Friends and words and race and "-isms"

IThis post is about race. There are two portions: one is about history and the other personal.

Principles in human relations are often discarded in deference to "business". This is the basis of slavery, which is an historic basis for business and a business in it's own right that still occurs today. Business included war, so government, military and even religion were tightly integrated for most of the history we know of, because of the evolution of tribal to civil society and because of the need to ensure security.

Similarly, the historical consequence of losing a war is dispossession and subjugation. Throughout history, whole cultures have vanished due to conflicts, having been unable to secure the areas of their habitation.

In the United States and other modern countries, this started to change. But only two generations, in my grandmother's time and just beginning, two generations ago in these modern countries. And there are large parts of the world where this change has not occurred.

Principles, the basis for civil society, have been advanced in a way that human rights and dignity have been extended to the most vile people imaginable. This is because these vile people, although vicious, brutal, criminal and murderous, have rights due to them as a basis for modern society.

There is a very good article by a man named John Mohawk that discusses race, the foundation for racism. He traces a significant amount of modern racism to the Roman church, whose papal authority could in turn imbue kingdoms' rulers with divine imprimatur.

In essence, this church endorsed the dispossession and subjugation of non-Roman Catholics by the Catholic-endorsed kingdoms, much in the way the Roman citizen had certain privileges that non citizens did not. The first people to be so attacked were the Irish, who were also some of the first "races" to suffer this new type of onslaught. Then, the Canary Islanders, then mainland Africans.

The term race has evolved over time. Currently it refers to "phenotypes". In the era discussed at this point, several hundred years AD, it referred to cultures/linguistic groups and nationalities. The article by John Mohawk links this rolling series of dispossessions to racism. It happened that non-Catholics looked different. They were freckled, or darker. Non-Catholics were less than human therefore they could be disposed of as seen fit: tortured, killed, dispossessed, enslaved, all with papal blessing. Similar attitudes were held in Islamic controlled regions, and a common African racist attitude persists where Eastern Africans hold Western Africans inferior for this reason.

Every area of the world has it's racist pseudo-anthrophilosophy, where various peoples have various shortcomings or strange abilities. Unfortunately, these only obscure the truth.

As the European expansion and consolidation moved forward, Mr. Mohawk asserts, the association darker-pagan-expendable became ingrained. The pattern had been set, such that at the time of American initial settlement, it was nearly automatic. One of Columbus' first orders of business was to kidnap Caribbean natives and ship them back to his imperial sponsors.

The condition of the average European was poverty. People, serfs, peasants, etc. and the land "went together". The ruler/owner of the land owned the bulk of their output. As a result of some early adoption of various common laws, people had some rights, but not many. The thrall, or slave, had even fewer. There was competition for various favors from the landed nobles, who were "noble" based on the extension of those limited rights.

More rights and privileges were granted when it alleviated pressures and produced popular support, which included the provision of able bodied men to fight the nobleman's battles and extend his influence. It heightened the adherence to one's ruler to convey a sense of "Us and them", capital 'U' us. Racism served that purpose: making one army believe they were superior to the other, particularly blessed and righteous.

This pseudoChristian-Europeanism is now referred to as "white supremacism", based on the most recent propaganda of that ilk which was expanded and adopted as some type of actual divine mandate. Europe is not alone, of course, various supremacism occurs in the middle east, caste system in India, and there are similar belief systems in Far East Asia.

But any of these of course hold no bearing when held up to scientific study. Because these belief systems are not fact based, but are mechanisms to help ensure various armies wouldn't bolt and run, and that they would feel justified in fighting to expand the holdings of their ruler, paradoxically killing people who were more like themselves than these for soldiers were like their rulers.

Kurt Vonnegut used a wonderful phrase in one of his books, but I don't recall which. 'Breakfast of Champions', maybe: "Flipping them orts with their cane", describing the 19th-early 20th century tycoon who would take the briefest of moments to execute a one handed putt, chipping a discarded crust of bread on the street towards a beggar. It is the quintessential 'trickle down', the essence of relationship between "noble" and "peasant".

This may seem "apologist", it is not. It is to demonstrate the utility of racism as it is applied by ambitious people. They created these divisions as suited their purposes as social controls, then left the half-baked theories implanted in their subjects to fester and breed.

Questioning the reality of these divisions, racism, ethnism, culturism... this seems to happen almost by chance, but once the question is raised, the "-ism" is slowly erased, supplanted by truth. The truth shall set us free, so to seek it is to seek freedom.

The world of humans, on the whole, can be vicious and brutal. These old ways, the ingrained historic programming, are a fallback: only two generations away at this point, they are still ready for activation. These are powerful motivators and powerful identity carriers, but they work in a world based on greed and ambition above all else.

Can we imagine someone witnessing the brutality of one group against another-- the conquistadors against the Incas perhaps-- and imagine them thinking "did Christ really die so that at might do this?". It is easy to imagine, but the reality undoubtedly made dissent very risky.

Where does one go, where does one go, with such ideas? These are the ideas that when spoken aloud gets one hanged, shot, abandoned our otherwise put in harm's way.

So that is all of that. Read native American authors like Vine DeLoria, Jr. for excellent research and commentary on modern racism.

I'm going to tell a personal story, it is true and so I will eliminate actual names.

When I was young, my mother had a lady that came to do the cleaning. She was African American, and I loved her. I still love her, I love her because she helped take care of me.

My mother had a disease that made her life difficult and she felt hugely guilty for that also. Having this help was a blessing for her.

The drive that this lovely lady made to come work at our house was a long drive. When I think about that, I realize we helped her also. She had a difficult situation at home, and eventually divorced her husband once her son grew up.

My mother had been taught by her father, who worked for the railroad, that we should live by the words in the Declaration and Constitution with respect to equality of humankind.  As a result, he did not tolerate racist attitudes or language, my mom told me does of him helping all manner of folks during the depression, and my mother also worked to ensure people with racist attitudes were not among friends of the family.

(Having said that, she was not fond of Muhammad Ali, whom she thought was very vain, but it had nothing to do with his phenotypical characteristics.)

My father found the whole subject of racism somewhat amusing in the abstract, and was repulsed by it in the concrete. His experience was different, he knew full well the attitudes of various people. When I became older, I recognized why he reacted the way he did in certain situations with certain people that we should happen to meet, and then when I became a teenager, he would parody racists in a way that was very amusing. It was his way of making sure I knew people with those attitudes were cartoonish at best.

At the time of this story, the cleaning lady's son was my age: 8 or 9 or so. We did refer to her by her first or last name preceded by "Ms.". As I tell this story, it is very personal and really very brief, occurring over an hour or so, but this is important.

I know now that people who lived in my small town where I grew up (in a northern state, a middle class area) had very different, ugly, attitudes about race. But at that time two very important people around me were my mother and this woman who came to clean, one was white and one was black. I could observe that was unusual in the area where I lived, but that was the way it was and that was ok.

In fact, it was unusual in the area where I lived to see *any* non-white person, and my first encounter with racism was to be a result of that demographic. It has changed considerably since then.

When she came to our house to clean, she would from time to time bring her son. He was energetic and happy, more animated than me, but also quiet like me, so we could do things together. We'd go exploring in the creek to catch tadpoles, skip rocks and explore in the remaining trees around the nearby park.

The park itself was rather sterile: it had been a nice forest, but it had been flattened and turned into a playground with swings and such. We preferred to play in the trees and creek, looking for crayfish and other odd things. We would walk across the park, to get from one part of the creek to the other where the bank did not allow walking.

He and I were doing this one day, talking a bit but mostly remaining quiet, and a kid came up on a bike. He slammed on the brakes and yelled something, a name. This was a word I'd never heard, and it didn't make sense to me.

The kid was scrawny, buck-toothed with kind of a vicious face. I had not seen him in this park, so I picked up a rock and threw it at him. Skipping rocks was one of my favorite things. In this area, there was a lot of slate, flat and sharp, and it was easy to throw. The kids next door used to start rock fights, so I knew how to use this brittle stone to get them to back down, and I threw it as hard as I could.

He was a little far, but I could hit him. I didn't really want to get in a rock fight just then, but I did want him to go away. So I threw it arching over his head, landing well behind him so he could see how easily I could hit him if I wanted. I yelled at him, I cannot remember what I said but the gist was for him to go away, and picked up another rock, carefully selecting one and measuring the next throw. The desired effect was achieved, he was frightened and rode off as fast as he could.

I turned around and looked at my friend. I remember asking, "Aren't to going to do anything?" as I did this.

Then I saw how he looked.

He was a strong young man with a lot of energy, but he seemed to have shrunk. His shoulders were rounded, and his head was drooped. He seemed to have shriveled in front of me, and I could not understand it. That kid on the bike was a pipsqueak compared to us.

All I could think of was to get him to our fort, a stand of trees with a rocky depression in the center, where we could talk in private. But he didn't want to talk about it. So we started doing some things, I gave him a thing to do, to help fix the fort, so we started to dig it out a little further on one side pulling out stones.

I was upset. This was my friend, the son of my mother's friend. But he had withdrawn into a place I couldn't reach him. Also, I felt responsible, I didn't know why. I couldn't remember that word, it seemed like a silly sounding word. I was angry, and confused.

Some other friends of mine came along. I introduced them to my friend and we started to talk. They were a little surprised, but just because it was so unusual to see a non-white person. I told them about the jerk in the park, and how he called US names and how we might need to pile up rocks in case he came back. They were game for that, and so the conversation shifted. The kid didn't come back, so we left after a while.

That young African American man went on to do several things, for a while he was an NFL football player: not a star, but was paid to play. But he was successful at the things he did.

Many years later, when my mother called me to tell me his mom had died of a heart attack, I sent him a letter. I was very sad at the time to hear this, but at the same time I had no doubt that I now knew someone in heaven who would remember me.

My mother has since passed as well.

So that's three generations now since things began to change. It will take a while, I think, but it gets better and better. Forward motion, maintaining forward motion, is the key to moving it ever closer to the goal.

The global dynamic vs. the local tyrannic

Something that is interesting about the Bible is not what it acknowledges, but what it doesn't acknowledge.

What doesn't it acknowledge? That, somehow, pagan theologies rose to supremacy. The natural spiritual condition of mankind seems to be pagan, until otherwise divinely informed.

Do not believe this is an argument for the embrace of the various flavors of neo-paganism, much the contrary. Hinduism is probably the most evolved pagan tradition, which ultimately resolves in the thought that the dozens of deities are "manifestations" of a single divine being: ultimately, paganism resolves to monotheism.

Respecting the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the natural condition of all mankind. This is the conclusion of the founders of the United States of America, although the full implementation has yet to materialize nearly 250 years later.

In the same way that the believers of the Bible move forward in dogged monotheism while surrounded by paganism, it often seems the United States moves through the world without recognizing that the majority of people are ruled by some manner of dictatorial regime who regards "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a laughable notion.

Comparing the founders' simple epiphany to the social reality in Europe, where the settlers that became Americans originated, it is a revelation indeed. The societies that cast off the bulk of trans-Atlantic adventurers were ailing. They had placed their outhouses too close to their wells, causing disease outbreaks. They had placed all of the power in the hands of landholders, who milked tenant farmers relentlessly. There were no new sources of revenue other than those that occurred when outlying areas were invaded and enslaved. If the outlying areas inhabitants fought off invasion, trade negotiations occurred between the representatives of the tyrants on either side of the conflict. As predicted in the bible, the rich got richer and the poor poorer. Business as usual, and nowhere was it stated that people were somehow entitled to life, liberty and certainly not the pursuit of happiness because they flatly were not.

The reason for this blog post is that it is still the case that in most places in the world, this still holds true.

The European tyrants were sponsored by the church, which endorsed their reigns as though approved by God. Conflicts with Islam, which occurred due to the clashing material ambitions of kings and caliphs, strengthened the identification of Europe with the church. (This is an important understanding, that most of the modern political ills in the world result from early rulers overriding  their own religious mandates in pursuit of corporeal advantages, but in the current context this is digression. If the God of Abraham is shared between entities, there is no reason for them to be in conflict, but of course the implementation is tainted due to the corporeal machinery involved, this being driven by the ambitions of rulers.)

The church and analogous religious organizations in other systems are important entities, and their importance endures. Why? Because of the essential corporeal mission of the church remains essentially unchanged: to create a population that is essentially compliant while amassing stores of wealth and encompassing areas of food production that will allow the church to survive despite catastrophe. Does this mean the various churches is evil or corrupt? To some extent, yes. But it also ensures that in the event of catastrophe the teachings of various divinely inspired persons will persist.

Also, while the succinct statement of the American founders is seminal in terms of European thinking, it is not without precedent. English common law recognized various rights. The oldest parliament in Europe was the Viking althing as established in Iceland, a meeting of landholders to settle disputes in the law. Certain inherent rights were embodied as far back as the code of Hammurabi: for example, if one paid for a house to be built and the house fell down killing the owner, the builder would be killed: that is, the purchaser had a right to expect the house to stand.

Now, that the basis of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" being established by slaveholders and invaders is somewhat hypocritical on the face of it, and it is also often suggested that it would not have happened without the European settlers witnessing how the Indians lived-- those nature-borne persons who had never toiled in a feudal society, who went out into the land to hunt without fear of being put to death for poaching by the enforcers of the lord/baron/king.

However, and this is the primary point of this post, these fundamental rights truly and fully enmesh with the two Great Laws as stated by Jesus "to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and physical strength and love your neighbor as yourself". No church-sponsored ruler is required. The founders realization and the implementation thereof are distinct and work proceeds to this day.

But the point is that the implementation is limited to those places in which the realization of this innate rights, or similar enough basis for society, is recognized as the true operant condition of mankind. Everywhere else is subject to the whim of tyrants who establish their governments in order to achieve their own ambitions.

Worldwide Conspiracy!! Read all about it! Governments hijacked!

This will be a post with links! Not just boring boring text! The links are dynamic collages, montages of photos from the internet that tell the story of this post!

There is a worldwide conspiracy, and it has to do with energy. Energy, because energy is needed by everything in order for human survival.

In order to provide energy, gigantic entities that are "too big to fail" have been created.  They ensure the operational continuance of mankind, they ensure the energy infrastructure of Europe.

Interesting montages, yes? Kind of interesting what happens when you put those queries on top of one another and emphasize them again with "continuance of mankind". We see regular, normal, painful, funny, silly all at once, and mostly individuals.

The worldwide conspiracy has to do with support of the European ultra-right wing by the Kremlin. Another interesting montage. The reason for this network is the eventual establishment of the Eurasian Union that is controlled by Moscow. Unlike the conspiracy theories in the movies, the caricature of the mad villain that plans to subjugate the world, they are not looking for a voting majority. They are looking for enough force to push them one way or the other. This is critical, because all that is required is enough force to ensure a particular vector. The other operational considerations-- economy, production, business, agriculture-- these all will continue more or less unabated. Just slightly redirected

"Well, thank goodness it is only Europe!" with a sigh of relief.

But what makes you think it is only Europe? This montage contains pictures of David Duke meeting with Aleksandr Dugin. Aleksandr Dugin is a Russo-centric political philosopher who spins a marvelous circular logic that places Moscow at the center of the world as "The Third Rome" to which all roads lead. That is, if the marvelous Empire ensures the roads are maintained. But, it's all figurative of course: roads are for poor people, the rich travel by private plane.

These are interesting images, aren't they? Various interesting things co-occur. Why do those various things co-occur? This would be a point for many to jump off into "the 1%" rhetoric but that is not the point of this post.

The point is to get you thinking about the extent to which this same sort of infiltration has occurred in the United States. When weapons systems run into problems or are cancelled, are they the kind that have proven effective against Russian weapons?  When various foreign aircraft look just like the ones paid for by your tax dollars, how much of that was due to industrial espionage?

This is not a political blog, it is not a conservative, liberal or otherwise political blog. It is the writing of a particular individual wondering if what-it-means-to-be-human is being threatened by those powers that have come into place in order to ensure human existence, and if it is, what can be done about it? This nothing new, it is the underlying question in a great deal of popular culture, but it is worth asking oneself.

Why things have always happened the way they have

A modern perspective that has achieved wide adoption is to separate religion from spirituality. There is a certain amount of sense in this. Religion is another big business, there are spiritual crimes committed by religions just as there are environmental crimes committed by big business. Then, there is religion and government, where the separation of religion and government is less modern, but also relatively modern. Finally, further divisions in government between instruments that are the will of the ruler, the will of the people, and the operation of the legal system.

The abstraction of all of these layers and the separation of concerns lends itself to a certain purity of function in each area. In some countries/states, there are layers that are weak and almost non-existent, and others that are strong and overwhelming.

Governments throughout the Bible and most famously in the Book of Revelations have been referred to as "beasts", This is a profound observation, and because it is often revealed in visions, we see that it is the sort of observation that one has in a dream when one is objectively processing one's accumulated information. 

The past year has been full of troubling news. Extremism abounds: extreme weather, extreme acts of violence, hints of extreme shifts in geopolitics. "Wars and rumors of war" and all the rest. "The birth pangs" and all of that other stuff of religion, the big business.

That religion should use certain methods, "gimmicks", to get people to join their business is seen as reprehensible, especially because on the other hand the conditions that make those gimmicks effective don't seem to diminish. The atheist would scoff: if more souls than ever are being continually accrued and committed to a Biblical god, then why don't we see an improvement in things? 

The answer to most atheist's questions is "no man can know the mind of Gods, bu which of course does not necessarily move the debate forward but this author would posit that if the obligatory cleaning of one's sandals of the dust of atheism would occur more often, then people of faith would been seen as having more integrity.

There is a saying from somewhere that states "Earth's security is human integrity". The source eludes the author, my apologies, but it is a very sound statement. Integrity is actions that in are in accord with one's stated beliefs. It is often confused with a sense of morality, but it is not that. 

Individuals and organizations who lay claim to having a sense of morality are expected to have integrity. Individuals and organizations who do not claim to be moral at all are not necessarily expected to have integrity other than those instances in which they agree to have integrity 

But back to the beasts: of late, we have some new beasts running around the planet, and they have caused considerable grief. After a thorough wintry drubbing we enter into a new spring season in the northern hemisphere, and the blistering heat of the southern summer is cooling. A good time to take stock. 

It is the new year, actually, right about now. Why is it the new year? Because of the months, the moon. Oct is eight, Nov is nine, September is the seventh month, not the 9th. August the sixth, not the eighth. March is first, not third. This is the natural order which has been "improved" and regulated, but it really feels more like a new year about now. We take stock in the new year, because livestock is born: you see? 

This blog has concerned itself with big things and small. Conspiracy theories, always a favorite subject of the blog-o-sphere. As of late, a huge conspiracy has in fact been revealed, and as usually it is the conspiracy of the power of money versus the power of integrity.

Why things have always happened, according to many religions, is the struggle between dark and light. Darkness in people causes them to be morally weak, lightness in people causes them to be morally strong, so the story goes. But morality is less the issue, particularly with the non-faithful population. It is integrity: doing as you say you will do.

As you move through your day, you move through a web of commitments. If you walk on the street, you are obligated to abide by certain rules. If you open your window, you are obligated to abide by certain rules. If you cross a border, consume power, use services, tools or other items ruled by agreements, you are obligated to abide by those agreements. These agreements are intended to constrain people who do not have integrity to act as if they integrity in those instances in which the operation of society requires it.

Operational concerns very often outweigh other concerns. For the individual, corporeal concerns outweigh other concerns: when your corporeal/operational well being is threatened, you can act in ways that would otherwise be a serious breach of that invasive web of operational agreements. That is, extreme acts become justified.

This "right to extremity" is a loophole that is more and more exploited. A person/organization/nation is in danger of operational disintegration and therefore must act extremely. The exploit occurs when entities wanting to act extremely work to create a plausible condition in which their operational continuance appears to be in danger, thereby justifying their actions. We can name a dozen different instances of this engaged in by a dozen different entities, "beasts", in recent history and throughout history millions of murders in self-defense.

But why beasts, wherefore beasts? Beasts are creatures, creatures of habit and instinct, and not of lofty humanitarian action. What a fitting label for all the various brutish empires throughout history! This may seem to be a wonderful creation of some ancient author, but it is the creation of the human unconscious that renders it fitting because it resonates. Resonance is important, it is a tool used by beasts and humanitarians alike.

This post leads up to the next post, because a great movement is afoot by certain beasts that threatens humanity. The next post will stand alone as a bit of social commentary, but this post underlies it.

.  

Cities, towns, countries, people, spirit

The original purpose of this blog was to consider the world from as distant a place as could be, imagining it as a spirit seeing with spirit eyes; yeh, ok. But, that was the purpose, then things that seemed very serious, from a spiritual angle, started to happen in the world.

An attempt will be made to steer it back around: not abandoning the unfolding events, however.

A show on PBS last night about the Navatean culture in the Arabian peninsula. This was a city built at the "marshaling end" of a series of desert trade routes, where they converged and offloaded their wares for transshipment to the next stop, the ports of the coasts of Israel. The cargo was frankincense and myrrh, and the city was referred to as "Petra", bound for cities along the Mediterranean shores.

Frankinscence and myrrh, or at least what that is called nowadays, smells very pleasant. One plus, it is neither feminine nor masculine: not too flowery, but some flowery aspects. Not too "leathery" or too much pine-tar, but some of both of those. It smells nice, it is still available in something like what is believed to be its original form, although the original "myrrh" may not be what we refer to as "myrrh" today. It was burned in a great many different places as incense, and my thought is that it helped cut the stink of the various cities in which it was so popular, and because those cities likely stank.

At any rate, these trade routes were so lucrative that this city into which this highly prized product poured was greatly enriched, and was able to build elaborate means to transport, collect, reserve and distribute water. It was a hugely rich place, the rulers could probably hire artisans and architects from all over the world, and their was considerable local talent in the working of stone.

Because it was in the middle of a desert, they needed the water works. Although in the middle of a desert, it surrounded by the sorts of canyons similar to those that are called "arroyos" in the southwest US, where the water drains into when the desert monsoon comes.

Because when the desert monsoon comes, there is more water than anything in the desert can absorb, and it runs off in rivulets into rivers and rivers into unbridled torrents

If you have never seen a desert monsoon, it is a mystical thing. Like, truly mystical. When this was experienced by yours truly, it was a somewhat overcast, hot day in Arizona, east of Phoenix,

Standing on the driveway of my father's house, the clouds darkened, giant thunderheads bearing down like battleships on a dinghy. You feel like an ant. Actually, you feel like less than an ant. My father was there with me, and although I was an adult, I felt like a child. I couldn't believe how this giant storm had gently sidled up and materialized, full blown, with bits of warning thunder here and there.

There was a dry wind, strong; then a moist wind equally strong, steam-like, you could smell the Gulf of Mexico in it: it had traveled all that way. The wind was full of dust, and I had to avert my face. Various dried plant material was picked up in the wind.

But my father stood with his eyes closed, his chin up, feeling the weather, glowingly at peace: he grew up in that area. This was to be his last desert monsoon and he was drinking it in. He know that. I did not.

I realize that now, that at the time I was being so stupid. He had been undergoing treatments, so it seemed like time would be there. I was also deathly afraid of lightning, having had been caught in a near strike before. So I wasn't sure what this exercise was all about, this standing in a storm.

But right then, he was afraid of absolutely nothing, and although I know he loves me, he didn't want me bothering him while he had this experience.

With the moisture welling in the air, the plants on the hills in the distance radiated a deep green-- not the yellowish spring green, they were well past that, but a hugely thankful deep green. The overwhelming smell of this landscape waking up: the tough, gnarled trees, the creosote bushes, the newly green wisps of whatever else, all throwing their scent into this wind-- rough and gentle, irritating and smooth scents alike-- like an outpouring of gratitude, each plant clamoring for attention. The whole desert was sighing with happiness, just that bit of moisture in the air was what the entire landscape had awaited all summer.

Then it started to rain, and it continued to rain. For about three minutes. Despite the winding up of all of that grandeur, the rain was barely enough to wet the pavement. A summer shower anywhere else.

But we were just on the edge of this storm: the sun still shone brightly over our left shoulder. Turning away from the thunderclouds, in the opposite direction one could see the sun, and the postcard bright blue sky.

My father came around, back to mundane existence. We went inside. Later we would see news about various flash floods in surrounding areas, where the rain had been heavier.

This was the sort of rain that the city of Petra was built to store up and supply year round to its inhabitants, the population estimated to be eighty thousand strong at its height. The sort of rain that carves arroyos into the otherwise calm desert of the southwest. Like most ancient cities, it is now a ruin, but it surely holds many important secrets.

My father is gone now, like that brief rain. He brought life to us, his family, like that rain to the desert.

That I could only continually radiate in gratitude.

'Peace talks', 'whitewashing', 'handwashing', 'dirty laundry washing', and new realities

There is an oft-repeated notion about "failures being learning opportunities". With regards to East Ukraine, it would seemingly appear that both Russia and Ukraine emerge as having experienced "failure". Not only there, but the EU has lost many citizens in the downing of an airliner, and the US has clearly failed in seeming to have been both surprised and rattled by this conflict. 

In fact, healthy doses of failure have been meted out all around. But... who has learned more?

With regards to Russia, the government of Ukraine has really only learned what was known all along: that the government of their neighbor is prone to violence when things don't go its way and has never thought of Ukraine as more than a province. But they've also learned that the Ukrainian army had been allowed to rot while former president Yanukovych's hunting buddies enjoyed all manner of luxuries at government expense-- in fact they've learned a great deal about the depth and breadth of the wounds left by that corruption, as well as to the extent to which it still exists. 

While it might seem that the recent UA/EU/RU accords in Minsk have left Ukraine in the lurch, where the "separatists" are being given more than their share of legitimacy, it is really much less the case that this is a failure in terms of the over-arching future for Ukraine. What Ukraine should attend to is ensuring the safety of her citizens by ensuring that this armed conflict is stopped in as advantageous a circumstance as possible, and that it continues to bring grievances to those willing to actually listen to them. 

More importantly, what Ukraine should have learned at this point in terms of "accords" made with Moscow is that these are only valid in the face of a real penalty for Moscow's breaking any such accords can be brought to bear. That any government will make accords that work to their benefit should go without saying. But it has always been the case since the time of the Golden Horde that Moscow has only sought military agreements in order to gain advantage, such as the non-aggression pact with Hitler that brought about the benefit of the devastation of Poland, or in the case of "Minsk I", to re-arm and re-supply Russian forces within Ukraine.

Once that advantage had been gained, Ukraine simply did not have the ability to levy significant penalties of sufficient weight in order to have Putin honor "Minsk I".

If anything has been learned by the EU, it has been what it has learned about itself, for itself, and what Russia has learned about it. 

The EU has had the opportunity to learn the need to diversify energy sources, and to ensure they strongly and solidly align against Russian aggression as the most proximate group to suffer from that aggression. It wasn't until the downing of a commercial civilian airliner that any real cohesion and strong solidarity was crystal clear, but even then there was a decided wishy-washy aspect to that. 

Paris worried about their Mistral deal, Berlin about gas. Brussels was worried about whether the European Union would in fact act as a union, and it didn't seem like the Italians or Spanish were worried about much of anything, whereas Britain didn't like any of it. Politics is a pendulum, and yes it will go to and fro, but Europe now finds itself in a position where Russian monetary support for fringe political parties in various European countries threatens to glue that pendulum tight: it only takes one fringe party getting into power in order to outlaw the next election.

If the we in the US has had the opportunity to learn anything (other than exactly just where Ukraine is on the world map) it is that people-- millions of them--- very often really would rather rule in hell, or at least hang out at the ruler's hunting lodge or lakehouse-- or at least have a chance to so hang out-- than to serve in heaven. That is the extent of the depth of darkness at work in the galling oppression and suffering in Russia the social media troll who runs a string of bots that cheerfully spew Kremlin propaganda, the Kremlin-backed "correspondent" that barks threatingly at a journalist from Ukraine. Have you learned there have been meetings between the ultra-nationalist hyper-racist Kremlin advisor and David Duke? Do you know there is "RT News" operating in the United States, funded by the Kremlin and whose "journalistic" operatives behave rudely at US government press conferences held in your nation's very capital? 

There is a lot yet to be set straight in all of this. Various whitewashing and soft-pedaling and short-selling etc. etc. will occur. 

It is extraordinarily sad that Ukraine's foray into Western democracy resulted in such a pitifully tangled welcome, but it is extraordinarily great that the Ukrainian people, with their volunteer efforts, their fact finding on social media, and their endurance of spirit continued to fight the good fight. It is equally great that Russian dissenters made their voices known, and decried the war their government was pressing in Ukraine. 

But what did the Kremlin learn? Well, they learned they could push the EU fairly far before real sanctions would be pressed. They learned that US politicians really don't react much to being called names or lampooned in Russian political cartoons: they have seen much worse and more in Western press. Maybe they've learned that while it takes a while for Western processes to show real resolve, and when these start to move that there is no knowing where the momentum of these will lead. Mostly, that while an agreement has been made with EU and Ukrainian leadership, and while the US has not yet armed Ukraine, this doesn't mean that US analysis might finally indicate arming Ukraine would be in the best interest of peace in Europe, and while it doesn't mean that any more sanctions will be pressed by EU for the time being, neither does it mean that they will be rolled back.

It is just not fair: by the Kremlin's own statements, it is time to face reality.

Imagine the consternation and concern that must have swept through Russia when in early 2014, shortly after the popular uprising in Kiev. The previous government in Ukraine had been decidedly pro-Russian, but was run out of town by a decidedly unruly mob.

Then, "self defense forces" on the Crimean peninsula swept over that area aided by various Russian soldiers "on vacation" who had apparently pilfered stores of Russian armaments in order to take control of that territory in the name of Russia! What an uproar this must have caused in Moscow! This was undoubtedly an embarrassment at first for the Kremlin, which by their claims did not seek such territorial control, and while the Russian president strove to put the best face on it, it must have been decidedly touch and go. That is, up until the point that a popular referendum seemed to decide that the peninsula would break away from Ukraine and instead throw in its lot with Russia-- what choice did the Russian president have, then, other than to move Russian military and arms onto the peninsula. Crimea, where after all Russia had rented the naval base at Sevastopol needed to be secured, right?  While the validity of this referendum has not yet been determined by impartial observers, it was probably with grave determination that the Kremlin leadership decided what had to be done in order to ensure peace in the region had to be done.

Then, astonishingly, this unruly mob in Kiev that had thrown out the previous president organized legitimate elections and selected a new president that carried all Ukrainian regions! Whatever strange turn of events enabled this to occur, it was decidedly a bright spot for Russian in the otherwise bewildering rush of events.

Finally, as if this strange rush of events wasn't enough, certain armed factions in Eastern Ukraine suddenly materialized and took over various police stations and government buildings! It turns out that these factions in the Eastern portion of Ukraine did not agree so much with the uprising in Kiev, Western portion. They would have preferred that the pro-Russian Ukrainian president would have stayed around, it appeared, and suddenly a great mess was made in East Ukraine, where some of the same 'Russian volunteers' and 'vacationing soldiers' began to show up with yet more pilfered Russian military gear!

Throughout it all, the Russian president balanced on this hurtling avalanche of events much like a snowboarder in the Sochi olympics doing his level best to maintain international calm. Imagine his anguish as it was found that a Russian model of anti-aircraft weapon was used by the Eastern Ukrainian faction to shoot down a commercial jet-liner! Yet he maintained his balance.

What should happen next but that the Western world, EU, US, NATO and the rest, should find cause to slap sanctions on Russia! Just like these schemers to hit the great Russian nation while it's down, pouring on all manner of foul accusations that the acquisition of Crimea and the violence in Eastern Ukraine was part of some elaborate Russian plan all along!

The new Ukrainian president also became bold and took his opportunities to make a stand on the world stage at Russia's expense, mobilizing the Ukrainian military to combat the armed factions in the east in an "anti-terrorist operation". This must have been upsetting to the Russian president, but of course it was the case that this new president was elected by all of the regions in Ukraine, and so he was the legitimate leader thereof. 

Despite all of this, it was only due to the great efforts of the Russian president that a series of peace talks could be conducted at Minsk, the capital of a mutual neighbor of both Ukraine and Russia, and certain accords could be reached. Because of these talks, it looked like some calm might well have arrived in Eastern Ukraine.

But we see at this point it is not to be. The odd assemblage of vacationing military men, adventure seekers and local separatists that had determined to set up breakaway republics could not hold their fire any longer, and rushed back into territory that the Ukrainian anti-terrorist forces had expelled them from. What's worse, it seemed that there was no end to the military gear that was pilfered from Russian stores and used to further violent ends.

We must applaud the earnest peacemaking efforts of the President Putin, the Russian diplomatic corps and the Kremlin leadership: clearly we can see from the above that what have been called callous denials on their part are instead only statements ensuring a neutral posture so that these tireless efforts to secure peace in the restive regions in Ukraine might be given time to bear fruit.

However, now a year has passed, cities that had enjoyed some of the fruits of Minsk and had been free of violence now report that they've been bombarded by rockets of a most destructive type from the position of the ragtag ranks of separatist/vacationer/thrill seekers. 

We must face reality: despite the very best efforts of Russian diplomacy to secure the peace in Minsk, their hard work has been undone by these ne'er-do-wells who seem to have gotten their pilfering hands on some of the latest and most destructive Russian armaments available.

How these rebels might have picked which locks on whatever depot fences to get to these most destructive prizes, or which set of insidious arms dealers they dealt with, must be left to a later investigation: what we can determine at this point is that despite the tireless efforts of the Russian government, these ruffians are determined to besmirch the apparatus of international diplomacy, and indeed the sully the reputation of the stalwart Russian president himself by using these newfound implements of destruction to press this most destructive and vile war in Eastern Ukraine.

It has come time for the rest of the world to set aside petty differences and take this effort seriously, by shoring up the efforts of the Ukrainian president and his armed forces by supplying them with arms that can make inroads against those in the east have thieved from their rightful places in Russian stores. While it is undoubtedly embarrassing to the Russian government, and the great Russian people, that so many trucks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, tanks, self-propelled artillery, anti-aircraft missiles, and ammunition for all of these have been wantonly hijacked from their military, we see that the Russian government has done it's utmost at the negotiating tables of Minsk. 

Despite this, the time for negotiation is over. We must trust this fledgling Ukrainian government and it's young army with the sorts of machinery and materiel that can make short work of these despicable rebel-persons, their ranks constituted by whatever mixture of criminal, mercenary and thrill seeker they may be. Once the Ukrainians are armed with the proper sorts of weapons that can confront those stolen by these perfidious rebels, they will undoubtedly need careful guidance in their operation. 

It will be touch and go, but surely given the extraordinary balancing done by the Russian government thus far, we can bear some anxiety ourselves. Once the violence in Eastern Ukraine has been settled, we can assist in ensuring that the people of Crimea can hold a free and fair referendum with regards to their alignment with either Russia or Ukraine. 

Because as the afore-going paragraphs make all too clear, it's not fair or right that Russia should continue to shoulder the burden alone. 

Ukraine vs. Putin: Full court press plus artillery

The heavy answers continue to roll into Ukraine. The recent lull in hostilities presented the Russian irregular forces a chance to regroup and be resupplied by their Russian sponsors.

Comparisons between Hitler and Putin run rampant on the social media, likening Crimea and E. Ukraine to the Sudetenland. However hyperbolic the rhetoric, it is actually the case that the comparison is apt.

I have conversed with people in Ukraine on social media. They are frustrated and angry that little help comes their way from the US. However, I believe that definite resolve will be shown soon.

Ukraine has the right to self defense. Article 51 if the UN charter applies fully, here. If Poroshenko were to go so far add to request American military assistance, boots on the ground, the whole nine yards, that invitation would be valid.

Russia has invaded a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to Russian security. This is a fact. It is also the fact that Crimea has a large Russian population, and if a fair and open monitored referendum was held, it actually would very likely come out in Russia's favor.

Why does the Kremlin go this route? Russia believes that international law is stacked against them: a fixed game run by the West. The Kremlin cannot conceive of a world where the United States is not an adversary, so they plan and act accordingly. They want to grab Ukraine and shake the Maidan movement out of the country and install Yanukovich 2.0.

Ukraine needs strong support. They have the will, they know the terrain, but it is a hugely difficult effort. They face a hoodlum neighbor with considerable resources, whose leaders have a particular plan for them, and this democracy/Europe-facing Ukraine does not fit into that plan. Moreover, the Kremlin appears to be more than willing enough to pour troops into Ukraine until their objective is met.

Ukraine is low on capital, low on modern war materiel. They are going into debt to save themselves from being consumed by Russia. Putin seems to believe that the Eurasian Empire is Russia's manifest destiny, and he is putting his shoulder into realizing it. The Kremlin is sponsoring European candidates that are aligned with their grand scheme.

But, Eurasianism is thwarted by this realignment of Ukraine. The Ukrainian man in the street has no use for the glorious Eurasian enterprise.

I don't know. If I were in Putin's place, I probably would act to ensure my plan for a giant trade network throughout Eurasia. A new "silk road" might well revitalize my nation.  But: would my first option be the application of military force? No. It would be an appeal to the international community to understand that Ukraine does have some existing  obligations regardless of the gov't in place. While it might take a while, legitimate debts and contacts would be honored.

But then, again, if I were Putin, I might know that those contracts are designed to funnel money into particular pockets, for 'reuse' towards particular projects. Appealing to legal authorities invites a legalistic examination of the matter, which might expose more than would be to my advantage. So, Putin and advisors conclude: a hammer is in order.

This is only speculation with a dash of the benefit of a doubt, but in any event this node in our shared timeline lies on the vector that points to more, not less, war.

At the end of the day, the Ukrainian people are people, they have human rights per the universal code thereof.  They have stood up for these rights, which disturbed the plans of their giant neighbor: truly a David and Goliath story. Without stones in their slings, they're sucked back into the New Dark Age of the Russia-led Eurasian Empire.

Lost life, lack of liberty, and the flight from horror

An interesting story has been told regarding an exchange between Russian Leader-for-Life Vladimir V. Putin (VVP) and President GW Bush while the latter was in office.

Putin says to Bush "Ukraine is not even a real country", to which Bush responds with a smile. Whether this smile was knowing, strained or just a reflex for lack of any other meaningful response is left to interpretation.

But what  it indicates, in light of recent events, is that this "not a real country" determination is input into the Kremlin's calculus regarding their actions in Ukraine.

Therefore, what anyone who has an interest in these events should be asking themselves is, "What set of information and/or perceptions caused VVP to say that?".

If you would be so kind as to read this article about the evacuation of civilians from an Eastern Ukrainian town by Ukrainian soldiers, towards the end of it  there are some statements made by the evacuees that demonstrate a very sad point of view.

They are not able to "get to where their children are" so they cannot evacuate with them. They would like to stay in their village and live in peace; one says, "we don't care under which flag or with whom we live", one says.They just want the shooting to stop.

It is a very sad thing, for several reasons. Armed men were sent from Russia in order to bring this about. This is their goal, to achieve control over this territory of which 'their land, their houses' are a subset. As to "which flag", why wouldn't they understand that "which flag" is representative of the system that will recognize it as "their land"? For all practical purposes, it has been tossed up for grabs. Once they are forced out and lose control of it, how is it their land?

Also, why were they still there, and why weren't their children with them? Are they like people who stay despite the imminent hurricane, tidal wave or volcanic eruption: just taking their chances with forces beyond their control?
Or do they just not understand?

It illustrates some sad realities. Attempting to go on with life as usual while shootouts with rockets and shells are in progress around you, you are gambling that the whole thing will blow over before one of those projectiles finds you. Even worse, there are people in various places around the world in similar situations. Civilization is intended to protect people from wild animals, and the city walls to keep out marauding would-be conquerors. The wild animals have been pushed away with technology, and the marauding conquistadors by international agreements. Or so it was thought.

That is, until somebody rich and powerful enough decides that somewhere they'd like to control by fear is "not a real country" or is otherwise undeserving of peaceful life.

What is the difference between someone able to fund an option who lays a plan to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of other innocent civilians, and someone who plans to dispatch a column of weapons operated by drunken hooligans to rain a load of rockets onto a town of civilians? Both are supposedly educated, bound by norms of civilized behavior and faith. They are wealthy beyond the reach of the majority of humankind. Even so, both decide that, just this once/twice/few times, some significant number of people should die to suit their agenda, then plan accordingly. We even know one of them clapped his hands in delight at the outcome of his handiwork.

It seems the only difference might be complexion, clothing, stature, and facial hair.

Of rebels, insurgents, irregulars, drunkards and bears...

There has been some frustration on Twitter among those people who are supporting Ukrainian independence. This stems from the words mainstream international news uses to describe the combatants in the East. That is, when the news describes the armed people who showed up and took over various government buildings to start the war in Eastern Ukraine, they are described as if they somehow have a higher purpose than getting paid to brutalize the population and destabilize Ukraine.

So when CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, AFP etc. use any of the following, it's disconcerting to the people whose country has been targeted by propaganda and infiltrated according to a Kremlin plan in such a way as to appear this is due to a popular uprising.

"Rebels" is popular, but inaccurate. "Separatists", much the same.  "Irregulars" is more accurate, but kind of military-geeky. "Insurgents" seemed to be popular just briefly, but it's overused. "Militants", somewhat mild.  "Terrorists" is preferred by Ukrainian officials and which describes the actions of these people who started the war in East Ukraine. However, they are both more and less than that.

Basically, groups of Russian nationalists with some military experience and who thrive on cruelty and indifferent application of violent brutality were recruited by middlemen to fight in Ukraine. They were given the *wink wink* style of backing by various authorities who are allowing then to travel abroad, over the Russian border to Ukraine heavily armed. As these began to  violently take over various Ukrainian government buildings and industrial sites, they were cheered on by discontented ex-Soviet pensioners who somehow thought they were going to get their check increased by the Kremlin.

Because this doesn't fit into any real typical schema, mainstream news has for the longest time had the story as "armed disenfranchised ethnicities in eastern Ukraine trying to set up their own independent countries because they're unhappy" because that's the sort of story they know, and it's the type of story they know we know. 

Everyone was fooled: this was a geopolitical trick play that caught the world flat-footed and bewildered.

What could possibly be the benefit for Russia in this?

Then, pictures. Maps, showing how Russia depends on Ukraine to act as reliable pipeline operator and arms supplier. Videos, showing a drunken mortar operator cursing and shooting shells from inside a school sorts stadium. Deep-in reporting from Vice, Mashable.

From Russian media, shopped photos and videos of horrible scenes from other conflicts being tagged as happening in Ukraine, rather than where they actually occurred: Syria and Chechnya. Slathered with so much anti-Ukrainian rhetoric coming from Russian officials and their news outlets... well: it could only be a smokescreen for the truth.

As the story unraveled, we see that people who started the war in the East of Ukraine are Russians who laid the groundwork for the what has become a steady infiltration of Ukraine by Russian armed forces. A large depot had been set up just across the border in Russia, in a city called Rostov-on-Don.  The paid Russian fighters would be formed up and supplied from this depot. The initial infiltrators had linked up with local Ukrainian malcontents who now aid them, but much more as henchmen, less so as rebels.

But, western  news has been calling them "rebels". Because the phrase "infiltrators acting as the leading edge of a stream of Russian fighters comprising a de-facto invasion" is simply too long. Given that, any of these less accurate terms are probably for the best as far as the western audience is concerned, but you can see why it's maddening to the Ukrainian people who are all too familiar with really dirty Kremlin actions in their country. They think these murderers are getting near "freedom fighter" treatment, and that the west has been utterly taken in by Russian propaganda.

But what we are seeing is the evolution of a Kremlin plan to destabilize Ukraine, who are being shown they need to be good little gangsters and do the boss's bidding: never mind your future, deals have been made and plans have been laid.

As this plan proceeded, the stream of arms and fighters created a lake of built-up, heavily armed forces consisting of the armed infiltrators/Kremln operatives, Russian mercenaries, and Russian regular forces.

The primary purpose is to hold open a door for equipment and personnel that would be sent in by Russia and establish a means for discrediting the elected Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko. They are the vanguard of a "just enough" Russian invasion force to apply destabilizing force and topple the newly elected democratic government. 

These operatives apparently enchanted bitter pensioners of Ukraine's east into welcoming them. Now the Russian forces launch artillery strikes from apartment blocks onto Ukrainian army targets, demolish homes with rockets in order to get a better view of the battle zone, and any pensioners still left now live in basements, their pensions cut off, caught in the fire between the two sides. Russian soldiers and equipment pour into the area prepared by the vanguard.

It is the case that these paid operatives had their own agendas. The had hoped they would become kings of their little slice of Ukraine. But if course that's how it was framed to then, so they'd clear the way. At least one set of these warlords has been killed, ambushed, by the Russian army, because the hired thugs  are disposable in the grander scheme.

A fair summary, synthesized from multiple sources readily available at this point.

So, what you call them, when you only have about 5-10 minutes maximum on the "hour" news (much less minus commercials) that might be devoted to world events? Given all the things going on, maybe 3-4 minutes on this one subject, tops? It took awhile for anyone to figure out that the majority of these operatives really weren't local separatists, or rebels, or insurgents. So they stayed using these brief labels. "Rebels", two syllables. Then, everyone got wise to the plan, so this morphed into "Russian backed rebels" Because they'd already established these term, rebels, separatists. Switching it up more would only confuse things and the news channels would need to explain why: editorial sauce not worth the squeeze.

Not unlike most of my notes on this subject, this is common sense to people following the issuebut nobody reads this so I'm writing for myself, to clarify my thoughts.

At any rate, pressing for more accuracy is always good. Mainstream news might eventually amend this to something even better. But don't get too upset about these words. It's kind of like that pedestrian button on the stop light: you don't know if it's working, but you press it, eventually something changes. If the discussion is out there, awareness is spread.

Ukraine, "blows against the empire", 20150126

Today Putin (VVP) was quoted widely as saying the Ukrainian army was a "NATO foreign legion", attempting to deride the Kiev gov't as the illegitimate invention of western powers, "foreign" to an area rightfully under Russian control . Of course, Putin's aim is to install just such a government, subservient to him.

Poroshenko enjoys legitimacy that VVP will never have: he was elected democratically, carrying all regions. But VVP's statement does signal a new phase in the hostilities: Ukraine's war of independence from Putin's Russian Empire.

Identical to the American revolution in nature, there are several key distinctions:

1- The proximity of the Empire.

2- The backwards unwinding of events: 1st UA was a state fighting an insurgency, then fighting a proxy of an imperialist state. Now, fighting the VVP Empire for independence.

3- Loyalists and their dispersal. In the American revolution, these fled in hope of returning. Some were driven out. Others were brutalized, tarred and feathered.  Barbaric times. Some remained, serving as spies.

In this case, civilians remaining in place in theatre are "loyalists" to the Empire. The reality of any real loyalty is questionable.  Ideally, remaining civilians should be evacuated in a controlled way such that it is clear their freedom is a gift of the country fighting for independence. The Empire has amply demonstrated their disregard for these civilians.

4- Finally, the nature of the Empire is different.

But how does one win such a war? Not first by massive artillery. Not first by columns of armor. But by first simply realizing the disposable soldiers of the Empire only want to go home, and that their leaders must achieve goals or be disgraced. For the most part, they are functionaries of the Empire who would prefer to end the conflict . There is a sociopathic element that would prefer to stay and brutalize, which pose problems for the Imperial organization.,
Most, however, are disposable soldiers preferring to avoid disposal.

The more often they can be given the illusion the conflict's end is right around the corner, and then have another corner appear, the better. Every opportunity should be made at various levels to appear to be *almost* ready to give VVP what he wants, then to pull back. Ukrainian soldiers are already home, they can rotate in and out.

So, Ukraine should use intelligence, knowing what goals should be thwarted. Knowing the Imperial troops morale, their leaders' styles. Knowing which supply lines should be cut when. Allowing them in, and cutting them off. Reminding the Imperial troops they are disposable by dropping leaflets or broadcasting messages.

Also, by not matching Imperial tactics. British soldiers  fought in ranks, the Americans tried that and failed. Then they shot from concealment and avoided concentrated formations, inflicted damage then dissipated, preferring to harry rather than confront continually. This was an outrage in the eyes of Imperial military leaders, but it showed the revolutionaries' resolve.

So, if the Empire likes to fight with artillery, let them get close, capture a few. This leaves the others fearing they'll never get home. If they like armor, fight with fire, with traps and mines. If they like aircraft, anti aircraft, appeal for help. The use of aircraft will be a major escalation for which a Lafayette style assist is needed. For Britain, the escalation of using naval bombardment was something of miscalculation, because it was deemed unseemly of such an empire by rival peers.

Putin has miscalculated in his rhetoric, indicating Ukraine is an "internal affair". Why? Because if this is so, he demonstrates how he has no hesitation in killing "internal imperial subjects". Two things occur: cowardly sycophants cling to him, adding nothing substantive, while resourceful, independent thinkers find a way to abandon the Empire and seen the discourse they need to maintain their sanity.

The empire's proximity ito the nation seeking independence is what it is. This is good and bad. Imperial troop movements facilitated by the proximity, but also can be readily tracked. While the British had to reinforce from across an ocean, bordering Canada was also a staging area, so this is similar.

The nature of the Empire is that it is ruled by a tyrant who has a particular goal but who also needs to demonstrate progress to his support network. An important note,  for the majority of it's history this empire's rulers have died under questionable circumstances. In addition, it was often the case that succession had not been established and factions would form.

In terms of the Empire's operational doctrine, changes in overall strategy are seen as backing down. Experience in fighting wars on multiple fronts is limited.  Deception and disinformation on several levels introduces complexity. These are significant weaknesses.

If "revanchist leaders" are reduced "kinetically" as a recent expert has said, then this empire indicates fertile ground for this type of occurrence happening more likely from within. The Empire is all too aware of this, and has increased the violent depression of dissent.

Maybe most importantly, in theatre, it seems that successes are gauged by holding territory. Demonstrating success to imperial subjects is emphasized in order to maintain order. The number of soldiers under arms in theatre and their ability to remain a cohesive force is not emphasized, because of the nature of this "masked"-war. What is important is the perception of their having control.

This leads to any disruption of the illusion of control within the area of claimed Imperial control as being a victory for the Revolutionary Ukrainians.

As it was in the American revolution, this is a terror campaign where the country attempting to gain independence is provided with demonstrations of the Empire's brutal intent in an attempt to achieve psychological impact and reduce revolutionary resolve.

During the American revolution, when Washington retreated tactically across a river and into the frontier for a time, this was a moment of control enjoyed by the Empire.  The Continental Army was in a difficult situation. However, when Washington followed this retreat with a surprise raid on Trenton and captured a large German mercenary garrison, this was catastrophic for the Empire. 

However, almost every imperial setback was downplayed, as the Empire had superiority in all respects. In effect, the American revolution was just as much a series of nuisances as battles for the Empire.

In Ukraine, although the Donetsk Airport Cyborg unit was overcome, the cost of this to the Empire was inordinate. As a result, there is no doubt in the Imperial disposable soldier's mind that the chances of going home are minimized as the effort goes forward. The Ukrainian unit also thwarted the Imperial leaders' goals. The outcome was disadvantageous, but the action provided a focal point for foreign attention and illustrated the brutality of the Empire and the disregard it has for the country and it's people. This was a clear demonstration of Ukraine's determination.

In the US revolution, the Imperial forces operated with impunity, except when they didn't, and when they didn't the revolutionaries would exact a price. Giving the Imperial leadership the illusion of  being able to operate with impunity is key.

When a town is an an Imperial objective, there is no regard for that towns' residents, even though they may be ostensibly "loyalist" to the Empire. Unfortunately, the practice of attempting to match the Empire in artillery bombardment only induces casualties among the loyalists instead of inducing loyalists to switch sides.

An article has cited a previous Kremlin adviser as saying VVP wants to secure Ukraine as a satellite state before the end of 2015. In this light, every Imperial setback is amplified, where Ukrainian setbacks are expected and are temporary.

When the Empire chooses to install hard points, these should appear as unassailable. When the Empire chooses to move once across a route, they should be allowed to do so once or twice with confidence. When the Empire sees opportunities to attack in concentrated force, they should make these decisions with confidence.  This way they are induced to commit concentrated resources to using routes that are not as safe as they seem. The disposable soldiers lose faith in their leaders, and their leaders fail to meet goals.

Another imperial weakness is that captured disposable soldiers will often not be reclaimed. They know that going home to a normal life is an unlikely option once neutralized by capture. In addition, wounded Imperial disposable soldiers place an inordinate burden on the Empire. A wounded regular officer even more so. As a result, when the Imperial force moves outside of their "loyalist" human shields, wounding multiples, capturing multiples is key.

If the civilian shields could be surreptitiously evacuated by night, then artillery could be used to great effect.

An interesting point is that the empire's irregulars and regulars are not unified. In the American revolution, this was actually a weakness of Revolutionary side, which used citizen soldiers.  The British regulars could be very brutal to these if captured.

In Ukraine, the Imperial regular army leadership finds the irregulars tiresome. They are overt war criminals, undisciplined: a liability.  These tensions are all areas where confusion can be sown.

Finally, regarding the nature of the Empire: all of the most important cities of the emerging American state were occupied by imperial soldiers to some extent. The restraint used was different, Americans were still subjects in the eyes if the Empire, but those that fought were treated cruelly if captured. Fewer Ukrainian cities are occupied, but little similar restraint is seem here. There is no concern for human suffering if it serves the goals of the Empire.

Addendum: while the conflicts may be similar, the empires in question are very different. A key core value of the British was the notion of a subject's rights. These notions not only carried over to the independent America, but sharing these values ensured rapprochement after independence: the Empire still could use viable trade with a like-minded partner.

This notion of citizen subject rights was also a key core value of the Roman Empire. Which makes the notion of Moscow as somehow being a 3rd Rome even stranger.

Recent events in Ukraine 20150126

So there's been a lot of news from Ukraine. Many Americans still don't know exactly where it is, but there is bad news from there. The Russians are invading it, they are helping some separatists, and many ordinary, civilian people are dying. That's what the news says.

Why don't Americans care more about this? Is it because Ukrainians get kind of a bad rap in American popular culture? There are some WWII movies that deal with the holocaust that portray them like apprentice Nazis. That must be it.

But if that's the sort of yardstick we're using, then all Americans are Lt. Calley and Abu Gharib guards. Which is decidedly not true. But let's go that way.

If all Americans were like that, we'd want to beat on less powerful neighboring countries, like hard, because we have no regard for suffering, so they would be totally under our control. "You do that already", some might say, "you did that." Do/did we really? Yes, there were some bad things. But not super-mean! No, not like "no regard for life" mean!

What I'm thinking is, we would send people into, say, Mexico. They would be Hispanic Americans, and pretend to be Mexicans, and starting shooting things up. They would take over towns, and murder people. They would kill the police, and take up their offices, and then start making lists of people and torturing them. Some of the Mexicans would see this and say, "we need to support these guys or they will kill us" so it looks even more like the people we sent are all Mexicans. Plus they'd make friends with other drug lords, so it would seem legit. Like they belonged there!

They'd be like super nasty mean killer drug lords, but they'd be *our* drug lords! And we would send reporters to interview them on TV, to thank them for doing such a good job and show us pictures of dead bodies.

The rest of the world would be like "oh no! Super mean drug lords in Mexico!" And we'd be like "Yeah, what a shame. If only we could do something!"

Our President (who is, like, the super duper ultra nasty bad ass) would say "this is terrible, we must help the victims of these horrible people" when all along we'd know that *he was the one who sent them*! It would be hysterical!!

Then the Mexican people, their government, would be like "Please, stop sending these awful people, you have given then weapons and they are killing us. We will need to send our Mexican army to defend us."

That would have us just in *stitches*, because there is no way! But we let the Mexican army attack. Then, we have our drug lords, who we call "separatists", start making it look like the Mexican army is killing their own people with artillery!  That would make the people in the towns our drug lords run really mad, and really start liking our drug lords more and more.

Our president would say "these separatists are dissatisfied with their government, that's why this is happening! We must help them!"

We'd be ROFL by then, because our bad ass President would start sending tanks, and missiles to the drug lords. But, on the down low. Just because he can, because he wants Mexico to do what he says, and he knows best. We'd be such bad asses!

Also, get this, we'd let the Mexican army win for a while, and then send in our troops, a bit at a time, over months, to support the separtists.  They would have all the badass weapons that the Mexicans don't, and they wouldn't have to care who they'd kill with them.

Other countries, like Canada and Spain would say "wait a second, you are sending them weapons and troops!"

And our badass president would say "no! That's simply not true!" They would grumble and start looking more closely. But we wouldn't care because we're such bad asses, we are so scary!!

Then one day, a French airplane would fly over our part of Mexico and our troops would shoot it down!! With one of our bad ass missiles!! YEAH. Just for grins.  "Serves them right, we're having a war here" our guys would say, and shoot anybody around the crashed plane, and not allow the French people into our part of Mexico to get the bodies. We'd be sooooo tough!

Oh wait, did I mention: WE STOLE BAJA CALIFORNIA! Yeah, that happened before a lot of this. We sent soldiers in green uniforms, no insignia, they took it over. They were like whoa, and we were like "don't even try it!".  Also, we made any Indians who lived there leave. Why? Because it's CALIFORNIA, so it's part of America!! And our super bad ass president would visit there and make a speech how it was our right and how we are bad ass. Super Bad Ass!

Because all of our troops and separatists would be Lt. Calleys and just killing whoever whenever. The  generals, they'd plan which civilian areas to bombard, and "boom" they'd get it. Because they are professionals, real brave soldiers and glorious. They'd sneak up to a city that wasn't even doing anything, but *boom* rockets rockets rockets they'd kill the kids, blow then up right in the school! Ha ha ha, it would be so bad ass.

We'd be just like Russia in Ukraine!

Deep concern with how things seem to be unfolding, worldwide

There is a mystical "theory" wherein the world is a living organism, layered with various other organisms, each with a level of consciousness, where sentient beings have the highest level of consciousness. In addition, consciousness itself has layers, where there is a universal, shared underlayer, then a layer for each type of being, then a layer for individual beings in the case of sentient beings. 

Whether or not this can be proved empirically is not the point, but if we consider that it may be true, we can see some very interesting things that unify what we are currently experiencing.

What are we currently experiencing? For one, climate extremes that are often alarming: places where extreme weather occurs are experiencing more extremes. Destructive storms are more destructive. The sun has been steadily decreasing in solar activity, which has certain effects .on our atmosphere. More powerful earthquakes are striking at record rates. Population continues to grow, and grows fastest in those areas of the world least capable of feeding themselves. Rather than walking hand in hand with reason and holding out hope, religion is tending to defy reason and dashing hopes in a way that drastically impacts those who are most disadvantaged. These trends are readily apparent for those in those areas with access to the internet without in-depth research, yet countless millions wander around in ignorance. The gap between "knowers" and "not knowers" steadily increases, and the gap between "haves" and "have nots" is at an historical high in every society on earth from the most to least modern.

There are three qualities of countries that are emerging on earth. Free, Totalitarian, and Satellite. Satellites align themselves with either Free or Totalitarian powers, and take on the characteristics of that which they align with to some extent. They are too small to be entirely self sufficient, needing to import critical items of one or more types. Free countries import critical items, but if need be they could be self sufficient by sacrificing to some extent. Totalitarian countries are capable of self-sufficiency in a like manner, where sacrifice will be demanded of the population if it suits the plans of the dictator.

There are three qualities of religion that are solidifying on earth. Hyper-paternalistic, Free-form spiritualism, and Materialism. They are not divided in an obvious manner, where one can say "this one is that, and that one is this". Some sects of the same religion may be one or the other. Hyper-paternalistic religions demand that human father figures be obeyed-- there is no encouragement of open debate, inquiry or spiritual searching. Free-form encourages open debate, inquiry and spiritual searching, and tends towards more nebulous definition of concepts in favor of continued spiritual refinement. Materialism is based on legality, ethics and functional concerns revolving around enhanced earthly achievement. Any religious activity is an adjunct to these overriding concerns. Religion suggests to us what is a good path to take, but politicians and the political system are the real power. The legal system serves as the conscious, and what one can get away with is acceptable. Those who are caught by the legal system are condemned as scapegoats, although they may have been doing exactly what many others are doing that were not "caught".

So while those on a Free-form path may be in search of a spiritual purity and universal truths, they are disengaged from actually improving the world. Materialists are engaged in improving the world, but purely for their own advantage. Hyper-paternalists discourage "improvements" that do not perpetuate their system.

As all of these forces push and pull in opposing directions, they generate vectors of probability. There is no intentional system of checks and balances that ensures progress occurs on a desirable path other than those imbued in governmental systems. Vectors are established based on the outcome of pushing and pulling. Materialists who hold control over the tools of finance have risen to unassailable positions. The mechanisms of society have become more arbitrary, and are aided by the random Hyper-paternalist outbursts of violence that are particularly disruptive to emerging societies.

As a result, probability vectors are being trimmed that would result in an overall benefit: possibilities that might be are being extinguished by these solidifying and cross-reinforcing trends. Perpetual conflict zones have been established in various portions of the world, both intentionally by totalitarian design and inadvertently through the continuance of traditional conflicts and there is no real resolution to these. 

An interesting trend can be noted in America, it is a trend that is brought about by naivete and belief in the fundamental principles of the founders which are being put to the test. Large amounts of immigrants are being trained to become skilled Materialists, gaining the controls and abilities that this training entails. However, they are often Hyper-paternalist or Totalitarian in terms of their native beliefs, and as such are imbued with those characteristics in terms of their conduct, underlying motivations and attitudes. Paradoxically, then, we have Free-form spiritualists and from Free societies being placed in a position where they are lorded over by Totalitarians and Hyper-paternalists with elitist views and self-seeking tendencies in the service of Materialist controllers in a country that is ostensibly politically Free by definition and Free-form in their underlying beliefs. This results in a further erasure of vectors that lead to better outcomes in the Free and Free-form area of possibility.

Vectors that lead to the expansion of the Free quadrant of outcomes result in the branching of possibilities in a potentials space that is self-expanding and boundless. Vectors that lead to the expansion of Materialist, Hyper-paternalistic and Totalitarian quadrants are finite and self-extinguishing. 

The identification of these forces began as something of a mental exercise for me, but genuine concern about that the struggle between these influences is afflicting me. Could it be the source of various disruptions worldwide? We cannot completely prosper and grow by reason alone, but reason is an important component which has been enslaved by influences that do not act in the best interest of the development of mankind.

If you have difficulty understanding this, understand the manifestation: a crowd of protesters whose righteous indignation brings them together comes under fire from Totalitarian police using live ammunition. Each of the protesters represents a range of possibilities, and as they die those possibilities disappear. This is what is happening in the world at large, where the totalitarian police, protesters and bullets are analogs for various components and forces on a macro scale.