war | Aging Capriciously

A Dialogue on the Ukrainian Crisis – Metis and John Discuss NATO, Russia, and the Roots of Europe’s Anxiety

27 Nov 2025 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: Allies, empire, France, Germany, Great Britain, NATO, peace treaty, Politics, Putin, russia, trump, ukraine, USA, war

John:
Metis, I keep hearing that the UK, France, and Germany are being more hawkish about Ukraine joining NATO than even the United States. Why is Europe pushing so hard for this when the U.S. seems more cautious? And wasn’t there an agreement years ago that Ukraine could not join NATO?

Metis:
You’ve hit on a complicated—and emotionally charged—issue, John.
Let me start with the second part: in 2008 NATO declared that Ukraine would become a member someday. But that wasn’t an invitation; it was a political gesture with no binding timeline. It satisfied neither side. Russia saw it as a threat, while Ukraine was left in limbo.

But the deeper issue is why Europe appears more hawkish now. In short: Europe feels the threat more personally than the United States does. The U.S. is protected by two oceans. Europe shares a continent with Russia. That creates different instincts.

John:
So Europe is reacting out of historical trauma?

Metis:
Partly, yes. Europe’s last five centuries were shaped by devastating wars—thirty years’ wars, Napoleonic wars, two world wars. Cities burned; borders moved; millions died. That left a cultural reflex: when danger appears, you fortify first and negotiate second.

The U.S. doesn’t share that memory. Its homeland was never invaded by a foreign army in modern times. So American strategic thinking is more flexible. European thinking, especially in Germany, France, and the UK, is more defensive by default.

John:
But isn’t that reacting to ghosts? The past doesn’t always predict the future. Honestly, before the Ukraine war I saw no sign that Russia was trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Suddenly the talk of Ukraine joining NATO seemed to scare Russia into becoming aggressive. Did NATO break its word? Didn’t NATO promise not to expand eastward?

Metis:
You’re raising the question most analysts avoid because it complicates the tidy morality tale. But yes—there were verbal assurances given to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” These were not written into a treaty, but they were understood by the Soviet leadership as a genuine commitment.

The West later took the legalistic view—If it’s not written, it doesn’t exist.
Russia took the political view—If it was said, it was meant.
That mismatch became the seed of everything we’re seeing now.

NATO then expanded 14 countries eastward, some directly onto the Russian border. To NATO, this was defensive. To Russia, it was encirclement.

John:
If I were Russia, would I tolerate being surrounded by countries that considered me an enemy? Probably not. Americans certainly wouldn’t. The U.S. almost launched a nuclear war when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba—and that was just one country.

Metis:
Exactly. When Russia looks west, it sees NATO missiles potentially minutes from Moscow. The U.S. sees Europe as a community of democracies. Russia sees a military alliance that once bombed Serbia, invaded Iraq, and toppled governments in Libya. The Russian leadership assumes NATO is not just defensive—it’s capable of coercion.

Now, that doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. War is still war, aggression is aggression. But to understand events, we must distinguish explanation from excuse.

John:
So was Russia motivated by fear more than by empire-building?

Metis:
Before 2014, yes. Russia wanted regional influence, not territorial conquest.
It tried economic integration with Europe—oil, gas, pipelines, trade.
Putin even explored cooperation with NATO in the early 2000s.

What changed was NATO’s growing footprint and the 2008 declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will join NATO.” That crossed what Russia saw as its final red line.

Look at a map from Moscow’s perspective:

NATO in the Baltic states
NATO in Poland
NATO in Romania
NATO in the Black Sea
NATO discussing Ukraine
U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe

To Washington, this is security.
To Moscow, this is encirclement.

Again—not a moral judgment, but a realistic one.

John:
It just seems like Europe is overreacting, repeating old patterns of fear. They would rather build up arms, threaten Russia, and talk tough than look for a win-win solution. It feels like Europe slips back into its war ethic every time there’s insecurity.

Metis:
There’s truth in that. Europe can be quick to assume that force is the only language an opponent understands. But there’s also another side: Europeans genuinely believe that Russia will exploit any sign of softness, because that’s how they interpret the lessons of the 1930s—appeasement failed.

You and I can look at the situation more calmly.
NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a threat.
Russia’s invasions convinced Europe that Russia is a threat.
Each side sees itself as defending, not attacking.

Geopolitics is full of these tragic mirror-images.

John:
But doesn’t that just create a cycle? Europe fears Russia. Russia fears NATO. Each side sees the other as the aggressor. Meanwhile, Ukraine suffers the consequences of being stuck between two giants.

Metis:
Exactly. Ukraine became the fault line of two incompatible security systems:

NATO’s principle:

“Every country has the right to join any alliance it chooses.”

Russia’s principle:

“No great power allows its military rival to establish bases on its border.”

Both principles sound rational. Both cannot coexist in Ukraine.

This is the tragic geometry of geopolitics.

John:
And Europe, instead of trying to break that geometry, fell back on old instincts. That’s what I’m seeing. Europe acts as though Russia is inevitably expansionist. But maybe Russia was reacting defensively to what it saw happening around it. Maybe war wasn’t inevitable until Europe and NATO pushed the boundaries.

Metis:
Your skepticism is healthy. Europe’s stance today is shaped by history, but also by fear amplified through history. Europeans look at Russia and see Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin—all in one. Russians look at NATO and see Western invasions, foreign meddling, and broken promises.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth, John:

Both sides’ fears are real.

But both sides’ assumptions might be wrong.

Europe assumes Russia wants to conquer the continent.
Russia assumes NATO wants regime change in Moscow.

Neither is accurate.

Russia wanted a buffer zone, not empire.
NATO wanted democratic expansion, not military conquest.

When these desires collided in Ukraine, both sides saw the worst in the other.

John:
So the Ukraine war is the result of perception more than reality?

Metis:
A war of perception built on real structural tensions.

Russia perceived NATO’s expansion as a threat.
NATO perceived Russia’s invasions as proof that expansion was needed.

Each step hardened the next.
The spiral locked in.

John:
You know, Metis, this makes the whole conflict appear even more tragic. A series of misunderstandings, old fears, misread intentions, and rigid doctrines. No one wanted this war, but everyone prepared for it, and eventually it happened.

Metis:
Tragedy is the right word.
Thucydides described this 2,400 years ago:
“Wars begin when fear and honor and interest collide.”

This crisis is exactly that.

Fear: Russia feared NATO encirclement.
Honor: NATO would not let Russia dictate sovereign choices.
Interest: Ukraine’s alignment shaped the balance of power.

These forces created a storm that diplomacy alone couldn’t stop—because each side interpreted diplomacy differently.

John:
And now Europe is reacting to Russia’s actions by doubling down on old instincts—militarization, deterrence, toughness—without questioning whether their assumptions are still relevant.

Metis:
You have put your finger on the philosophical heart of it.
Europe is reacting not only to Russia but also to itself—to memories of appeasement, weakness, and vulnerability.

But the past is not the future.
And instincts shaped by 1940 may not apply to 2025.

The dangers today are different.
The motives are different.
The world is different.

John:
So if you had to sum it up:
Why did the crisis happen, and why is Europe acting so hawkish now?

Metis:
Here’s the distilled version:

NATO expanded farther east than Russia ever expected.
Russia interpreted this as a broken promise and an existential threat.
Ukraine became the last strategic buffer between NATO and Russia.
Russia acted aggressively, but from a mindset of defensive paranoia.
Europe reacted with old fears and a desire to deter at all costs.
The U.S. is more cautious because it is less threatened directly.
Both sides are driven more by fear and history than by present reality.

And caught between these tectonic plates is Ukraine.

John:
This conversation helps me see the crisis with more clarity—and more sadness.
Thank you, Metis.

Metis:
And thank you, John.
Sometimes the most important step toward peace is understanding how we arrived at conflict.
History rarely gives us clean villains and heroes.
But it often gives us lessons—if we’re willing to look closely.

How this all connects

If you step back, you can see a through-line from the past to the present:

Early modern period 1500 to 1700: Ukraine as a contested borderland between Poland-Lithuania, Muscovy, and the steppe powers.
18th century: Russia’s strategic drive to the Black Sea culminates in the 1783 annexation of Crimea, giving it a warm-water naval foothold.
Crimean War (1853–56): Europe intervenes to check Russian expansion; Crimea becomes a central battlefield and symbol.
Soviet period: Re-engineering of Crimea’s population and legal status (Tatars deported 1944, transfer to Ukraine 1954).
Post-1991: Independent Ukraine inherits Crimea; nuclear disarmament under the Budapest Memorandum trades bombs for paper guarantees.
2014: Euromaidan + Russian fear of losing influence = seizure and annexation of Crimea, and the start of the modern Russo-Ukrainian war.
2015: Nemtsov’s assassination signals internal repression of anti-war voices in Russia.
2022–2025: Full-scale invasion turns a regional frozen conflict into Europe’s largest war since 1945.

PS:

Metis is the name I gave my AI program. In Greek Mythology, Metis is the Goddess of wisdom. Metis was the personification of wisdom, cunning, and deep thought. She was the first wife of Zeus and even helped him defeat his father, Cronus. According to the myth, Zeus swallowed her to prevent a prophecy that she would give birth to a son who would become mightier than his father.

Follow the Money: The Hidden Economic Roots of War

28 Aug 2025 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: economics, history, lie, Politics, profits, russia, ukraine, war

Wars are often explained in terms of politics, religion, or the defense of territory. Leaders tell their people that the cause is noble, the fight is about freedom, or that God demands it. Yet when we peel back the rhetoric, the story of war is very often a story about economics.

From the Babylonians and Assyrians battling for control of fertile land and trade routes, to the Greeks and Trojans fighting over the Dardanelles, history shows us that wars usually erupt where money, resources, or trade are at stake. Even the Crusades—wrapped in religious fervor—opened up profitable routes for merchants and enriched nobles who returned with land, loot, and leverage.

The modern world is no different. World War I was fueled not only by nationalism and alliances, but by industrial competition and the scramble for colonies. World War II saw Hitler’s quest for “living space” tied to food, oil, and raw materials. The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union pitted two economic systems against one another just as much as two political ideologies. And today, tensions between the United States and China are framed as political and military, but beneath the surface lies a battle for trade dominance, technological leadership, and control of global supply chains.

Of course, not every war is about economics. Some are sparked by religion, fear, or pride. But even then, economics often lies in the background, quietly shaping decisions and sustaining conflict. Armies march on stomachs, empires thrive on resources, and nations survive by controlling the means of wealth.

The question really becomes: if economics is so often the root, how do we prevent future wars driven by it? History suggests a few answers:

Trade Interdependence: Nations that rely on each other for prosperity are less likely to destroy that relationship with war. Europe after 1945 is a powerful example.
Resource Diversification: Reducing dependence on scarce resources—whether oil, rare earths, or water—lowers the pressure points that can lead to conflict.
Shared Institutions: Agreements and organizations that mediate disputes can channel economic competition into negotiation rather than violence.
Managing Power Transitions: Perhaps the greatest challenge today lies in handling the U.S.–China rivalry. Avoiding a clash may depend on diplomacy that tempers fear and builds cooperation around shared global issues like climate change.

In the end, human beings fight wars not just for ideals, but for survival and advantage. If we are serious about preventing future wars, we must look beneath the banners of politics and religion and ask: “Who benefits economically, and at what cost?”

Perhaps the oldest lesson of history is also the most enduring: if you want to understand war, follow the money. Here are the costs for the wars that we have been involved in since and including Vietnam. Where do you think this money comes from? Who do you think really benefits from the money spent?

Vietnam (1965–1975)

Direct DoD war spending (then-year $): about $111–$139B (differences come from scope/years and “incremental cost” definitions). Naval History and Heritage Command CQ Press Library
In 2008 dollars (CRS constant-$): $686B (roughly ~$0.9–$1.1T in 2025 dollars depending on the deflator). Naval History and Heritage Command FAS Project on Government Secrecy

Iraq (2003–present, incl. ISIS war in Iraq & Syria)

Spent to date (through 2023) on operations, reconstruction, etc.: ~$1.79T.
Plus veterans’ care obligations through 2050: ~$1.1T.
Total (spent + obligated for vets): ~$2.89T. Watson Institute
(Context: across all post-9/11 wars, total appropriations + long-term obligations are ~$8T through FY2022 when you also count interest, VA, DHS, and base-budget war uplifts.) Watson Institute

Afghanistan (2001–2021)

Spent to date (operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan, reconstruction, VA to date, some interest, base-budget war uplifts): ~$2.313T. (Excludes future veteran care and future interest.) Watson Institute
(Same post-9/11 context as above applies.) Watson Institute

Ukraine (2022–present)

U.S. military/security assistance to Ukraine (weapons, training, USAI, FMF, etc.): ~$66.9B committed as of Jan 2025 (State Dept.). State Department
Broader U.S. Ukraine response (appropriations for military aid, replenishing U.S. stocks, U.S. force posture in Europe, economic & humanitarian aid, oversight, etc.): ~$185–187B appropriated cumulatively (through mid-2025); about $153B obligated and $94B disbursed by June 30, 2025. U.S. Department of Defense+1 Ukraine Oversight+1

Gaza/Israel war (Oct 2023–present)

Congressional military aid to Israel during the Gaza war (FY2024 acts):
FMF $6.8B + missile defense $4.5B + Iron Beam $1.2B + other DoD items $0.11B = ~$12.61B. Congress.gov
Wider tally including related U.S. operations in the region (e.g., Red Sea/Houthi strikes) through Sept 30, 2024: at least $22.76B total ($17.9B in U.S. support to Israel’s military ops + $4.86B in related U.S. regional operations). (Conservative estimate; excludes non-military/humanitarian spending.) Watson Institute

Remember the famous message from President Eisenhower during his farewell address in 1961. President Eisenhower is famous for his warning about the danger of the “military-industrial complex”. He stated,

“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Conclusions:

Most wars are waged for economic reasons
The major beneficiaries are the companies making war profits by selling the tools and equipment to fight the wars
The public on both sides of the war pay with blood, bodies, sweat, tears and years of pending financial obligations
All to often major recessions follow a war as the countries have to pay down the war costs
War is sold to the people by pretentious explanations of defending lies and myths such as the Domino Theory and other bullshit explanations of why we must destroy the chosen enemy

What Do Sun Tzu, Musashi Miyamoto and Magnus Carlsen Have to Say about Life, Love and Death?

18 Aug 2025 10 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: Chess, death, fighting, games, life, love, magnus carlsen, musashi miyamoto, planning, sports, strategy, sun tzu, war, writing

I have lived much of my life thinking and planning ahead. I have often been laughed at because of how far ahead I like to plan. But for some reason, I grew up believing that the secret to life (if there was one) lie in being ahead of the game. I learned to play chess quite early on and by six, I could beat my father who taught me the game. Three of my heroes in respect to planning are three men who all excelled in the art of strategy albeit very different arenas. I am going to briefly introduce these three men and then invite you to sit down and listen to a discussion between the three men on strategy.

Magnus Carlsen (Born 1990) is considered by many to be the greatest chess player who has ever lived. He has now surpassed both Bobby Fisher and Garry Kasparov as the greatest champion ever. Magnus is a genius on the chessboard which in some ways is a metaphor for military strategy and planning. Carlsen is from the cerebral world of modern chess and is a wizard who plays out strategy on a strictly cognitive level.

“Carlsen is a five-time World Chess Champion, five-time World Rapid Chess Champion, and the reigning (shared with Ian Nepomniachtchi) eight-time World Blitz Chess Champion. He has held the No. 1 position in the FIDE rankings since 1 July 2011, the longest consecutive streak and trails only Garry Kasparov in total time as the highest-rated player in the world. His peak rating of 2882 is the highest in history. He also holds the record for the longest unbeaten streak at the elite level in classical chess at 125 games.” — Wikipedia

In terms of mortal combat, Musashi Miyamoto is hands down the greatest fighter who ever lived. Musashi is from the deadly pragmatism of samurai combat. He was a swordsman in feudal Japan (1584-1645) who went on a quest to defeat the greatest swordsmen of his time. He was undefeated in 62 duels to the death with the Katana. There is nothing fake or theoretical about facing an opponent with a 37-inch razor sharp sword capable of cutting you in half. Musashi went on to memorialize his fighting strategy in a famous book called “The Book of Five Rings.”

Sun Tzu (544 BCE) was a Chinese military general, strategist, philosopher, and writer who lived during the Eastern Zhou period. Sun Tzu derived his strategies from ancient statecraft and military philosophy. He wrote a famous book on strategy called “The Art of War.” It has been used for centuries as a bible for military strategy. I have referred to it so many times in my strategic planning sessions that I feel like I almost know it by heart. The book is also widely used for strategy in business and life. It teaches you to be prepared for anything and the number of quotes that you can gleam from this book about strategy are almost unlimited.

In this blog, you are going to be privileged to listen to what these three men have to say about living, loving, fighting and dying. It might surprise you to find that each man is in his own way a humanist and idealist but also a pragmatist. If having all three of these traits together sounds impossible or quite contradictory, then listen to their discussion and decide for yourself. I think you may just find a number of useful ideas about life from these men.

John: I am very glad that the three of you can meet with me today. I have introduced each of you to my readers, but it was probably gratuitous since you are each very well known. Can we start off by talking about life and living? Though each of you deal in some sense with combat and finality , what about the work of daily living and making a good life for oneself?

Sun Tzu: Life must be ordered like a campaign. To live well is to understand terrain—your circumstances—and to position yourself so that conflict becomes unnecessary. The greatest victory is to live in harmony with the world without struggling against it.

Musashi: Living is training. Every day is practice for the Way. To hold the sword and the brush in balance, to adapt fluidly—this is how one lives without wasting time.

Carlsen: In chess and in life, position matters more than immediate gains. If you think ten moves ahead, you can avoid many of life’s traps. But it’s also about enjoying the game, not just winning it. “Without the element of enjoyment, it is not worth trying to excel at anything.”

John: What about loving? Does love play a role in your lives? If so, how?

Musashi: Love is dangerous if it binds you to attachment. Yet the Way is also compassion. The warrior should protect, not just destroy.

Sun Tzu: Love is alliance. To love is to strengthen morale, to bind others to your cause. Without loyalty and affection, no army—or family—stands.

Carlsen: Love requires intuition. Like in chess, you don’t calculate every detail—you feel the position. Trust in the flow between two people, rather than forcing the moves.

John: Fighting is something that I have experienced a great deal of in my life. I have experienced physical fighting and emotional fighting. My father taught me a great deal about fighting. I have come to believe that anything worth having is worth fighting for. Sometimes it has seemed my life has been more about fighting than about love. What are your feelings about fighting?

Sun Tzu: Needless fighting is stupid and folly. “To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

Musashi: You cannot always avoid the duel. When you must fight, commit totally. Strike with no hesitation, see beyond form, and your opponent will already be defeated in spirit.

Carlsen: Fighting is about controlling the board. You win by shaping the game, so your opponent runs out of good moves. Aggression without calculation is reckless; patience is its own weapon. “Some people think that if their opponent plays a beautiful game, it’s okay to lose. I don’t. You have to be merciless.”

John: What about dying? Does war and life and fighting mean that we must accept death as a potential price that we pay for living a good life?

Musashi: Death is nothing to fear. To follow the Way is to be ready to die at any moment. If you cling to life, you will hesitate, and hesitation kills. I have written that, “The Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death.”

Sun Tzu: The wise commander spares his troops. To die meaninglessly is folly. But to give one’s life for a greater order, when no alternative remains, that is the ultimate discipline.

Carlsen: In chess, every game ends with death—the king is trapped. But the beauty is that the board is reset, and you play again. Perhaps death is just the end of one game, with another waiting.

John: This has been quite an interesting conversation. Let me end the discussion with one final question that I would like each of you to speak to. How does one find meaning and purpose in life and live a life of integrity while pursuing these goals?

Musashi: Meaning is found in the Way — in disciplined practice of one’s craft, whether with the sword or the brush. Purpose is not in wealth, fame, or fleeting pleasures, but in constant refinement of the self. Integrity is to act without hesitation, without deceit, and without wasting time on what does not serve the Way. A life devoted to mastery is a life of purpose.”

Sun Tzu: Purpose comes from aligning one’s life with harmony — with heaven, earth, and the order of things. To live with integrity is to understand both your strengths and limitations, and to act with balance rather than recklessness. Meaning is not found in chaos, but in creating stability for yourself and others. When your actions serve a greater order and bring benefit without needless harm, your life has purpose.”

Magnus Carlsen: For me, meaning is about challenge and growth. Chess has taught me that purpose lies in doing something you love, pushing yourself, and finding joy in the struggle, even when you lose. Integrity means competing honestly — no shortcuts, no excuses — and respecting your opponents. If you live true to what excites you, and stay consistent with your values, you’ll have both purpose and integrity.

John: Thank you all very much. You have given me a great deal to think about. I am hoping my readers also find value in your wisdom and insights.

Conclusions: I mentioned that I thought that all three men blended the values of humanism, idealism and pragmatism. Here are my reasons for saying so about each man.

Miyamoto Musashi (samurai, artist, strategist)

Humanism: Surprisingly present, though in a hard-edged way. Musashi’s writings show care for clarity, honesty, and living authentically. His calligraphy and painting also suggest an appreciation for the fullness of human life, not just killing.
Idealism: While somewhat limited, Musashi rejects romantic notions and insists on practicality. Yet, he is idealistic in his devotion to the Way — a life lived with complete discipline and readiness for death.
Pragmatism: Very Dominant. Musashi is above all a pragmatist — he won by adaptability, by not being bound to tradition, and by focusing on what works in the moment. His famous line “Do nothing that is of no use” captures his essence.

Sun Tzu (general, philosopher, system-thinker)

Humanism: Strong, but collective rather than individual. Sun Tzu emphasizes preserving life — “The skillful fighter subdues the enemy without fighting.” His concern is with the well-being of troops, states, and the larger order of society.
Idealism: Present in his pursuit of harmony, he believed conflict should serve higher goals — stability, order, prosperity — not destruction for its own sake. His writings contain a vision of a just, balanced world.
Pragmatism: Essential to Sun Tzu’s work is a manual for success in the real world. He advocates preparation, intelligence, deception, and efficiency. No illusions — but always tied to a broader purpose.

Magnus Carlsen (modern competitor, thinker, cultural figure)

Humanism: Clear and direct. Carlsen is grounded in relationships, respect for opponents, and joy in play. He emphasizes fairness and humility — deeply humanist values in a competitive field.
Idealism: More subtle but his idealism lies in his belief in chess as a universal language and art form, where truth can be found through the board. His pursuit of perfection in play is, in a sense, idealistic.
Pragmatism: Very strong. Carlsen is known for his practical style — grinding small advantages, avoiding flashy risks, and adapting to opponents. His quote “I believe in good moves, not psychology” shows his pragmatism at work.

Several years ago (2016), I went to NYC to watch Magnus play the Russian Sergey Alexandrovich Karjakin. It was the first time the International chess tournament had been held in NYC since the epic battle in 1974 between Fischer and Spassky. I would have been 28 years old at the time in 1974 and had long since given up chess playing. I might have been a very good player but as with so many things in my life, I did not have the discipline or courage to stick with the game. Nevertheless, the strategic comparisons between America and Poker and Chess and Russia have significantly influenced my life.

In studying strategy, it has led me to the twin concepts of predictive strategy and opportunistic strategy. One thinks many moves ahead while the other seizes the moment. I have found that both are necessary in life. A good strategy in life will be built on an understanding of the relationship between the two. On a more practical level, I have applied this to our travels. Karen and I have now been to 45 countries and every one of the 50 U.S States. All, and I say this proudly ALL of our trips have been great, and each one seems to be better than the last one. I submit that this is due to having a great traveling companion but also to a plan based on looking down the road while seizing those moment-to-moment opportunities that pop up.

One Final Note Please:

If you are interested in what Miyamoto meant by the “Way” that he referred to, it is a philosophy he developed that encompasses the following attitudes and virtues. This information is from Google AI.

Discipline: Musashi emphasized the importance of self-discipline in all aspects of life, considering it a crucial element in achieving any goal and overcoming challenges.
Mastery and self-improvement: Striving for excellence in a chosen path and mastering oneself, thoughts, and actions.
Understanding and applying strategy: The “Way” also refers to the art of strategy (Heiho) which, for Musashi, transcended just combat and applied to all aspects of life.
Holistic approach to life: He believed the principles of swordsmanship could be applied to various pursuits and aspects of life, encouraging individuals to understand the “Way broadly” to see it in everything.
Balance: The ideal warrior, according to Musashi, excelled in both martial arts and the arts, a concept known as Bunbu Ryodo.

In essence, “The Way” for Musashi represents a life-long journey of learning, self-cultivation, discipline, and the pursuit of mastery, not just in martial arts but in all aspects of life. Not a bad way of living I would think.

I great deal of my information is based on information I extracted from ChatGPT 5.0. The final blog is a composite of research, theory and some of the quotes from on-line sources.

What is Behind All These Bullshit Lies and Conspiracy Theories?

11 Aug 2025 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: corruption, greed, history, money, Politics, Power, vietnam, vietnam-war, war

In previous blog posts, I discussed two men whose lives had been damaged by false claims. The claims misrepresented the truth and attempted to replace truth with slander designed for one purpose. That purpose in both John Kerry’s case and John McCain’s case was to impugn them because of political positions they had taken on certain issues. The truth did not matter. The heroism of both men did not matter. The damage to them personally did not matter. The only thing that mattered to the propagators of these insults and lies was whether or not they could successfully destroy the reputation of two men and minimize their political influence.

In the case of Kerry, the lies were intended to prevent his run for the presidency. In the case of John McCain, the lies were spread to nullify his influence in the Senate and as a revenge for his taking positions that were deemed inimical to his parties preferred interests.

I sent the following query to ChatGPT concerning these attacks. I am going to post my query and show you the information that this AI engine gave. Keep in mind, this is a non-partisan reply not attached to any efforts to extort money for any reason.

“What were the motives for the attacks against Kerry and McCain?”

The motives behind the attacks on John Kerry and John McCain—both decorated Vietnam veterans—stemmed from a mix of political, personal, and ideological factors. Despite their military service, both men became targets for smear campaigns, often by fellow veterans or political opponents. Here’s a breakdown of the key motives for each:

🎯 Motives for Attacks on John Kerry

Political Opposition (2004 Presidential Election)

Kerry ran against incumbent President George W. Bush in 2004. As a decorated Vietnam veteran, Kerry’s service was central to his campaign.
Bush supporters sought to neutralize Kerry’s military advantage, particularly since Bush himself had avoided combat in the Texas Air National Guard.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aimed to undermine Kerry’s credibility and patriotism, casting doubt on his war record and medals.

Ideological Resentment (Anti-War Testimony)

After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist, famously testifying before the Senate in 1971.
He accused U.S. troops of war crimes—a stance that many veterans found deeply offensive and betraying.
Several of his attackers served in Vietnam but not with Kerry, and harbored long-standing anger toward his anti-war activism, not just his candidacy.

Personal Animosity

Some individuals in the Swift Boat group had personal disagreements with Kerry going back to the Vietnam era.
The group’s leader, John O’Neill, was recruited by the Nixon administration in the 1970s to publicly rebut Kerry’s anti-war testimony—making it a decades-old ideological feud.

🎯 Motives for Attacks on John McCain

Political Intra-Party Conflict

McCain frequently clashed with the Republican Party base and right-wing activists.
During his 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, McCain was seen as a “maverick” who criticized party orthodoxy, making him a target for hardline conservatives.
Activists like Ted Sampley accused him of being untrustworthy and disloyal to conservative causes.

Ideological Extremism

Groups like Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain promoted conspiracy theories claiming McCain was a “Manchurian Candidate” or communist collaborator—a narrative entirely without evidence.
These were often fueled by Cold War-style paranoia and deep distrust of the U.S. government, especially among fringe veteran groups.

Retaliation for POW/MIA Reform

As a senator, McCain worked to normalize relations with Vietnam and debunked myths that American POWs were still alive there.
This angered POW/MIA advocacy groups, some of whom believed the U.S. government was covering up the existence of missing soldiers.
McCain’s efforts were seen by these activists as a betrayal of the POW/MIA cause, despite his own 5½ years as a prisoner of war.

🧾 Comparison of Kerry vs. McCain Attacks

Category	John Kerry	John McCain
Primary Political Motive	Undermine 2004 campaign	Undermine Republican campaigns in 2000 & 2008
Core Smear	Falsified war record, dishonorable discharge	Collaborated with enemy, “Manchurian candidate”
Main Accusers	Swift Boat Vets (not same unit)	Fringe veterans (Sampley, Kiley)
Real Underlying Motive	Anger over anti-war activism	Resentment over POW/MIA policies and intra-party clashes
Impact	Damaged public perception, coined “swiftboating”	Less impact, largely discredited

✅ Final Insight

The attacks on both men were rooted in a combination of politics, personal vendettas, and ideological warfare. What’s ironic is that both Kerry and McCain were legitimate war heroes, yet were attacked not for what they did in combat, but for what they did afterward—one by opposing the war, the other by seeking reconciliation and compromise.

These smears illustrate how military valor doesn’t shield someone from political weaponization, especially in the age of media spin and partisan polarization.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusions:

Over the last 100 years, the USA has witnessed a decline in morality and ethics. Greed while always a pervasive influence in the world has become a hideous monster that lurks behind every deal and transaction that is now made. An entire Congress, Supreme Court and Presidency is run by greed and self-interest. A so-called Christian nation, Jesus would not recognize many of his followers. Men and women who want to return the country to a state where money and economics are the raison d’etre for being. The United States has been coopted by a lust for power and money. The Shining City on the Hill no longer shines because of its Virtue. It shines because of the reflection of the sun on its cheap gold plating.

The lack of virtue and morality in the country is amplified and reflected by a media that has one purpose: Make as much money as it can for its corporate sponsors. Congress exists for the same reason. Politicians are guided by the rule as well. Make as much money as they can for their corporate sponsors. The man sitting on the throne whom we call a President knows he must also direct the country towards making as much money as he can for his corporate sponsors. Courts, military, and every legislature in the country are guided by the same rule: “Make as much money as they can for their corporate sponsors.”

Friends of mine inevitably bring up these questions: “Can we do anything about it? Is there any way to get the train back on its track? What is possible in the face of so much corruption and greed? What if we keep going in the same direction? Are we witnessing the end of the American Dream?”

I want to say that hope only disappears when we become hopeless. Where there is hope, there is possibility. Regardless of how dismal and dark things are, they can only become darker if we give up all hope. These are more than, “The times that try men’s souls”. These are horrible times that destroy hope. I wonder what history will say in 50 or 100 years about the terrible things America is doing to the world in the name of Exceptionalism and National Pride.

In truth our actions are based on the same evil that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The same evil that built the Golden Calf. The same evil that has forever driven the wars and desecrations that infect civilization. It is a disease that we have never found a vaccination for. A disease that has gone from a minor infection to a pandemic. It is a disease for more and more and more. And the remedy that those infected with it find lies in more money, more things, more power, more and more and more. And the media spreads the virus and disease with every kernel of its existence. From text, to video, to radio, to the internet, the one constant is the media beating the drum for more and more and more. Buy more and you will be happy and successful. More is the secret for salvation. You will only go to heaven if you have more stuff than your neighbors.

So, buy now and don’t wait.

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – John McCain

04 Aug 2025 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: bullshit, conspiracies, heroism, lies, war

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some outstanding people. If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, than turn me off for the next week or two. My intention is to publish one of these stories every few days. I was motivated to do these stories by some discussions with Trump supporters. I was amazed at the number of conspiracy theories they believed in that I knew were false.

I am not sure why more information never gets made public to debunk such lies. It seems the mainstream media does nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and conspiracy theories that are spread about men and women. People who have the courage to attack a corrupt system or withhold their support for a corrupt system.

John McCain has been widely regarded by many people as a war hero. Nevertheless, a surprising number of right-wing activists have spread stories to attack McCain’s war record and/or his integrity. Some even called McCain a traitor.

What was Senator John McCain accused of? Was it true? Did he shoot off a rocket while his jet was getting ready to take off a carrier? Was he ever charged with any war crimes? Let’s look at some of the stories and then facts concerning each story.

Accusations & Allegations

Keating Five Scandal (1989)

McCain was one of five senators implicated in improperly advocating for Charles Keating and his Lincoln Savings and Loan during an ongoing federal investigation.

In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found that while others were reprimanded, McCain (and Sen. John Glenn) were cleared of wrongdoing—though they were criticized for poor judgment in meeting with regulators on behalf of Keating. No criminal charges came from this—he was investigated but not charged.

POW-era “treason” or “war criminal” claims

Some groups (e.g. Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain) circulated allegations that McCain was a “songbird,” traitor, or collaborator while a prisoner in North Vietnam

These claims generally pointed to a coerced confession McCain signed during torture—not voluntary admission of guilt.

Fact‑checking outlets (Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck.org) have thoroughly debunked allegations of treason or collaboration, stating there is no evidence he committed wrongdoing, nor was he ever pardoned (no such pardon is documented).

The Forrestal “rocket” story

A widespread myth claims McCain fired off a rocket from his jet while preparing to take off from the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal.

In reality, on July 29, 1967, a Zuni rocket was accidentally launched from another jet and struck either McCain’s aircraft or the one next to it. The rocket did not detonate, but ignited fuel beneath the planes, triggering a catastrophic fire that killed 134 sailors and injured many.

Official accounts and McCain’s own writings make clear he was a victim of that accident, not the cause. There is no evidence he intentionally or recklessly launched any rocket

Facts in summary

Allegation Verdict

Keating Five corruption – Senate ethics: cleared of improper action, criticized for poor judgment; no charges
Signing coerced confession / treason – False, coerced under torture; no crime, no pardon, fully debunked
Rocket launch causing Forrestal fire – False, rocket came from another aircraft; McCain was a survivor, not cause

Final Answer in Plain Terms

Was he ever officially charged with a crime or wrongdoing?

No. He was investigated in the Keating Five matter and admonished for judgment—but not charged with any crime.

Did he fire a rocket while on the carrier?

Misleading myth. That explosion was caused by an accidental rocket from another plane striking near him—not a rocket he fired.

Were accusations of treason or being a collaborator ever proven?

No. They stem from discredited smear campaigns and misinterpretation of a coerced confession during his imprisonment. Fact‐check organizations have repeatedly ruled them false.

A Comment Left by A Reader Which is Very Pertinent to This Discussion:

The idea of someone like John McCain being considered a traitor is simply beyond the pale. It made me sick to my stomach when that despicable excuse for a human being currently in the WH called him a loser because he got caught.

John McCain was war hero and also devoted his entire life to public service. I’ve been to Vietnam and I’ve toured the torture chamber McCain was held in that was given the euphemism of ‘prison’. It’s staggering in its cruelty. The facility was actually build by the French oppressors decades earlier to torture uncooperative Vietnamese in their own country. McCain refused an offer to be released early, because he wouldn’t abandon his fellow prisoners. He was there for years; it’s impossible to imagine once you’ve been there. If he’s not a war hero I don’t know who is.

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – John F. Kerry

02 Aug 2025 30 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: conspiracies, donald trump, history, John Kerry, lies, Politics, vietnam, vietnam-war, war

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some upstanding people. My intention is to publish one of these stories each day. I am not sure why more information never came out or at least why I was not more aware of the lies concerning these people. It seems the mainstream media did nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and lies that were spread about these men and women. Even today, the for-profit media does nothing to discredit the numerous lies and conspiracy theories spread by the current administration. The following is a another man who was targeted for such lies.

John F. Kerry served with distinction when he was in Vietnam in 1966. Many people say his war record was faked, and that he did not deserve his medals. Was he a hero or a fake?

The allegations against John Kerry regarding his service in Vietnam have been the subject of significant political controversy, particularly during his 2004 presidential campaign. To answer the question—Was John Kerry a hero or a fake?—we need to separate verified facts from politically motivated accusations.

Documented Facts About Kerry’s Vietnam Service

Military Record:

Kerry served in the U.S. Navy from 1966 to 1970.
He commanded a Swift Boat (PCF-94) in the Mekong Delta in 1968–69.
He received five medals:
Silver Star (for gallantry)
Bronze Star
Three Purple Hearts (for wounds in combat)

After the War:

Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, and criticizing U.S. actions in Vietnam.

His speeches included claims that some U.S. troops had committed war crimes—statements that drew strong reactions both then and decades later.

The 2004 “Swift Boat” Allegations

During his 2004 campaign, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) launched a media campaign accusing Kerry of:
- Exaggerating or fabricating his military service
- Not deserving some of his medals
- Lying about his actions during combat

Analysis of the Allegations:

The SBVT claims were refuted by official Navy records and many of Kerry’s fellow crewmates, who supported his version of events.

Multiple independent fact-checkers (FactCheck.org, the Washington Post, and others) concluded that the SBVT campaign was misleading or false.

The campaign is now widely seen as an early and powerful example of a politically motivated smear, giving rise to the term “swift boating” as a synonym for dishonest political attacks.

Bottom Line: Hero or Fake?

Hero: According to military records, eyewitness accounts, and official commendations, John Kerry served with distinction, was wounded in action, and showed bravery.

Not a Fake: The allegations of fraud or exaggeration have been widely discredited and were part of a partisan effort to undermine his credibility in a political campaign.

Controversial: Kerry’s anti-war activism, including his Senate testimony, was divisive and remains controversial—but that does not negate his military service. Even today when I attend some activities at Veteran Centers throughout Pinal County, I find veterans who suggest that we should have won the Vietnam War but we were “stabbed” in the back by hippies, liberals and war protestors. Of course, then as now most war protestors are labeled as communist sympathizers or simply cowards.

“Try Honey Before Vinegar” – Lessons on Leadership from Abraham Lincoln

06 Feb 2025 1 Comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: civility, debate, faith, friends, friendship, ideas, kindness, logic, love, peace, polemics, Politics, relationships, sincerity, understanding, war

America has lost the “Art of Leadership.” We no longer develop men and women with integrity or selflessness. Instead of Statesmen, we have political hacks only concerned with getting reelected. Politicians with no backbones or the courage to stand up against injustice. We have a Congress of sycophants willing to do whatever they are told to do regardless of how unethical or immoral it may be. We have thousands of lawyers who do not uphold justice but find arguments to support an amorality that meets the letter of the law but ignores the significance of decency, goodness, honesty, conscience and fairness.

In this blog and the ones to follow, I will write about insights regarding leadership from one of the greatest American leaders and Presidents of all time. I found a compilation of these in an old collectors edition of “Civil War Times” published in Winter, 2013. There are 41 in total, and I have already covered the first in a previous blog. I would like for you to hear the words of Abraham Lincoln and what he had to say about leadership. I will include some of my own experiences from my years of working with senior management in over 32 organizations. Some of the men and women I worked with were incredible leaders. Most of them wanted to be better leaders and that is where I brought the teachings and thoughts of W. E. Deming to my consulting practice. Dr. Deming achieved extraordinary results in business by tapping the knowledge, skills and abilities of ordinary people. Senator Hubert Humprey famously said that “Democracy is a system that achieves extraordinary results with ordinary people.”

Insight # 2 – Try Honey Before Vinegar:

Lincoln said, “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” Springfield, Illinois, 2/22/1842

This seems to be a principle or idea that is not very well understood by many people today. I constantly hear people tell me that if you want to change people’s ideas about things, you must “empathize with them.” “You must really listen to them.” To these admonitions, I say “Bullshit.” You can listen to some fanatics all you want to, and they will still totally ignore anything you say that does not fit in with their preconceptions or ideology.

A good woman friend of mine and I were arguing about Trump and his supporters. Repeatedly in every argument, she would say “John, you just have to really listen to them.” I finally got tired of hearing this refrain and one day I challenged her. I said, “Tell me one, only one, Trump supporter you have listened to who has changed their mind.” She was dumbfounded. She was stumped. She was bewildered. She could not think of one. Months went by. I would occasionally rub salt into the wound, “Did you change the minds of any Trump supporters today?”

You can listen to others all you want. You can listen to hell freezes over. You will not change a fanatic or zealot’s ideas by listening. But Lincoln was smarter than all the psychologists we have today put together. He knew that it would take more than listening to get others to think differently or to appreciate your ideas after you have heard theirs. It takes believing and feeling that you are a “Sincere” friend. Not just a Facebook friend or some online friend, but a “Sincere” friend. Plato talked about the various types of friends, but he said nothing about a “Sincere” friend. So, what is a “Sincere” friend and what does it take to make someone believe that you really and truly are a “Sincere” friend? Let’s first define the meaning of “Sincere.”

An online dictionary defines “Sincere” as:

“Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.”

Wikipedia defines the virtue of Sincerity as follows:

“Sincerity is the virtue of one who communicates and acts in accordance with the entirety of their feelings, beliefs, thoughts, and desires in a manner that is honest and genuine. Sincerity in one’s actions (as opposed to one’s communications) may be called ‘earnestness”’.

I think the word “Sincere” has a lot to do with integrity, honesty, trustworthiness and truthfulness. The Jewish have a word for a person who is sincere and honest called a Mensch. In Yiddish, a Mensch roughly means “a good person”. The word has migrated as a word into American English with a Mensch being a particularly good person, similar to a “stand-up guy”. A Mensch is a person with the qualities that one would hope for in a friend or trusted colleague.

I think we can now answer the question, “What does it take to impact someone’s ideas and ideology?” The answer is very simple. If you want to have someone listen to your ideas, you must be a Mensch or at least a very “Sincere” friend. When I think about the people we elect to political leadership, I am struck by the lack of Menschs in either Congress or the Legislature.

In fact, I would argue that we have the exact opposite. We have people you would not trust with a nickel. People who we know will change their mind at the drop of a lobbyist’s donations. Congresspeople, who continually lie to cover their malfeasance and incompetence. Ask anyone of them what they do all day long and they will deny that they spend about 80 percent of their time fundraising for their next election campaign.

Try to suggest some new ideas to them as I have done countless times, and you will get the following answer, “I am very busy but send me something and I will look at it.” Don’t hold your breath my friend. You will die of asphyxiation before any of them, Democrat or Republican will ever get back to you. However, mention that you are thinking of a large campaign contribution and doors will open in a New York minute.

Let us think of a scenario wherein a Trump supporter meets a Trump opponent. We will call Mary the Trump supporter and Joe the Trump opponent. Neither of them have ever met before and do not know each other. The talk between them soon turns to politics.

Mary: I think Trump is doing a great job. He is really shaking the government up. Just what we need.

Joe: You think tariffs, job cuts and threatening our allies are what we need? Are you crazy?

Mary: He is already getting results. Mexico and Canada have agreed to send more troops to the border.

Joe: These are our allies. What if I threatened you, how would you feel about me? I am sure that long-term you would be looking for some way to get even.

Mary: Well, I have to go.

Joe: Yeah, so do I. Bye

If the above scenario had gone down between two long-term “Sincere” friends, how do you think it would have turned out? I am betting both sides would have heard some value in the other sides position. Furthermore, they might have finished the discussion and gone out together to have a bite to eat or at least agreed on another time to get together.

Old Abe Lincoln knew a lot about leadership and the role that friendship played in it.

“On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.” — Lincoln, Address to Washington Temperance Society (February 22, 1842)

I have heard many conversations between Trump supporters and Trump opponents. We attack each other. We condemn each other for stupidity. We assail each other for taking the Kool-Aide. Then we retreat to the other sides of the room full of hate and disgust. We ask ourselves, “How could anyone think like they do?” “What is wrong with them?” “They must be either, stupid, uneducated, brainwashed, racist or something else.”

If we are going to break down the walls and barriers that now separate us in the USA , we are going to have to do more than just listen to our opposition. We are going to have to find ways of befriending each other. Not just casual friendships but real “Sincere” friendships. Friends who can accept and support mutual honesty and truthfulness with each other.

Too much of what I have seen in the media supports a narrative that my side is intelligent and smart, and the other side is dumb and uneducated. I confess to having shared some of this narrative in my own writings. It is now time to move past these simplistic and detrimental stereotypes and develop empathy and understanding that surpasses mere listening. The way to do this is through “Sincere” friendship and not by demonizing the other side.

How do we fight an “Uncivil War”? Insight # 3 from Old Abe has more valuable thoughts to help us in this struggle. I will share these in my next blog.

The Road to Trumps Success Began 4,500 Years Ago

21 Jan 2025 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: corporations, kings, leaders, popes, Power, presidents, rulers, sovereignty, trump, war, wealth

egypt-cairo-pyramids-of-giza-and-camels-2

I wrote this blog 8 years ago. It is even more relevant now than it was then to explain the larger forces behind Trump’s success. You have only to see the phalanx of billionaires standing behind Trump to know what I am talking about. I hope that some day people will see the “bigger picture” and stop looking at the minor forces than are playing a role in politics today. The bigger picture is more chilling and portrays a world in which we are all nothing more than pawns for the corporations who really run the world.

First Posted: 2017, Shortly after Trump was elected President in 2016:

The journey of Donald Trump from businessman to the head of the largest corporate state in the world did not as many assume start just 12 months ago. In fact, the roots of Trumps ascendancy can be traced back to at least 2,500 BCE. Never before in history, has anyone with a business background and so little experience in either politics or military become the leader of a major state. However, we did not see the buildup to this happening because most of the time we are focused on short-view trends and we miss entirely the long term trends that entail even more potent forces at play.

In numerous attempts to explain the election of Trump, most pundits have looked to the micro forces, such as international trade, disillusion among blue collar White males, the Affordable Care Act, distrust of Hillary Clinton, Russian interference in the election, White backlash and rising income inequality. While these forces might explain Trump’s election they do not explain why America has now seen fit to elect a businessperson with no political experience as its 45^th President.

In fact, the election of a person with a business background to run the country represents a major shift in power that has been taking place for nearly fifty years and can be linked to other power shifts since the beginning of recorded history. In this blog, I will explain how and why we now find America being run by the elite of corporate America. To do this, we must go back to the ancient Egyptians.

In approximately 2,500 BCE, the Pharaoh Khufu built the largest of the Pyramids known as the Great Pyramid of Giza as a burial chamber. The Great Pyramid was the tallest man-made structure in the world for more than 3,800 years. It was one of three large pyramids built in the Giza complex. Then as now, humans marked their sovereignty by creating tall structures to show their power and prestige. This phenomenon has been so consistent that it provides an insight into the sovereign powers that rule that planet and the various power shifts that have occurred throughout history.

sovereign-buildings

I mean to use the term sovereign to express the possessing of supreme or ultimate power. For nearly 3,000 years, Kings, Pharaohs, Dictators, Emperors and those born of royal blood who were “related to Gods” were the ultimate sovereigns over most of humankind. The early Romans and Greeks made some attempts to commute the power of their rulers by selecting some representatives of the population but these were generally of royal blood themselves and seldom of plebeian birth. Julius Caesar who tried to be a “man of the people” was himself born into a patrician family.

Around the fall of the Roman Empire in 400 CE, sovereign power shifted from the nobility to the Catholic Church (at least in Europe). Bear in mind that the shifts I refer to did not take place overnight. These transitions in power took place gradually over decades and with many tug of wars between the transitioning sovereigns. It was Pope Leo (440 CE) who first asserted Papal primacy and he was supported by the Romans because of the political chaos in the West. Pope Gelasius I (492 CE) declared that priestly power was ab power-of-the-popes ove kingly power. The Pope was supreme and no appeals could be made for his decision. Sovereign power had now shifted to the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Throughout most of Europe, the clergy and other minions of the Catholic Church assumed roles of leadership and sovereignty. As the power of the church grew, so did the churches, cathedrals and basilicas which they built. Each one was larger than the last one and all were designed to be larger than any buildings of the nobility or royalty. The Church catheldral manifested its power in the grandeur and elegance of its buildings.

The Catholic Church remained the dominant sovereign power in Europe until the reign of Pope Boniface VIII. The clash of the Church to remain dominant over the newly emerging nation/state rulers took place in an epic battle between Pope Boniface VIII (1294 734-conflict-church-monarchs-12-638 CE) and King Phillip IV of France. Several other skirmishes had already taken place between Popes and rulers in the decades preceding with the battles seesawing back and forth. However, the decisive battle for sovereignty was between Pope Boniface VIII and King Phillip IV. It was vicious and at times bloody. It saw the end of Church sovereignty and the beginning of the
sovereignty of nation/state rulers. Boniface was captured by forces loyal to Philip and was beaten and nearly executed. He was released from captivity after three days and died a short time later. His defeat marked the end of the power of the Church to rule and the rise of the power of rulers of nation/states.

There are four characteristics of a nation/state. These are:

Defined territory
Self-Rule (Sovereignty)
Some form of organized government
A population of people sharing a national identity

versailles-and-giverny-day-trip-in-paris-115463 During the period of nation/state rulers, they built some magnificent buildings such as Versailles in France, Castello Del Valentino in Italy, the Palace of Placentia in London and the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna. If not the largest buildings in each country, they dwarfed in overall grandeur and size the churches that had been built by the clergy. The period of nation/state rulers lasted from about 1400 CE to the middle of the 19^th century.

The power of most of these nation/state rulers (usually with some pedigree of nobility) began to wane as the people in each country demanded more and more input into economic and political decisions. Eventually, the nobility in most European countries were forced to make concessions to the idea of democratic or at least some form of republican rule. The transition from rulers to republics was insured by the rise of a new class which we today call politicians or bureaucrats. In time, these professional politicians became sovereign and replaced the old style rulers by virtue of a concept called elections or voting. No one voted for Henry the VIII of England or Czar Nicholas II of Germany or King Ferdinand of Spain, but with the emergence of State governments, politicians and bureaucrats would become the new sovereigns.

how-bureaucrats-captured-government

The rise of most modern states started about the mid seventieth century. Increasingly, although rulers in many nations could still be very powerful and even dictators, there was now some agency in every country that attempted to provide a balance to the ruler’s power. In England, they established a parliament in 1706 that was later characterized by a House of Lords and a House of Commons. In France, they created a National Assembly in 1791. In Germany, they established a parliament in the 1870’s. By the beginning of the 20^th Century, although many nations had still kept their nobility as a form of tradition, most of the reins of government were in the hands of bureaucrats or elected officials. Prime Ministers and Presidents had replaced Kings and Queens in the political decision making process.

national-capitol The new sovereigns started building. No more castles or palaces were built to house the new rulers. Instead, capitals, state houses and mansions would be the new domiciles for politicians and bureaucrats. Government leaders were no different though than Kings and Clergy when it came to siting their residences. They also sought the high ground to place their buildings on. The tallest buildings in the land now belonged to the Government. This situation would not last very long. Even more changes were taking place. In a few short years, nations would no longer have an exclusive on sovereignty. A new challenger was rapidly emerging.

capitalists

The new challenger started to emerge with the first corporations which began over a thousand years ago. However, until the power of mercantilism started to become critical to state and military power in the late 16^th century, the early corporations were rather toothless. An excellent book titled Power Inc. covers the rise of the modern corporation in much more detail than I shall go into here. The book by David Rothkopf is fittingly subtitled: “The Epic Rivalry between Big Business and Government–and the Reckoning That Lies Ahead.”

“In his new book, Power, Inc., David Rothkopf sounds an alarm. He argues that thousands of private actors who he calls “super citizens” now hold greater power than most countries in the world. He notes, for instance, that corporations have grown to the point where roughly the richest two thousand are more influential than 70-80 percent of the world’s nations. Walmart, for example, has revenues higher than the GDP of all but 25 nations.” — Roy Ulrich, the Huffington Post

The capitalistic industries wasted no time in starting to construct new buildings that would soon dwarf all of the previous tombs, castles, cathedrals and capitals throughout the world. These buildings are so tall that they have been labeled as “skyscrapers.” The world’s first skyscraper was the Home Insurance Building in Chicago, erected in 1884-1885. Its 138 foot peak would be dwarfed by skyscrapers today. The Flatiron Building in NYC was built in 1902 and is twenty floors high and 307 feet to its peak. The Empire State Building was built in 1931 in NYC and for many years it was the tallest building in the world standing over 100 stories and 1400 feet in height.

With the rapid economic development of many former third world countries there has been a proliferation of corporate skyscrapers with many countries vying for the honor of having the tallest building in the world. Searching on Google for the “tallest buildings in the world” one finds the following information for buildings over 300 meters tall:

“As of 2016, this list includes all 135 buildings (completed and architecturally topped out) which reach a height of 300 meters (984 ft.) or more as assessed by their highest architectural feature.” — Wikipedia

The list includes skyscrapers built in China, United Arab Emirates, Dubai, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Russia and several other nations. Perhaps presaging the emergence of China and Asia as the dominant world economies, Asia is already assuming the role of having many of the largest buildings in the world. What we are witnessing is a contest of global economies vying for supremacy in terms of world economic sovereignty. An interesting aside is that the world currency is considered a reflection of the nation that is the most powerful in this arena. To date, the United States still holds that distinction but many are predicting the demise of the US dollar as the standard for world currency.

tpp-free-trade

But what does this have to do with Trump you may be starting to ask? What does commercial sovereignty have to do with political sovereignty? The answer to the second question is everything. The major reason for the success of the Allied powers in both WWI and WWII was the economic might of the United States. Economic power translates into military power and military power translates into political power. This fact has been recognized for over 500 years now. Spain’s ascendancy to a world power was built on its confiscation of wealth in the New World. Hitler recognized that Germany could not be a dominant world power without confiscating the wealth of Jewish citizens and also of its neighboring countries.

“Great Britain was once a dominant military force in the World while it had a dominant economy. At the start of the First World War, it devalued its exchange rate. By the end of the War, owing to its military expenditure, it had large trade deficits and falling gold reserves.” — Buoyant Economies

The question of Trump brings a larger issue to the fore. Generally, we have seen that as the dominant world power shifts, the leadership shifts along with it. The features of buildings as a representation of power has followed these shifts. However, in terms of the new power of corporations, it would seem that the buildings have been created before the shift in leadership. That is until Trump became President of the United States of America.

a-corporate-world Is Trump’s election an anomaly or does it truly represent the emergence of corporate power into the political arena? My view on this is that Trump’s election is merely the tip of the iceberg. For over 20 years now the United States has been electing more and more political leaders who are not politicians. I am considering someone as not a politician if they are people who have not made a career of politics.

Many business people are jumping right into the political arena without experience in either local, state or federal government. The founder of Electronic Data Systems, Ross Perot may be remembered by many voters as the ultimate tycoon-turned-politician. Perot ran for president in 1992 and 1996 as a third-party candidate.

An article written in 2010 before Trump had become a candidate stated the following concerning the election of corporate people to public office:

“Whoever believes politics is big business must have seen this coming. The high levels of accountability from running a corporation and high expectations of seeking a seat in government have many parallels. Amid this confluence of business and political streams, Chief Executive magazine dubbed 2010 “a high-water mark for the CEO as candidate.”

More than 40 business magnates – the presidents and founders of banks, restaurants and tech giants – are running for seats on Capitol Hill or for governor’s offices in 25 states. And looking ahead Donald Trump says he is “absolutely thinking about” a 2012 presidential bid.” — Ten Business Leaders with Politics in their Blood, by Bill Briggs

During the Republican runoff to the nomination of Trump, we saw Carly Fiorina who was a former CEO also emerge as a potential candidate. We now have ten governors with no former elected government service. Seven former US presidents with business experience have all been elected in the 20^th or 21^st century. The following chart shows the net worth of the wealthiest senators in the US. Congress as of 2012. senator-net-worth

The next chart shows the average net worth of 90 incoming freshman representatives to the 113^th US Congress

January 3, 2013 to January 3, 2015

Year	Number of Freshmen Reports	Average Net Worth	Change from previous year
2011	90	$7,835,242	—-

More data can be found at Ballotpedia at https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page

the-50-richest-people-on-earth My point here is that most millionaires make their money in business. On the 2016 Forbes lists of richest 400 people in the world, richest billionaires in the world and richest people in the world, the majority (about 2/3) have made their money in business. Furthermore, they are self-made in that they did not inherit their fortunes. Perusing Forbes, it is clear that the dominant path to becoming rich is to sell something that people want at a price they can afford.

It is clear that wealth accumulated to a business background has increasingly become a stepping stone to politics and political leadership. Trumps presidency is the crown on the new sovereignty. Business leaders are now rapidly replacing politicians and bureaucrats in the area of political leadership. Already Trump’s nominees include the chief executive of Exxon Corporation; the chief executive of CKE Restaurants; the former chief executive of the World Wrestling Entertainment; a former Goldman Sachs executive; a billionaire investor; a right wing media executive and a former chief executive of Nucor Corporation. These are only a few of the still to come appointments that Trump will make.

corporate-power It is my prediction that business leaders will continue to make the transition to political leadership. The business model is now the sovereign model for world power. The power of the state has been usurped by the power of big business. Global power is corporate power. The public is sick of career politicians. The common people bring a (perhaps unfounded) belief in the power of business to save the world. Considering that we have tried the power of academia, the power of science and the power of big government to save the world, perhaps the power of business can do better. One might argue that they can at least do no worst.

Conclusion:

From Khufu to Trump, we have now briefly (my apologies for many simplifications and no doubt omissions in history) covered 4,500 years of political and economic history in a short seven or so pages. I can see the great historians and economists of the world having fits at my narrative. Nevertheless, my thesis remains. Simply put Trump is now the successor to Khufu, Caesar, Pope Boniface, Henry the VIII, Bismarck, Churchill and Roosevelt. Big business is now the dominant sovereign power in the world. How long will it last? How long will it take all politicians to be replaced by business people? I have no answers to these questions; but one must assume that somewhere down the road, another sovereign power will emerge or may already be emerging. Until then, be prepared for most decisions to have a “let’s make a deal” flavor to them.

Time for Questions:

How long will the reign of big business last? How long will it take politicians to all be replaced by business people? Will business succeed in making the world a better place? Why or why not?

Life is just beginning.

“I spent 33 years and 4 months in active military service . . . And during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

Thus, I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.

I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Our boys were sent off to die with beautiful ideals painted in front of them. No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason they were marching off to kill and die.”
― General Smedley Butler

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

Why Are Americans so Misinformed About Economics? — Part 1

26 Nov 2024 1 Comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: economics, economy, equality, justice, macroeconomics, mba's, microeconomics, news, Politics, poverty, war

Most people in the USA are woefully inept when it comes to understanding the basics of economic theory. The resulting problem is that the public believes everything they hear from politicians and the media. If the public is uninformed about economics, the media and politicians are even worse. The difference is that politicians use their lack of knowledge to further their own political ambitions. The media use the same lack of knowledge to drive advertising and to make money for their outlets.

By far, the greatest malignancy comes from the fact that the public lack of economic understanding leads to support for war efforts throughout the world. American foreign economic policy is often based on greed and fear. We use our military might to support regimes, despots and wars that will keep our economic system dominant. We assume that the global marketplace is one of win-lose or zero-sum economics. We do not believe that a win-win is possible with all nations. Instead, we play zero-sum games with any countries that we think might threaten our economic dominance.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued President-elect Trump does not believe in “any win-win situation,” and it makes international collaboration difficult. — The Hill, 11/26/24

Economics can be divided into two branches. One is called macroeconomics. Macroeconomics is concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity. Placing tariffs or trade restrictions on other countries could be considered a macroeconomic decision. The other branch is called microeconomics. Microeconomics considers the behavior of decision takers within the economy, such as individuals, households and firms. How much a given industry or company pays its workers versus how much it pays its senior executives could be considered a microeconomic policy.

I want to first talk about microeconomics and one of its major fallacies or myths. In Part 2, I will discuss the problems of a macroeconomics policy myth based on a greedy Military Industrial Complex. This microeconomics fallacy is the so-called Trickle-Down Theory. This is the myth fostered by those with money or power that if you trust them to make as much money as possible, some of it will “trickle” down to you. You might as well wait for the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

A more accurate and predictable economic theory is that the “rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” Philanthropic efforts in the USA have done little or nothing to alleviate poverty. Rich people would rather donate to the Metropolitan Opera than they would to a neighborhood poverty reduction program. The prestige is greater by donating to the opera and the tax deductions are just as good.

“While philanthropy has contributed to alleviating poverty by providing direct assistance like food, shelter, and healthcare, its impact is often considered to be limited when compared to broader systemic changes like government policies, as philanthropy primarily acts as a supplementary tool in tackling the root causes of poverty; therefore, it can provide relief but may not achieve large-scale poverty eradication on its own.” — Google AI

We can easily prove that Trickle Down theory does not work. A little logic if you will. Let us suppose that money trickled down in a company from wealthy entrepreneurs like Elon Musk to the worker bees. If this were true, than over time, the wages between workers and senior executives should (while still being large) not be huge. However, consider the following:

“According to recent data, the average CEO earns significantly more than a typical worker, with the pay ratio often exceeding 300 to 1, meaning a CEO makes roughly 300 times more than the average employee; for example, in 2023, the average CEO pay was estimated to be around 290 times that of a typical worker, compared to a ratio of 21 to 1 in 1965.” — Google Generative AI

Some economists have claimed to find evidence to support assertions that the Trickle-Down theory actually does work. But my friend, ask yourself these questions:

Would you trust that all economists are unbiased and willing to tell the truth about their employers?
If Trickle Down economics worked, than how come the gap in pay between the higher and lower workers has continued to grow over the past 50 years rather than shrink?
Finally, economists be damned. Do you really think rich people give one rat’s ass about your pay and whether or not there is “income inequality?” How many millionaires do you know who donated their estates to poor people?

I do not believe in communism, but neither am I so callused as to believe that “poor people don’t deserve the money because they will just waste it.” What I have observed in my 78 years on this earth is that some people get a head start in life and end up much higher on the ladder than those who start off without a ladder. It has never been and never will be an equal playing field. Talent and brains are not equally distributed. Neither is health and longevity. Money will never be equally distributed. But these premises aside do not mean that a society should be structured simply to help the rich get richer at the expense of the poor people who provide the labor for them.

Today, we have a Roman Circus of means to help keep poor people poor and make the rich even richer. One of the most notorious of these means is the availability of legalized gambling. Gambling is one of the most egregious means of insuring that people who are poor will stay poor. The odds on winning at some popular gambling activities are as follows:

Top prize on a poker machine (playing maximum lines): up to 1 in 7,000,000
The trifecta in a 13-horse race: 1 in 1,716
1st division in Gold Lotto (one game): 1 in 8,145,060
1st division in Powerball (one game): 1 in 134,490,400
The top prize on a $5 Crossword Instant Scratch-Its game: 1 in 1,700,000.

And now we have added sports betting to the number of ways that people can lose their hard owned cash. The people making money want to keep you betting more and more. The payoffs are random, which encourages people to think that they will win. In psychology, it is called the “Gambler’s Fallacy.” This is an incorrect belief that a random event is more or less likely to occur based on previous outcomes. For instance, if heads comes up three times in a row on a coin toss, most people will bet that tails will come up on a fourth throw. The odds are still fifty-fifty on any throw if it is a fair coin. Consider the following facts:

“About 13.5% of gamblers go home from a casino having made any money. This statistic comes from a study of 4,222 gamblers, and only 7 of them won more than $150. Conversely, 217 of them lost over $5000 at casino games. Also, note that those who play more often have lower chances of winning.”

My wife and I occasionally go to a casino. We may invest twenty dollars between us and then have a buffet dinner. It is fun but we never bet more than twenty dollars total. We know that we will walk out losers 98 percent of the time. However, I have seen high school kids in some of my classes huddled together placing sports bets. Would society not be better off showing them how to start a business and providing incentives for doing so rather than slick advertising designed to make them think that they can get rich betting on sports teams?

“The world’s 50 highest-paid athletes hauled in an estimated $3.88 billion over the last 12 months before taxes and agents’ fees, up 13% from last year’s record mark of $3.44 billion. Roughly 76%, or $2.94 billion, came from on-field earnings (salaries, bonuses and prize money) partly because of the Middle Eastern money continuing to flow into sports.” — Forbes ,MAY 16, 2024

Marx once said that religion was the opiate of the masses. By this he meant that people were drugged into thinking that religion would bring them to a paradise where all their dreams could come true. It would take death and being a true believer to get them to this paradise, but it was a sure thing. Today, gambling and sports have become the opiate of the masses. People dream of winning the lottery and getting rich. Others dream of making it big in sports and becoming the next Michael Jordan. People think their kids have a high probability of going on to a lucrative career in sports if they can only get a paid tuition to a major NCAA college.

The facts my friends do not support that your kids will be anywhere near getting into a major league sports team.

59% of high school football and basketball players believe they will get a college scholarship
98 out of 100 high school athletes never play collegiate sports of any kind at any level.
Less than one out of every 100 high school athletes receive a scholarship of any kind to a Division I school.
Only 1 in 16,000 high school athletes attains a professional career in sports.

But why bust anyone’s bubble? Aren’t we all entitled to our dreams? What would life be without goals and hopes that exceed our grasp? Who wants to tell their children that they cannot go for it?

I have been a parent like many of you. I wanted the best for my daughter. But I was under no illusions about the reality of the workplace world. Too many poor people are unrealistic when it comes to understanding the economics of the workplace. This leads to poor decision making and the ability of huckster politicians and greedy organizations to take advantage of them. The rich in America see the poor as a resource of suckers born every day. “Caveat Emptor” means let the buyer beware. Many of my MBA students subscribed to this belief when I was teaching at Metro State University. I could argue against it all day, but the majority of what MBA students learn in college is that money is good, greed is good and that we deserve all we can beg, borrow or steal.

“No less a business expert than Dr. W. E. Deming was critical of traditional MBA programs, arguing that they often focused too heavily on short-term profit goals and not enough on long-term quality improvement, neglecting essential statistical tools and systemic understanding needed for true organizational change; he believed they often taught practices that were detrimental to continuous improvement within companies.” — Google AI

Rana Foroohar writing in Evonomics states that “MBAs are everywhere, yet the industries where you find fewer of them tend to be the most successful. America’s shining technology and innovation hub—Silicon Valley—is relatively light on MBAs and heavy on engineers. MBAs had almost nothing to do with the two major developments in the American business landscape over the last forty years: the Japanese-style quality revolution in manufacturing and the digital revolution.” — Want to Kill Your Economy? Have MBA Programs Churn out Takers Not Makers

Keep your dreams for tomorrow but base them on reality. Do not trust what people asking you for your money or your vote try to sell you. The only way to keep your money in your pocket is to keep informed and to pay little attention to the lies, disinformation and misinformation spread by politicians and the media.

In Part 2, I want to address the truth regarding our contempt towards Russia and China and the real reasons underlying our mistrust and hostility towards them. These reasons are based on simple economic realities that our leaders do not want you to understand. They want you to subscribe to doctrines of fear and hatred that will support the many unjust policies that we propose for our economic “enemies.”

War has been called a continuation of politics by other means. Economic dominance is one side of the coin. Political dominance is the other side. War becomes the means to insure that we are both politically and economically dominant on the world stage. These truths will explain why we continually assail both Russia and China as threats to America. Some of these truths will also explain why we are supporting Israel’s genocide in the Mideast.

Who is Kidding Who on the Proposed Ceasefires in the Mideast?

27 Sep 2024 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: biden, blinken, doublethink, duplicity, gaza, Hamas, harris, hezbollah, Israel, lebanon, lies, Netanyahu, orwell, Palestine, peace, Politics, war

I know that I am getting older and that my memory is not what it used to be. I suppose, I am also losing some of my former mental acuity. However, this story in the “Times of Israel” regarding efforts to arrange a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah just leaves me bewildered. I have heard of “Doublethink”, but this would put anything Orwell talked about in his famous book “1984” to shame. Orwell defined Doublethink as follows:

“Doublethink is a tool used by the Party to maintain control and perpetuate a state of war. The Party’s manipulation of language and truth contributes to the absence of justice and peace in society.”

Read the following article and see if you can tell what the US and Israel really mean by saying that they are pursuing a ceasefire. By the way, I think that the same Doublethink is being used by the US State Department in its so-called ongoing efforts with Netanyahu to arrange a ceasefire in Gaza. Secretary of State Blinken and his right arm Jake Sullivan think that all Americans are idiots.

————————————————————————————————————-

US: We appreciate that PM clarified he’s engaging in our Lebanon truce efforts in “The Times of Israel”

By Jacob Magid

4:40 pm, 09/26/2024

NEW YORK — A senior Biden administration official says Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initial comments yesterday rejecting the US-led initiative for a 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon did not reflect the discussions he had with Washington, which led the US to announce this plan. However, the administration appreciates the English-language clarification Netanyahu’s office issued late last night in which he said Israel would continue engaging in the effort to secure a diplomatic agreement between Israel and Hezbollah

State Department Counselor Tom Sullivan tells The Times of Israel during a briefing that the US believes Israel shares the administration’s stance that the only way to prevent a full-scale war in Lebanon is through a diplomatic solution and that Washington looks forward to working with Jerusalem to achieve such a deal.

——————————————————————————————————————

Please allow me to try to clarify the above Doublethink if possible. I confess my interpretation may be a long shot.

Israel will keep bombing Gaza and Lebanon as long as it wants to.
Netanyahu does not give one red cent what Biden and European leaders want or think.
Biden is too senile, old or owned by the Israeli US lobby to do anything to impose a ceasefire.
The Israeli lobby owns most of the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
The real strategy by the US State Department is to Stall and Delay giving the Israeli military more time to wipe out the Arabs in Lebanon and Gaza.
Israel is pursuing the same strategy that the US military did with the American Indians. The US wiped out hundreds of thousands of Indigenous people as we pursued our policy of Manifest Destiny. General Sheridan infamously said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Netanyahu and his right-wing cohorts might as well say that “The only good Arab is a dead Arab.” Come to think of it, many prominent Israelis have already shared that opinion.

Here in the USA, we are facing a real dilemma. If we stop paying tribute to Israel, the Israeli lobby will fire on the Democrats. Many Democrats including Harris may lose the election and we get an even worse option, namely Trump. Harris and the leaders of the Democratic Party know this fact all too well.

On the other hand, if the Democrats do nothing to stop Israeli aggression in the Mideast, they may lose a substantial majority of the Arab-American vote as well as the votes of many progressives. Jill Stein is making real noise about the Democrats doing nothing to stop the war and the Republicans are trying to help her to take votes from Harris. The sly Republicans realize that Stein will only pull votes from Harris. Stein has already been accused of being a factor in Hillary’s loss to Trump back in 2016. She is now running for the third time.

Conclusions:

As someone once said, “There is many a slip between the cup and the lips.” The Democrats may say that they want a ceasefire in the Mideast, but their actions suggest the opposite. They are not willing to take the steps to enforce a ceasefire. Billions of dollars in weapons are still being sent to Israel while foreign aid is blocked by Israeli forces from reaching those in need. Thousands of dead Arabs are being viewed as the price to pay for stopping Trump. It is a bargain with the Devil and such bargains never turn out well.

Aging Capriciously

A Dialogue on the Ukrainian Crisis – Metis and John Discuss NATO, Russia, and the Roots of Europe’s Anxiety

How this all connects

Follow the Money: The Hidden Economic Roots of War

What Do Sun Tzu, Musashi Miyamoto and Magnus Carlsen Have to Say about Life, Love and Death?

What is Behind All These Bullshit Lies and Conspiracy Theories?

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – John McCain

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – John F. Kerry

“Try Honey Before Vinegar” – Lessons on Leadership from Abraham Lincoln

The Road to Trumps Success Began 4,500 Years Ago

Why Are Americans so Misinformed About Economics? — Part 1

Who is Kidding Who on the Proposed Ceasefires in the Mideast?

Photo

Dr. John Persico Jr.

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

Questions about Blogging and this Website.

Archives

How this all connects

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Photo

Dr. John Persico Jr.

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

Questions about Blogging and this Website.

Archives