Friday, February 25, 2022

WTF is really happening???

 Russia report they have destroyed most of the Ukrainian air defence infrastructure and airports, but they complain that the Ukraine military have moved a lot of their weaponry into residential neighbourhoods, as they were taught to do by the CIA, and Russia, unlike the US, have a policy against bombing civilian neighbourhoods.

The US/UK/EU all say Russia have suffered huge losses, thousands or maybe tens of thousands of the Russian soldiers committing the war crime of invading peaceful Ukraine have been killed. While the Ukraine have a small organised military, every citizen has grabbed a gun and killed many Russians, cutting down whole Russian divisions before they can draw their weapons and kill more than a very few devoted Ukrainian patriots. Every single Ukrainian hates everything Russian, and every single Ukrainian is shooting at the evil invaders.

The West have shown pictures of many Russian planes shot down.. The fact that these pictures are rather obviously from a video game hasn't stopped them from convincing most Westerners that Russia are  losing badly, soon the Ukraine will have killed every last Russian invader and NATO can start setting up military bases and installing nuclear missiles to finally destroy the evil Russians before they can commit another heinous act.

Russian photos and videos don't show much. Many explosions, a documentary of all the ethnic Russians killed since the US takeover in 2014, but not much more. Full coverage of the Security Council debating the resolution condemning Russia, going on and on and on, with long speeches about how evil the Russians are, and finally the vote, 11 to condemn Russia, 1 against, and 3 abstentions, so the vote to condemn Russia failed by the wide margin of 1 veto. Both India and the PRC abstained.

The Ukraine say it will talk to the Russians in Poland, but Poland, a fanatic member of NATO, sent a huge convoy of weapons to Ukraine, and would probably arrest the Russian delegation for war crimes, so Russia is not enthusiastic about having a meeting in Poland, and the Ukraine are saying Poland or nothing.

The West mostly say the Russians are being slaughtered as the evil Russians are trying to murder all the good Ukrainians.

Russia show a video of a Ukrainian Army group surrendering and being fed by the Russians, but it's only a small group, not more than one company, maybe just a platoon.

And so, after watching pretty much non-stop for two days, I have absolutely no idea what's really happening.


One thing is clear: the New York Times say the Ukrainian Army and the Azov Battalion are proven NOT to be the neo-Nazis Putin says they are. And the New York Times are right that Putin got that one wrong: the Azov Battalion wear the Wolfsangel, and wearing the Wolfsangel does irrefutably prove they are not neo-Nazis: the Wolfsangel is a sign that they are just Nazis, no neo about them.

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Russia Recalcitrant?

 The collapse of the USSR left the world with a single Superpower, a hegemon that had no limits. The US immediately moved to bomb Iraq and Yugoslavia. Before, the USSR would have prevented the US from doing that, but there was no more USSR. So the US destroyed Yugoslavia, declared the Orthodox Serbs guilty and the Western Christians and Muslims innocent: if they killed Orthodox Serbs, that was their right. The International Court followed the US and said all the Serbs were war criminals for killing Muslims, and all the Muslims were innocent: killing Orthodox Serbs was just natural and right. And with no USSR, Russia was too weak to do anything.

The Russian military is about 10% of the NATO military, maybe less. So the US figure Grenada and Panama were more difficult to stop than Russia. The French invaded Russia, and that fellow with the red beard invaded the USSR, but both lost a lot of time and materiel crossing the Ukraine, and both lost in Russia proper. Fortunately, the US intend to make the Ukraine a US military base, so the US attack on Russia will start from the eastern Ukraine. Only Russia don't seem to accept that, and they are moving into the eastern Ukraine.

After WWI, Russia ended at the Dnieper River. After WWII, Stalin annexed a lot of land west of the Dnieper, and those annexed, Slavs and Germanics, hate everything Russian. So, with US money and weapons, those who strongly supported Chancellor Schickelgruber in WWII took over the Ukraine and made everything Russian illegal, made speaking Russian or going to the Russian Orthodox Church a terrorist act. Russia accuse the Ukraine of genocide, but speaking Russian was declared a terrorist act by the US-supported new and greatly improved Ukrainian government, so killing all Russian speakers wasn't genocide, but just stopping terrorists as they were committing acts of terrorism. The definition of 'terrorism' is determined by whomever is strongest, and now that's the US of A, with a military budget more than 10 times as large as Russia's.

But the US has the teeny problem of logistics. In Russia and the Ukraine, the tiny, ill-equipped Russian military have all the logistical advantage, and they hope that will let them fight the hegemon.

And it is looking more and more likely that Russia must fight the hegemon or be split into all the tiny Republics that form the Russian Federation. The US demand the complete dissolution of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation, with a military less than 10% that of the US, and a much smaller fraction of the military of NATO, are hoping logistics will enable them to survive better than Grenada and Panama.

Of course, the USSR had the world's largest (or maybe 2nd largest) nuclear arsenal.

But Yeltsin let the CIA run Russia for 8 years, and they might have dismantled the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal (the US, based on CIA intelligence, is sure that they did). Putin says he has rebuilt that nuclear arsenal

And I fear we will all see very soon.

Sunday, February 13, 2022

War in the Ukraine this week???

 CNN report that US intelligence have proof that Russia will create a False Flag attack, probably on the Donbass, one day this week.

Translation: the CIA plan a 'False Flag' attack, probably on the Donbass, one day this week. US intelligence will say they have proof the attack was by Russia.

The question is, will the CIA attack impel Russia to intervene? The CIA certainly hope so. This will give the US the excuse to apply severe sanctions on Russia, similar to the sanctions on Japan in 1941.

What will really happen is impossible to know from the CNN news story. The Ukrainian military are positioned close to the Donbass, and snipe on a daily basis, but do little damage, and Russia do nothing. So it is not clear if the CIA attack will impel the Russian military to enter the Ukraine.

From what US intelligence report, one concludes that 'US intelligence' is an oxymoron, but that could be misleading. We know US intelligence lie, because that's their job. Are they really well informed but just lying, or are they totally misinformed and lying? No easy way to know. Just as there is no way to know in advance how Russia will respond to the CIA attack on the Donbass.

Best guess: the CIA will set off a bomb of some kind that will kill some of the people in the Donbass, but Russia will not respond by sending their military into the Donbass, since there would be nothing useful the Russian military could do. When the Ukraine banned the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Religion, and the Donbass declared its independence from the Ukraine, the Ukrainian military took over the Donbass and enforced that ban. The Russian military evicted the Ukrainian military from the Donbass, told them never to come back, and left. I can't see the Russian military returning after a single CIA bomb attack.

Saturday, February 5, 2022


 Most 19th century biologists believed in orthogenesis, and they had fossil proof. Sadly, their fossil proof was because they did not believe in radioactive dating, figuring why would anyone want to date a radioactive partner? So they dated the Irish Elk fossils by the size of the antlers, assuming the oldest fossils had the smallest antlers and the most recent fossils had the largest antlers. So (they wrote) this was 'proof' that natural selection always selected for the largest antlers, until the antlers were too large making grazing and running from predators impossible, so the Irish Elk went extinct.

Actually, 19th century biologists knew that natural selection could never result in orthogenesis, they wrote 'natural selection' as weasel words because editors would not accept the correct words. Darwin said there were two kinds of selection, one was natural selection, meaning those genes that give an advantage at finding lunch and/or at not becoming someone else's lunch are slightly more likely to make it to the next generation. In one generation, there's not much difference between 99.9% likely to make it to the next generation and 99.8%, but over hundreds of generations, that 99.9% gene will get to be just about all the genes in the species. Since natural selection always selects for advantage, it can never select for antlers that are too large.

In the 20th century, the bikini came out, named after the Atoll where a lot of nuclear tests took place, so very radioactive, and the inventor said the bikini would take off like an atom bomb, so radioactive dating became fashionable, and Stephen J. Gould, who did believe in radioactive dating, proved that the largest antlers were in the middle of the range of ages of Irish Elk fossils, so no orthogenesis.

The problem with the Irish Elk is that it wasn't Irish, wasn't an Elk, and wasn't an example of orthogenesis.

Darwin always said there was another, not natural selection, and Darwin used a word that most 19th century editors rejected, but they loved 'natural selection' since that proved they were modern scientists, not fundamentalist Christians who thought the world was created, complete with fossils, in 4004 BC. The other selection comes about because most species are polygynous, meaning a very few males mate with all the females, and most males are incels. There are two ways species decide which male gets to mate with all the females in the cohort: the first, probably used by the Irish Elk, is male competition: the males duke it out, and the last male standing mates with all the females. Being able to defeat all the other males in the cohort probably means the male who fathers all the children is good at finding lunch and avoiding being lunch, so no orthogenesis.

But other species have female choice. Female fruit flies will only mate with the very best dancer, and all the males in the cohort were sons of the best dancer. Female frogs only mate with the very best singer. Some females only mate with the brightest coloured males. Since being dull and camouflaged helps with finding lunch and avoiding being lunch, getting brighter and brighter looks like it must lead to extinction from orthogenesis, but no fossil record exists that shows a progression of brighter and brighter colours leading to extinction. Orthogenesis seems very likely, but also impossible to ever find fossil proof. So 19th century biologists used the Irish Elk for their 'fossil evidence'. Which was so wrong, almost all 20th century biologists say orthogenesis is a failed theory that can never happen. And, of course, it can never happen by natural selection, and probably not when mating is decided by male competition, but it certainly looks very likely for species where the very few males who can mate are decided by female choice.

Net: from what we can see, it looks like some examples of orthogenesis must exist, but finding fossil proof can never happen.


Since most females with no legs or with four or more legs will only mate with the male who is best at something that indicates great genes, females with exactly two legs have this as one of their mating drives. Of course, females with exactly two legs, unless they are cuckoo, desperately need a faithful partner if they are ever to become grandmothers, so one would think the desire for a faithful partner would be supreme, but Mother Nature doesn't work that way: bipedal females have at least 4 drives: 1) the attraction of a faithful mate, a drive which can be anywhere from non-existent to imperative; 2) the dislike of an unfaithful mate, again, anywhere from non-existent to overwhelming, meaning when a female discovers her mate has cheated on her, it might be anything from no problem to her feeling that she must kill one or more people; 3) the attraction of a 'hot' male, again, anywhere from non-existent to imperative; and 4) the repulsion of a male who is less than 'hot', and, again, anywhere from non-existent to imperative. So every female is completely different, so no male can understand females, and nor can females, all of whom understand themselves (maybe) but not other females, whom they assume have the same drives as they have themselves. Mother Nature experiments, trying to find the combination which provides the species with the greatest advantage for survival as a species.

While all bipedal females are different, there is an average. Examining the DNA of the pinfeathers in many, many nests, the chicks almost always have two fathers: the faithful male partner, and the 'hottest' male within flying distance of the nest. This is probably the most common bipedal female, based on my personal observation: many wives select a husband who has proven he will be faithful, will work hard to make the payments on the nest and keep worms on the table, but mating with him is an unpleasant but necessary duty; these wives then also find a really 'hot' boyfriend whom they keep absolutely secret from their faithful partner and with whom they greatly enjoy mating (and their faithful partner always gets lucky on the evening of the afternoon when she mated with her 'hot' boyfriend so he will think the chick is his own).

I spent a year sharing a 2 bedroom flat with Hank, who mated with 5 different women every day, at least 25%  (and maybe more) of all the females in our village between 18 and 40, many of them married. He was incredibly something. One female told me he was not at all attractive, she hated mating with attractive males. So what it was that Hank was, I do not know, I just know it impelled a large percentage of the females in our village to mate with him.

I also spoke with Kim who begged me to listen to her, since I was the only person she could talk to. She told me she was desperate to mate, and every night went to a nightclub hoping to find someone with whom she could mate, but every nightclub had just one male and at least 20 desperate females, so she struck out 19 nights out of 20. She said she could talk to me because looking at me made her 'nauseous'. I would not have used that word, I would have said 'nauseated' but 'nauseous' is used as she used it by comedians on the Catskill circuit. She told me that, when she wants a man, she must tell him this is her first time, since men with lots of choices all want the least experienced female. Sadly, all 20 desperate females know this, so they all say, 'I've never done this kind of thing before, have you?' But it is not clear that the answer is, 'Yes, but only a time or two,' since the male they want normally has 5 different mates every day, but maybe that's what those males say. The fact that I made Kim 'nauseous' meant she would never want to mate with me, so she didn't have to lie that this was her first time, she could tell me everthing (only I said I didn't want to hear any more after she said I made her 'nauseous').

I do know (from many females complaining, and from a woman who tried unsuccessfully to derail a Supreme Court nominee) that some of these females tell the male, 'Promise me you'll never go with another woman,' and some of the males (like that Supreme Court nominee) promise, then, as soon as they finish, go looking for another, different mate. Other of these males (e.g., my flatmate) are honest, but the females who are strongly attracted to 'hot' males find their bodies cannot resist, even if their minds are appalled. Still, since the 'hot' male was honest, they don't have an intense desire for revenge.