Christmas

Whenever you talk about putting the Christ back in Christmas, I can't help but think I would rather put Saturn back in Saturnalia.

What would Machiavelli Do?

The first order of business is some sort of treaty with Russia. That within itself is a deeper issue than can be discussed here. The Ukrainians need to be abandoned in favor of allies who did not support Hitler during WW2. The military balance with Russia has inverted from the Cold War days, and their conventional capability is not strong but their nuclear one is. American nuclear development was initially a response to Russian conventional superiority, now Russia lacks this and retains nuclear weapons as a trump card against the U.S. But we would have to settle accounts. Of all the things we learned post-Cold War with the opening of the archives, this much is clear- there never was a missile gap or a serious threat of the Iron Curtain extending westward. But McCarthy may have been correct in many of assertions regarding communist influence but then its a question of how much respect one pays to freedom of speech.

On the 'Yellow Peril' Version 2: The Chinese do not have a navy to match ours. It appears they are trying to build one, yet America required a half-century cold war of military spending to build its forces. China will not catch up for a long time. It’s a major head-start. In any armed conflict, China lacks a nuclear force of any size to threaten the U.S., and the PLAN/PLA Air Force would not doubt be destroyed without offering much resistance.

All major nations: Europe, Israel, India, Russia are under threat from terrorism so cooperation between them all would go a long way. You fight terrorism effectively in the international arena and with small precise forces.

The United States would then pursue a peaceful settlement of the Syrian Civil War, with Bashar signing away his alliances with Iran and Hizbullah in exchange for the U.S. To cease supporting the anti-government forces in his country and the carrot to offer him would be intelligence cooperation on cutting the jihadists out of his country. US forces could operate in a limited fashion in North Iraq with an eye to keep the Kurds safe while diminishing ISIS.

Ever wondered why Middle East or Afghanistan has exceptionally retarded borders? The Sykes-Picot Agreement. America is attempting to enforce borders drawn by the same red-coated idiots our forefathers fought a long and bloody war to over-throw. History is ironic in the extreme. People arguing for the partition of Iraq seem to think that the current constitution ignored regional autonomy or that a division would magically end the existing tensions. Neither is the case, and either way you slice the pie, you will end up with a very messy desert to the Second Iraq Conflict. Keep this in mind: the Sunnis and Shias are killing each other over a disagreement about who should be Caliph. The Caliph ceased to exist during the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. The ultimate question dividing Sunni/Shia has existed since the 7^th Century. The Ethnic divisions in Iraq date to Ottoman-Safavid Wars.

Iran has had much time to prepare for war with the U.S and any military confrontation with them has to have this in mind. Operations from northern Iraq could threaten Tehran. Mutual defense agreements with bordering states are a plus. The Iranian military could easily fall back its own hinterland, but any attempt to cut the straits of Hormuz would require large numbers of men and expose them south of the Zagros Range. Destroying these forces in a potential war would be necessary. The Iranian response would mean terrorism across the region. But with ISIS pushing to Baghdad the Shiites there will be distracted. Kurdistan should be supported, even at the cost of Turkey. Kuzestan is ripe with Sunni tension and there has to be a better use for some of the Gitmo inmates somewhere. Israel could be told to deal with Hezbullah, which it could do, thus rending the Iranian response useless. Iranian terrorism is not a threat and neither are nukes. The biggest worry in regards to Iran developing such weapons would be a nuclear arms race in the region with Saudi Arabia developing nuclear weapons to combat the Iranians, and what you then have is the most religiously extreme Salafist supporting state in the area with nuclear weapons and only a slight grip on power to prevent these weapons from going to the same people that carried out 9/11 itself.

Of course, Machiavelli would probably be confused as to why a country that was recently discovered across the Atlantic was in the middle of Mesopotamia.

Of course, Machiavelli would probably be confused as to why a country that was recently discovered across the Atlantic was in the middle of Mesopotamia.

With leadership like William 'I sure Ain't Jefferson' Clinton, Vice Commander in Chief George 'Constitution Burning Bush' and Dick Cheney, we are sure to bungle every conflict. With people like these running the show, such wars are inevitable, and the blow-back from each of these administrations would be enough to challenge any president, let alone the national joke currently in office.

Relationship 101

Common Decency Is No Longer Common

-Don't bear dead weight. That is the job of casket bearers. If its dead, Let it be. Every demon inhabits their own hell.
-If someone treats you as a mistake, let reality do the heavy lifting when you know you are in the right. Only a sociopath feels no remorse or regret.
-Hate is the easy road, and carrying grudges indicative of a weaker nature unfit for survival.
-Passive abuse is still abuse. People who excuse their own actions via situations really believe in a sort of ethics that is not worthy of the term. Anyone playing the victim card is a few aces short of a full deck. Pity is a dangerous emotion in either direction
-Sometimes forgiving is the only route for a mature person. If you can't do this, good luck in life because life itself can be far harsher than anything one person can do to you
-Heuristics are useful. If someone does not fit what you know to be a rationally and healthy reaction, hit the road and refer them to a professional.
-Sharing your body with someone and then never speaking to them is generally a sick setup. Death is final. Cutting people off right and left is a great way to lock yourself in the very negative states of mind that produce personal and interpersonal problems. Self-fulfilling prophecy is a sad truth. If you talk to no one you have dated, this usually means there are two sides to the coin and perhaps you are part of the problem.
-If you throw someone away, do not be surprised when they move on. Only children at the pre-operational stage are incapable of realizing actions do not have consequences. If someone gives you their best and you give them your worst, don be surprised when they figure out they might deserve something better.
-Take care when you have someone's heart. If you lack the ability to pick up on emotional ques from someone you are sleeping with, take steps to increase emotional intellect.
-Don't mess with someone's ego or money. People are not means to an end, and if you treat someone like something that has expended its value, you will likely get a bad reaction.
- A fight is a nice dance in which two angry people prove just how bad that state of mind is
-Get an animal before you expect unconditional love
-Apologies, when issued, should be given a chance. There is no interaction between two people that will not include hurdles.
-If someone is hurt when a break up happens, it means they cared. For all you know, you were a peak experience. Be careful who you seek advice from in these situations because it could be that those you rely upon were never able to form the attachment you are severing. Do not treat an uncommonly good partner like something common.
-Time will put everything in perspective. It may take a lot of time, but if you are a functioning person with a conscience you will not forget the wrongs you have done another person. Honor promotes good sleep. Only death is final and if you seek this kind of end with someone who loves you, you will likely end up dying alone or relying on your own children to care for you when they themselves should be living which you never learned to do.
-Pulling away from another person in stress means that you are only capable of being a good person during fair weather times. People are supposed to grow together, and anyone using variations of the 'its not you, its me' approach are still stuck in the teenage years mentally. Don't be surprised when you end up with more of the same when you demolish that which was different.
-If you have been single for a long time, take care to re-develop those skills with the person you are with. Real love is a learned thing especially in regards to romance, and what one sees as a child from one's parents will set the course for what one thinks is healthy.
-feelings change. All things have impermanence. But don't expect anything genuine to go away on a whim. Common dating advice is only fit for common people.
-If genuine emotion scares someone away, or you think it might, that should scare you away from them. Fantasy and reality are very different in this regard. If you seek an endless platonic ideal in a partner you will miss out on many genuine people along the way.
-Love is different in each interaction. Do not waste time on romantic notions of the past.
-Break ups are isolating times, but only a malicious person does so in a manner which is disrespectful and takes none of the other person's needs into account. 

Historical Amnesia

How did we get here? Bad philosophy. Someone said that a long time ago (Rand). Her solution was a belief in a mythic capitalism. But why can’t America find the way out of this edge we have crossed over?

On Being Civilized

Generally speaking the first cultures who settled along river valleys did so after many generations of subsisting in a horticulture environment. Settled life gradually adopted intensive agriculture and developed a government, some say in order to enable people to do this. There is a loss of health which is apparent in a comparison between hunter-gathers and their counterparts living in cities. Historically speaking, there was always a large mass of non-settled peoples who chose not to live in this sort of arrangement: Germanic tribes to the north of Rome, Laplanders in Scandinavia, or peoples from the Central Asian Steppe. Recently, this has changed with the last hunter-gather non-settled peoples being pushed to the absolute margins.

Benefits to living in society depend on the specific nature of the society in question. But generally, they are easy access to food which you do not have to kill or grow yourself. On the other side of this coin there is a loss of agricultural and hunting knowledge which makes on dependent on the supply chain, and in the case of the modern West, Just in Time delivery. This could cause problems in a crisis, for example most Americans do not even have the relatively simple skills involved in growing a vegetable garden which got their grandfathers or great grandparents through the depression or that allowed people to supplement their diet during rationing imposed in the Second World War.

If the medieval age of faith was overthrown, it has been replaced in turn by a level of trust unknown in non-first world countries. The belief in the goodness of man has enabled some to gain absolute power over the use of force, and has led the rest to simply trust that this will be done in a just and even handed way. Justice here is meant as a sort of impartiality and respect for the rule of law which should be the guiding principle of any social contract.

The question of the sacrifice of freedoms is an old question. Thomas Hobbes viewed stateless society as that of a war of all against all. That is, every person was thought to be so self interested that he would simply do what he wanted unless held down by an authority so vast and terrorizing that he could do nothing but submit to it. Hunter-gatherers appear to have a vast amount of free time; the sort of back breaking labor that the peasant is subjected to in the first societies was unknown, as well as class distinctions. The Peasants after all only existed because there was enough food to allow them to be born and fed; the life of hunting and gathering is one that exists on the margin of starvation. Civilization gives humans the power over environment, and in a time-obsessed modern society in a post Ford/Taylor world it gives the illusion of power of the fifth dimension. Or at least, gives us the pressing sense that the time between waking and sleeping must be accounted for by socially acceptable behaviors such as work, school, approved hobbies or avocations.

Hegel

It seems the formula of any conspiracy documentary is Carmina Burana playing in the background, with a bunch of out of context quotations, and usually a reference to the Hegelian Dialectic. Well, here is a summary of what Hegel presents in his Philosophy of Right

Hegel
    Hegel wrote during a period of romantic thinking following the Napoleonic wars. His chief view is that of upholding the status quo. Like all thinkers, we went through a period of development. His writings form a trinity, with the philosophy of right being the political part with a corresponding logic and ethics. He ends up defending the system of his day while upholding a pseudo-metaphysical view that mankind must develop into a spiritual being through education, take his place in society, become a political being by living in a state, and then act out the force of god in history which he sees as the thesis/anti-thesis duality for which he is best known, and most misunderstood.
    The Philosophy of Right (as it is usually called) begins with a discussion of the concept of the will exercising itself though social relation. A person is only truly free in society which is opposed to the ideal of freedom which in its platonic idea is seen as a state of nature. Hegel then discusses the ethical life. Ethical life encompasses all and he discusses all of this in relation to the state. One is at a disadvantage when reading Hegel and not having command of German. He is not a first rather author, like a Nietzsche or Schopenhauer and seems to cloak in language in academic verbosity, while not crossing the line of an Immanuel Kant and inventing words out of thin air. It is useful to define some terms while discussing his work. There is the concept of Einzelheit, the immediate individuality which confronts that which is before it in nature. Dasein is the phrase for existence, later used by Heidegger to define 'being'. Aktionen means the right of action, which is part of what Hegel means by rights. His discussion of freedom follows. Hegel is an Idealist philosopher in the most literal sense. He goes so far as to resurrect the Ideas of Plato. He says freedom is usually wanted in the abstract. That is, people want the Idea of Freedom rather than its actuality. He thinks that institutions are made up of individuals and hated by those who desire for freedom because they do not want actual freedom and see these agencies with their distinctive characteristics as made  up of individuals. He thinks that the state is the end of all humans, and serves the force of god in history. His discussion of contracts is the discussion of wills in relation to ownership. People are assumed to be persons even if they do not act like them. Law presupposes that all those governed by the laws to be persons. Hegel defines this as such. Hegel uses the term geist to denote mind, but it can also mean spirit. Personality contains in general the capacity for right. Sachen is the right of persons and things. Sitte means custom. He sees custom as a natural part of society. 'Custom is what law and morality have not reached, namely, spirit'.
Personality is that which acts to overcome. Right is primarily that immediate existence which freedom gives itself in an immediate way. There is a difference between his concept of will and the general will of Rousseau. In relation to property ones will becomes external to another will. Each will is distinctive.
Social institutions have their own character but are made up of individual wills. Rationality consists in general in the unity and interpenetration of universality and individuality. Hegel opposes general will. This means he has issues with the common social contract paradigm. Property is part of a persons self-concept. Property is the “embodiment of personality,” says Hegel. Contract and exchange define individuals. Institutions arise from competing wills, do not have a will of their own, but manage to find their personalities as institutions. Habit, is learned, but appears 2nd nature. Education is the art of making human beings ethical according to Hegel. This is where his view of Right comes into confluences with his views of Spirit. Ethical sphere- includes everything. The person is to be transformed from a natural one into a second spiritual nature and this becomes habitual. This is his goal of education. His idea of the dialectic is that of opposing forces acting on each other to produce synthesis. This is misunderstood in common times to be a sort of strategy by political elites. But in reality Hegel views this as happening on all levels- from the person all the way up to the society.
    In his Master versus slave dialectic, Hegel basically says  a person should have a consciousness based on life for itself rather than being confined in its own mind. This is the meaning of the master and slave dialectic. This makes sense. But Hegel creates a few problems in his philosophical career. The first would be his legacy. The Right  and Left Hegelians confused the Hegelian legacy in the extreme by literally being on opposing sides during the revolutions of 1848. His attribution to the Marxist camp is highly doubtful and even more so with the Fabian socialism that characterized the intellectual class in England for the reminder of its history until the present day. Hegel's influences and influence on Prussia is complicated. He appears to have simply formulated a theory and seen to it that it fit the powers that be. Prussia was highly centralized, full of censorship and practiced conscription on a mass scale even before it became common in the Napoleonic Wars. Hegel speaks of international law in the closing and seems to predict some of the 20th century developments in that area. The main area where Hegal errors is that he preached a metaphysics which elevated collectivism to the extreme. The state is the actuality of freedom. It is upheld by the state being the destiny of individuals. He does not put violence into the equation and believes people should be. 'Union is the destiny of individuals'. Hegel makes many dangerous collectivist assumptions. He thinks that humanity should be taught to reach its highest potential, which for him is to be a citizen of a state. Why is it human destiny to live in a state? It is clear that 90% of human history was lived without a state, so it is unclear why this would be the case. Fundamental Hegelian error is in assuming that the state is the actuality of the Idea of Ethics. He seems to criticize idealism in regards to freedom, but does not turn this criticism against his own idealism. The problem with Hegel is that he is an idealistic philosopher. God is the logic of History. Why is history intertwined with the notion of god? Again, God is not really defined but is simply used as a sort of stock phrase. He is attempting to say that history has a grand rationality. He is defending the idea of progress. In the end, Hegel is saddled with bad translators on top of unclear and bad prose. It is doubtful the English-speaking world ever would have been able to appreciate even the literary greatness of a Nietzsche without Walter Kaufmann's translations.