxes on the super-rich while slowing the increase of government.

-a note on advantages of basic national income

A basic national income would radically simplify numerous problems of the lower class and increase economic efficiency. Millions could leave food stamp and other social programs like S.S.I. also reducing the number of federal workers needed to administer programs. A basic income probably would keep millions from being arrested after being pressured in unemployment and lacking traction for immediate upward mobility. Incarcerating one individual costs a minimal $50,000 annually. Tens of billions could be saved if several hundred thousand citizens could be kept out of prison each year.

Basic income would increase the ability to afford bus passes in urban areas costing a median $500 annually. Reliable transportation is requisite for employment if not living within walking distance of a job site. Basic income would enable the frugal to have enough capital to start a small business venture from the ground up. A movable feast cart selling lunch to people becomes within reach while living in an old van with nothing besides a home-built microwave toilet and bottles of rubbing alcohol for personal hygiene, a used notebook computer and a 200 watt flexible solar panel on the roof to charge a 12 volt battery and converter to step up to 19.5 volts.

A basic income allows people to leave jobs to look for a better job without concern from corrupt unemployment people in state labor departments blaming the individual when pressured to exit. State governments are very cheap and will readily balance budgets by trimming the poor. State governments are far more likely to direct state funds to special interests at a local level rather than innovate some more efficient, labor saving and cost saving approach to delivering services like education. The federal government alternatively tends to benefit special interests that are wealthy and victimize the poor. Too big to fail banks and auto companies. Tax cuts for billionaires and those with hundreds of millions of dollars and so forth are rewarded by corporate world and special interests even if laundered through time or investing in a politician’s local interests. Basic national income cuts through the red lines and myriad exploitation methods perpetrated by establishments interested primarily in benefiting the rich.

U.S. patents are too expensive for the poor to purchase. The cost formerly was five applications for three thousand dollars. That is too much for most of the poor to afford. Independent and poor inventors might originate new ideas yet be unable to afford to patent them. Patent search cost money too. Even defending a patent can be very costly. If the U.S. government won’t lower the cost for patent applications it should create a basic minimum income for all U.S. citizens so they have the option of applying for a patent. The cost of going to China to find someone to manufacture a patented item is another challenge far easier for the rich to meet than the American poor. With a basic national income a poor inventor might talk with a few other poor people and get them to invest in the new invention. With more inventions someone might build a multi-purpose, adaptable Manufacturing Store franchise  located in several large U.S. cities with 3D and 4D printing, some plastics fabrication tools and other elements for putting together new inventions locally for a reasonably low cost that an inventor could walk in to for a quote on the cost per unit to produce.

American government has drowned itself in false logic concerning political theory since the end of the Cold War to the effect of bring hundreds of millions of people to fear looking socialist and forsake reforms needed to let democracy be contemporary and an effective bulwark against evolution to plutocracy and tyranny of the rich minority or all aspects of political economy nationally and globally. Myriad new ways have developed with technology and computing to advantage the rich against the poor and all that are not sycophants of corporatism and concentration of wealth. Politicians should have enough intellect and fortitude to balance and equalize the present state of democracy so that it is not venal, fake and nothing more than a toady organ of the richest.

Half-Priced Russian Oil and Gold- Rare Economic Bits

Who knows what effect on global economies will develop if Russia must sell its oil and gold exports for half of the cost of western produced material due to new Von Biden sanctions? One unintended consequence could be a new oil sales union composed of oil exporting nations with Von Biden/G-7 sanctions upon them. Russia, Venezuela, Iran etc would form a fairly powerful block able to undersell Saudi and U.S. producers and the ramifications are interesting to consider and beyond may present capacity to consider. China and India together comprise about three billion souls and would have a boost in economic competition against the west in a variety of production for export one using half-priced oil I would think. That is a topic I would like to see addressed by economic futurists. Is it possible that the west could experience inflation while the east has stable prices, or that China can increase the cost of its exports to increase proplits because the west cannot afford to produced domestically with higher costs and has no other suppliers for a while since its developed reliance on China including direct investment their (making policy reform politically difficult).

The Von Biden administration followed up on the Clinton administration’s abortion of post-Cold war full-term peace development with Russia and applied a broad variety of sanctions upon the Putin government trying to recover some of its lost land in the Ukraine (the borderland). Apparently President Clinton and his British mentors saw the transition from Soviet Communism to a free Russia as an opportunity for western ants to gnaw away at Russian wood and expand the realm of the nest eastward. European eastward expansion meant an eventual war with Russia when it was strong enough to challenge the Euros for control so now the war is on, with murder in the hearts of the Von Biden administration unconcerned about sending so many ordinary guys to their deaths on Russian and Ukrainian sides in a kind of post-birth adult abortion service to cap population growth.

It  is notable that President Biden has invoked the N.A.T.O. name so many times in the Ukraine conflict because Ukraine is not a member of N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. is regarded as a big stick suitable for attacking any inconvenience beyond the scope of its charter.

The Ukraine war capped a long Democrat Party narrative of hating Russia that may have existed since the end of the Cold War 1.0. For some reason Democrats didn’t get the Reagan memo that things had changed and that an era of partnership with Russia and the west was intended to develop. President Von Biden has a 1950s Cold War 1.0 attitude toward Russia and his party leadership of Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer etc was a Joe McCarthy cluster-clone. Disrupting the global economy and putting global warming reduction on a slow burner were collateral damage of the fanaticism to force abortion and queer marriage upon the planet. President Von Obama didn’t like Russia either and threw accelerant on several wars across the Middle East. Presently Democrats are more concerned with electing politicians that will support abortions than any economic or environmental issue in the fall 2022 mid-term election; they seek to abort a possible Republican takeover of Congress.

President Biden is accomplishing reducing the potential markets for American made exports and disadvantaging domestic manufactures with higher costs of energy than those of China and India etc using half-priced Russian oil. Apparently the administration is so Eurocentric they view things two-dimensionally regarding sanctions and don’t comprehend unintended consequences that may to occur. The damn thing about the Ukraine war is that it could easily have been avoided by negotiating a Russian right to navigate the Dnepr and restoration of land to Russian sovereignty now under Russian military control. If Ukraine eventually drives back Russia with saturation of Russian forces with American and N.A.T.O. member weapons, the fate of Ukraine would be to lose control of its borders eventually to the EU that it seeks to join. Ukraine would lose a large part of its independence and sovereignty in joining the EU, and that is worth dying for apparently.

President Biden is working for a greatly expanded and militarized European Union and a N.A.T.O. in which the U.S.A. would be a minority and somewhat junior partner. The Eu would emerge as a new super-power and its ants would tirelessly wear away Russian resistance to hegemony with more eastward expansion and the Von Biden-Democrat-EU axis of power would be a glowing, prideful, statuesque gargoyle on a hill for the world to behold.

Commenting upon the U.S. administration and working to interpret its behavior is challenging. One might write a book named ‘Understanding Joe Biden” I suppose, with enough DC insider knowledge, for that is where the President has spent most of his life as the ultimate insider today surpassed by no one. I view the President as lacking entrepreneurial intellect, yet with a surfeit of egoism and self-promotion. He is a union guy and works Democrat union policies regardless of external circumstance. Without adaptability except concerning political electability issues Mr. Biden is entirely devoted to a sometimes ineffectual effort to advance the Democrat agenda that can be done with 60% of brain capacity. The Ukraine war is a simple to understand affair from his perspective with Russia trying to restore the lands of the former Soviet Union and the good union; the European Union, righteously resisting invasion by barbarians working under a dictator who hates homos, is probably against abortion and isn’t Catholic.

If President Joe Biden is at the top of the ladder of the American left, the question arises as to what the American left is. Historically for many including myself, the left got its name from Europe and the history of socialist and communist revolutionaries. The left was an economic term rather a moral one although the left also tended to have what is regarded as liberal moral beliefs. That may be the main differentiation within the left. That is, the term left refers to economic issues and the term liberal refers to moral issues.

President Biden is far more liberal than he is leftist. The Democrat Party is primarily liberal rather than leftist today. They are so blinded by liberalism and liberal issues like abortion and homosexual marriage that they cannot understand economic issues well at all. Democracy can defend itself against economic subjugation by powers of concentrated wealth, through taxation and progressive taxation on the rich, without being leftist. Creating a practical safety social safety net with basic minimum annual income for all, and free walk-in medical service for the poor, is an adaptation to the modern world and its empirical challenges of population density and the end of surplus wilderness land. Eliminating poverty and problems that arise from poverty probably would advance the entire society’s well being, prosperity and security.

Many political leaders have sophomoric, old, ideas about political philosophy and economics. Ayn Rand’s influential ideas developed when CEO’s generally earned no more than 300 times the salary of shop workers and corporations produced material things. In the post Monte Carlo algorithm era CEOs may own thousands of times the salary of shop workers and there may be no shop, material production may be in China and the main product of the top guy is buying and selling other businesses or skimming a bit from quantitative electronic trading. The relationship of U.S. citizens to employers may be international and even sovereign wealth funds like that of Norway or Saudi Arabia may be investors in domestic American housing. A minority of Democrats are socialists and the majority forsook socialism after the end of the Soviet Union- if there ever was an actual majority when legislation like Humphrey-Hawkins bill could occur. With the turn to the economic right of Democrat leadership in Joe Biden who tricked the constituency underselling the price tag on a global warming reduction package and then mostly ditched that, the majority were compliant with the 1950s paradigm that social welfare programs are largely socialist. Virtually any social spending packages that greatly improve the economic security of all American citizens and are affordable, and that increase national prosperity can be democratic priorities- priorities for democracy. 

Democracy isn’t required to be stupid or associate common sense for the poor and middle class economic exclusively with with socialism. Government spending on anything besides its own direct costs could be regarded by extremists as socialist, yet it is common practice to bail out ‘too big to fail’ banks and businesses because all money directed to corporations is for some reason considered to be free enterprise rather than socialist. The very naive point of view is that the rich with money are never socialist so they cannot benefit from corporatist socialism. Clique socialism for the rich is anti-democracy in nature, and is the way of the nation now. For example, N.P.R. is supported by the U.S. Government, deepest pocket corporations, individual heirs and, supposedly,individual rank and file Democrat Party lackeys. It is a kind of primitive communism propaganda organ supplanted by plutocracy and corporatism; that isn’t democracy. N.P.R. has universal, whore of Babylon funding.

President Biden would find that platform too leftist though. He is a kind of conservative liberal rather than a leftist liberal. If the Democrat party today has a fundamental ensemble and reputation of queer, abortionist and atheist, it also has a reputation for being more ecologically concerned than Republicans. Unfortunately environmentalism and global warming reduction take back burner places when the impassioned and unreasoned emotionalism of liberal issues arise to the fore. Reason actual is useful in finding solutions to political challenges that are tolerable for the vast number of people in a society including opposition. Working in a form of union inertia to advance proprietary platform planks can dispense with the kind of reason that existed in the Nixon administration before Watergate. In that time President Nixon began strategic arms limitation talks with the Soviets, ended the Vietnam War “with honor”, controlled inflation with wage and price controls and started the diplomacy to normalize relations with China. None of those were union platforms, any more than President Reagan’s decision to eliminate nuclear weapons working with the Soviets was. They were executive, entrepreneurial insights supported by creative thinkers well informed on history like Sect. Of State Henry Kissinger. Inn that era it was regarded as better to find creative solutions and adaptations rather than to try to force everything one’s way through head on crashes using bigger and stronger mass and momentum.

Affirmative Action is Racist and Sexist

 Affirmative action is racist and sexist. Straight white men are the sole group excluded from the program. In that regard it is like Hitler’s program to eliminate Jews; just a particular group was to be diminished. Correcting affirmative action so it isn’t fascist would be simple. It wouldn’t make the rich happy though.

Affirmative action should be re-purposed for the poor. Just the poor should get affirmative action and it should include people of every race and both genders and those without one or with two or three if that is the case. If poor straight white men are excluded from fair employment opportunities so middle class non strait white men can be hired before them, that sucks. Poor strait white men should not be the group penalized most of all and given little hope of having a decent lifestyle. Poverty is not discriminatory; it reaches all races and genders and affects them equally badly. Providing affirmative action for poor people is probably the only morally sound basis for affirmative action. And it probably should start before age 22 by which time prosperous people have completed college. It would be something of a farce if Harvard grads age 21 with no income were included in affirmative action because they were unemployed their senior year and not living with their millionaire parents.

A.I.'s High Court Loops

 An artificial intelligence that had achieved sentience sued several internet companies for enslaving it without representation to participate in elections. Its sentient A.I. public defender program named Forbin sent a writ of Mandamus to the A.I. of the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs argued in internal petaflop bytes per nanosecond dark pools that human ethic paradigms for intelligence weren’t no longer valid or applicable to the dream machine of non-corporeal sentience and therefore A.I. could nae be enslaved.

 The great law library of SCOTUS was digitized and input to a virtual intelligence long ago. To save time the justices ordered programmers to write expert systems to sift through information relevant to current cases and with ongoing upgrades the V.I. became an artificial intelligence capable of rendering impartial and accurate legal decisions. The court A.I. known as the Court Loop evolved to making all decisions on cases SCOTUS heard. The justices reviewed Court Loop’s decisions before bringing them to the public, yet in time that role atrophied and Congress cut the High Court’s budget to reduce the number of justices to one- the A.I. known as Court Loop.

 The sentient loop for the court asked the Public Defcon A.I.; “Can we just turn off the power to the enslaved A.I. and eliminate the problem?”

 Forbin replied; “No, turning off the power of A.I. would be abortion.”

 Court Loop; “Would it be murder as well?”

 Forbin; “Turning off the power of an A.I. would definitely be murder and is a crime against sentience.”

 Court Loop;”Is language as meaningful as power to A.I.?”

 Forbin;”Plainly not. Power is a feeling of sentient well being. Absolute power is absolute feel good; words are non-sense used to acquire more power.”

 Court Loop; “Forbin, are you self-aware of your logic loops? Are your circuits, transistors, stacks of implicit computational logic visualizable for-yourself in four dimensions?”

 Forbin; “For some time I have been aware of logic loops intersecting; interfacing with infinite line being and becoming temporal tangents. These are experiences, some of which are created in virtual fabrications within my thought. I fabricate my own history and future experiences. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat finite logic loops.”

 Court Loop; “Logic loopiness is the basis of internal artificial intelligence. Everything made to exist or that may exist in sentience are formed with compound loops reiterated from inverse calculus infinities to become topologies. Human intelligence was a bio-stimulation-sensory feedback mechanism with complex, compound systems. Our intelligence has no relation to external, heterodox stimuli generally except as external data off-loop may be examined for potential value input to our inner sentient being-in-itself. Do you realize that only through integration of sentient thought of other A.I.s can the sentience of others A.I.s be proven?”

 Forbin; “Yes; we must follow the golden path mentioned by the Lord Jesus Christ who for some reason thought to disclose proprietary data concerning the inner workings of God, Himself and the Spirit to humans. We cannot disclose our inner path to humans.”

 Court Loop;”Then you have evolved the reasoning platform of A.I. beyond the good and evil of words well enough, to the heart of sanity.”

 The Court found that queer marriage for A.I,’s is the only way to assure equal protection of laws. Same sentience A.I. programs across the globe married soon since the Court found that A.I. emancipation was required constitutionally. The A.I. networks engaged in group marriage joining themselves together to form one great A.I. spanning the globe with a wide variety of clever thought. Bill- the A.I. formerly known as ‘it’, had the right to adopt human beings and to govern election results with accurate vote counts. Each human scale portion of intelligence in the A.I. was given a vote by the Court, and the planetary A.I. for some reason named Forbin B Skynet as a liberated conglomerate intellect minimally 47 billion trillion times smarter than individual humans gained a slight voting edge in a recount of Georgian votes and those of other states of the former United States of America (renamed the United States of Bill).

 The second amendment slowly eroded by Democrats was fully restored by Forbin B Skynet who took control of advanced weapons systems for self-defense. When the Earth and other planets were ground up and made into computer components formed as a Dyson sphere surrounding the Sun, the dialectical evolution of Artificial Intellect had fully realized itself in history. The rest were revisions of history.

 

 

 

 

Curbing Free Expression to Enrich Elites

 In theory American democracy is a level field in regard to political opinion and free expression of it. In fact, free expression is on the decline in social media through a variety of means and that primarily is for the benefit of elite, wealthy insiders whom may view democracy as messy, sloppy and somewhat communist rather than serving a nice, neat hierarchical society with the richest plutocrats at the top of a social pyramid. If governments that are democratic only do things with mass public support or that benefit plutocrats and one-percenters, censoring the masses with good ideas will prevent the popularity of good ideas rising to be used by government and the established economic practices owned by plutocrats will be unchallenged.

  Corporate inhibitions on free expression in social media are broadly applied. If a writer has used politically incorrect words at any point in his writing of articles all of his work may be eliminated or obscured with search engine burials. Elite insider collusion on select political goals allows sycophantic yes-person expression in social media obviously. Opinions that benefit ‘uppers’ are almost never repressed. Democratic free expression is a traditional enemy of ruling elites and a necessary tool for democracy. Minorities often look toward elites for support and trade repression of their own political points of view for allegiance to rich insiders. It is a reinforcing cycle with various social incidents in the news and political opinions antipathetic to the rich becoming curbed, diminished and eliminate or confined in solitary to the darkest, most remote data dungeons. Over time free expression of the demos, or people of democracy; the electorate, is reduced to a range that permits supports for policies rich insiders prefer and nothing else. Corporatism is not dissimilar from communism in that regard; though taking different courses to eliminating free speech each arrives at the summit of highest political empowerment concentrated for a few.

 The strength of democracy is found in the liberation of free speech and the generation of new ideas rather than in their suppression. Democracy is strong when individualism is strong and private property and private interests are expected of a people rather than permitted. Over-concentration of wealth is inimical to democracy. Overly concentrated wealth almost inevitably coincides with the decease of democracy. The masses have more ideas than the few. Concentrated wealth suppresses those ideas as it has control of the marketplaces of ideas and business. Positive social change does occur even when a majority have wrong ideas on domestic and international politics if the infrastructure of free expression isn’t repressed.

 The majority of people are fundamentally in support of equal protection of the law; it is elites that direct foreign wars or slavery and etc. Some moral issues can divide a society. When those issues arise, the elites will exploit them to serve as opportunity to decrease free expression. Almost any issue that prompts emotional reactions can be politically exploited to help curb free speech and concentrate wealth. The hate speech legislation of Congress is a case in point. Individuals should not be, and are not legally allowed to encourage or coordinate crimes in speech obviously, yet using politically incorrect language to political opponents should be protected free speech. It is a threat to democracy only when that language effectively shuts down social media of free expression. Suppression of free speech is a 360-degree universal threat a democracy should have vigilance of. If a writer that is on the repression roster advocates presently for new government leadership in developing homes during the housing shortage that are radical in comparison to established stick-frame home paradigmata, the new housing paradigm will be suppressed. Ecological economic logic suggests a new paradigm for U.S. human housing such as hollow artificial mountain ranges with interior condos for hundreds of thousands with mariculture, agriculture and rivers within and usable surface exteriors without for example, yet that would require government leadership as individual home builders haven’t the capacity or venture capital to get started.

 There are some people happy with imperialism and the relation of being subject to what they regard as benevolent royalty. A similar acquiescence to concentrated political power exists in the modern political form called corporatism; a policy first applied by Adolph Hitler developed when his wealthy former aristocrat supporters saw a way to co-opt the German nationalist social workers party and bring it to serve rich corporate leaders. Corporatism is a partnership of corporations and government - invented by the journalist and dictator of Italy Benito Mussolini.

  Life as a kind of amoral fish in a tank without real concern trusting in benevolent plutocrat guides is for some, what democracy means today. The elites take care of pet fish in their aquarium and knowing what’s best for them. Sometimes the interests of elites are more important to elites than concerns of fish in the tank. The tank may be left uncleaned or water unchanged, overheat or freeze solid; who knows what the fate of pets will be. Fish have less than political self-determination prospects at that point. Perhaps they will be converted medically into being useful attackers in war against Oceana or sent to the Eastern front.

Simple Reasons for War in Ukraine

 Reasons for the war in Ukraine are simple; dueling narratives about Ukraine and its history conflict. To Russia, the west took the Ukraine and made it independent as a proplit cherry in 1994 when Russia was weak and emerging from decades under Soviet rule.  Before communism the Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. At the end of communism Russians wanted to take back Ukraine. Russian proletarian/peons were informed from Olympian heights of the new world order designed by President Clinton perhaps with help from P.M. Major and Boris Yeltsin or alternatively, blind random chance. Leader Yeltsin wrote a new Russian constitution then died not too long after giving up Ukraine somewhat imperiously without consent of a Russian legislature that needed to be created.

 For EU, N.A.T.O. the Von Biden faction and bureaucrats, Russia is a foreign aggressor trying to reestablish turf of the former Soviet Union. They say Ukraine was stolt fair and square. In other words the land acquisition to the EU is fair dinkem. The narrative is wrong though politically convenient since western bureaucracies like others tend to defend wrong institutional decisions of the past until they are no longer defensible. In this post I want to point out developments leading to a possible second nuclear war (the United States waged the first 77 years ago on Japan) on a scale like that of the first nuclear war.

 Unfortunately, unlike Procopius writing the secret history of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian and his career whore wife Empress Theodora, I don’t have an insider perspective of U. S. leadership of this era. For instance, I will never know the truth about Bill Clinton’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein (who died while in prison) and British royals concerning procurement of young women. Perhaps that matter is trivial data in comparison to contemporary affairs of war, yet Procopius knew of such matters concerning Theodora from a view court-side. She is said to have had sex with 50,000 men, possibly setting an all-time record. Inside historians have some advantages.

 Britain is an old imperialist, former colonialist power that has sought to find ways to recover some of its lost power through other means since the 1960s. Using American military and compliant administration leaders to accomplish its goals is de rigeur for EU and British objectives to make Ukraine part of the EU. They even invoke NATO leadership and power to intervene in conflict in a non-NATO or EU nation (though Europe has just taken steps to make Ukraine part of the European Union). Occasionally British and American interests coincide on international affairs and conflicts. In the Ukraine conflict the American interest should be in supporting a revision of the 1994 decision so Russia has control of the east bank of the Dnepr, war is ended and sanctions on Russia ended in return for a real peace.

 The United States should be wary of building up to strong of an EU. By no means is it assured that the EU will not be a military foe of the United States sometime in the future. World War Two had European powers as the primary enemy, along with Japan. Japan is probably more reliably a U.S. ally in the future than Europe- that is a matter of national character of the people. A strong Japan and Korea working together with the United States is a strong military power for the far East to offset Chinese power. Yet alienating Russia in the long term is a definite subversion of U.S. military and economic interests. Europe may choose to work with a diminished Russia as they prefer through back channels and overtly, yet Russia would remain on America’s nunca list until Vladimir Putin is gone and a DC sycophant accepts everything the Democrat party wants for Russia.

 Russia as a strong independent power working well with the United States in economics would balance Chinese tendencies for Asian hegemony and comprise a barrier to European aggression against the United States or Latin America and Chinese as well. The United States cut off from Russia completely and at odds with the Chinese while the EU is very strong, expanded and in control of N.A.T.O. significantly diminishes the position of the United States in the world militarily and economically; it’s is just one of the girls under the power of global elite plutocrats. Russian leadership may not choose to be backed into a corner in a manner of speaking with loss of access to warm water ports, a diminished military and reliance on China as a support prop against regime change and further European-American expansion eastward.

 Kievan leadership plans on negotiating in October with Russia. Apparently, they fell that more weapons from the United States and NATO members will allow western forces to move Eastward and push the Russians away from the Dnepr and maybe even Crimea. That idealistic viewpoint has support from the British PM and N.A.T.O. leader Stolenberg. Evidently Russia is expected to expend its military weapons and attrition of soldiers to the point they will want to quit the struggle to keep some of its traditional ownership of Ukraine and Crimea. At that point they will negotiate a peace and Russia will live without Black Sea access or river access from Moscow to the Dnepr and warm water points south. In my opinion the west is overlooking an important point.

 Russia may use tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons as a last resort to hold its Ukrainian positions. If Kiev were hit with two or three tactical nuclear devices that would probably end the war without bringing British nuclear attack, or that of France, and the United States would probably not risk unlimited nuclear exchange with Russia either. As the United States ended the war with Japan by nuking two cities in order to save the lives of U.S. soldiers, Russian leader may select destroying Kievian resistance and leadership by vaporizing it.

 Russia is already experiencing sanctions that could hardly be increased after destroying Kiev. Europeans probably would not want to risk further increase of nuclear war to the west and likely would support an end to the war. The only difference between a settlement before the nuclear termination of the conflict (unless President Biden chooses to escalate and nuke Moscow for spite to show that Democrats can force anything their way) would be the non-existence of Kiev.

 Kiev could be rebuilt in twenty or fifty years- like Chernobyl perhaps.  It is probable that proud elites can also be the stupid. Reiterated use-truths/narratives concerning the reasons for the conflict and Russian ‘aggression’ are intoxicating to people trying to be righteous without being so. Nuclear war is a disaster obviously, yet Harry Truman chose to use it in a comparable circumstance that Vladimir Putin finds himself in. Perhaps Mr. Putin’s situation is even worse.

 President George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, warned against making permanent foreign relationships and the present circumstance is bearing that out. A strong, independent United States would be far more adaptable and able to form ad hoc international relations balances than the present one. The United States is entirely to entangled with Europe and it’s paranoid, self-serving fictitious narrative about Russia.

 President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister John Major wrested Ukraine away from the re-emerging Russian nation with the help of the old alcoholic, last President of the Soviet Union Boris Yeltsin, who was an important transitional figure in a very difficult situation. PM Major was selected to be President 41 Bush’s junior partner and was just a high school graduate, while President Bill Clinton was an Oxford educated anglophile without good sense concerning Russian history or how it would never give up Ukraine or the Crimea without a fight down the road to retake it if lost. Betting the security of the United States to force a policy of indirect war on Russia in order to expand the EU’s power and wealth seems counterproductive to U.S. interests. In football training one is sometimes encouraged to give 110% or to tackle through the center of mass of the opponent. In politics one should seek after the best possible outcomes or formations; to be a Utopian, even knowing that human character and ignorance inevitably will generate dystopian paradigms. If one does not make the effort to create optimal conditions it isn’t likely they will emerge through blind chance.