Fleetinglife

There is. They are low-yield combat nuclear warheads designed only for specific combat operation purposes i.e. like to completely disable a military strategic target or outpost. They aren't ICBMs. They are usually launched from self-propelled long-range artillery guns or missile system platforms. I think Russia has several of them at one point stationed in the Crimean peninsula but I don't know if they are still there - according to their version and adaption of the Anti-Access/Area-Denial Weapons Strategy (A2/AD) borrowed from the Chinese first and foremost and Western Defense Community Intellectual Discourse: "The problem with the A2/AD lens is born from the term’s origins. As Luis Simon has observed, the term began among the China-watcher community and has since been applied to Russia, a continental land power in a decidedly different geographical theater, and with a tradition of military thought distinct from China’s. The concept admittedly has utility when looking at a maritime theater involving Russia or China. Still, while there is commonality in capabilities between America’s great power adversaries, when broadly applied to two very different countries the term confuses more than it reveals because Russia is not China, and Europe is not the Pacific. In fact, the Russian term for A2/AD — restriction and denial of access and maneuver, (ogranicheniye i vospreshcheniye dostupa i manyuvra) — is just a ham-fisted transliteration of the Western term A2/AD because there is no Russian term for A2/AD. This is not a concept in Russian military thought, and there is no Russian strategy bearing that name." https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-time-to-talk-about-a2-ad-rethinking-the-russian-military-challenge/

Looks like they are hoping to pull off some sort of a Brussilov-like major counter-offensive using maybe that military-historical example as an ideological or military propagandistic tool to recruit more troops, and lift their overall combat morale and spirits up. Even if it was very successful at first during World War One with the military and territorial gains it accomplished against Austria-Hungary and the German Empire on the Eastern WWI Front in a short period of time, we know what the high and massive cost of that was in the big casualty rates and overall suffering it caused amongst the ordinary troops, and what it laid the seeds for in the parts of the dissenting troops and the solid ideological foundations as narrative proving point for all the other subsequent incoming Russian revolutions just a couple of months afterward if history is to be trusted as having the tendency to truly repeat itself twice and as very unfortunate guide or signal of how this might end up going or resolving itself.

Btw Thanks in all earnestly for saying that, very casually and very randomly off the cusp like that, I was in a bit of an emotionally and psychologically painful, dark, abyssal spaces, enforced by some difficult meditative revelatory experiences I had about myself and my current life in the last couple of days, but I am slowly stabilizing and getting better now, re-thinking and re-planing my potential life courses and options hopefully still attainable and existing. It is almost always a slightly surprising good-kind of and a slightly calming and outwardly validated self-assuring feeling way to hear the word 'love' from someone referred to and addressed directly to oneself with whom they are having a discussion, even if it is in a seemingly random virtual way form from a random stranger you are having an online chat and discussion with. So, really thanks, and thank you at this current moment for that random off-the-cusp word and for casually saying that as a well-wishing to me. It is a form of a tiny titbit very informal small validation and caring about one's existence that it has some meaning and that one is still here. Yeah, I get what you are saying from your living experience and lifeworld there point of view. I just wanted to let be known my little bit of a sociologically inferred perspective from beforehand here, because we also had extensive national media coverage of that here, and I generally have some quips here with the way national state-affiliated media here is instrumentalized to cover and report on stuff lie that for example indirectly propagandistically, not with the procession and discussion about it itself, but with it indirectly lionizing any actions or quote-on-quote maintenance of good traditional historic interstate relations and it's supposed further achievements in their developments that way by using what tantamounts in actual, tangible results to 'ideological phantasms of re-written, revised ghosts and narratives of the past' of the current de facto ruling one-party state and authoritarian nationalist regime here. Btw, sorry if I bothered you with needless digressions or overcomplicated-confusing detailing on some extra personal info or not so much important and critical added mental notes to the topic at hand there that possibly came subconsciously baked into this, just felt that I wanted to let you in a bit for you to know, since you were very charitable to me here just now personally, what part of the perspective I am coming from currently residing and living here when interpreting and viewing this - so we can avoid altogether or at least lessen to as much as mentally possible on social, political or other topics of this nature possible further misunderstandings and possible false personal projections of each other coming forward possibly on this forum in the future. That's all I wanted out of that

Hey, Danny same goes with what I wrote to @AtheisticNonduality above to you as well. I don't want to sound like I am arguing here personally with you here or engaging in deliberate character attacks. What I merely wrote was a personal observation based on two seemingly similar historical examples that first popped in my head when I read the personal experiences that some people described here of the collective atmosphere regarding the carrying out and the organization of the funeral procession straight from their own personal empirical experience with other people there living on British administrated soil. It was directed as a personal attack or snark remark to anyone in particular, but rather a broad criticism and critical review of the whole notion of such types of state-directed mechanized mass attended funeral procession still existing, being justified and carried out in the Year of our Lord 2022 and the whole ideological baggage they come with. The British Union is not either under a one-party ultra or hyper-nationalistic state or under one-party state communism as far as I know still. Again you are equating criticism of an institutional form and quality behind a certain formal procedure, norm, and custom behind it with the quality of a person and their life itself, which I never expressed here. Content versus Form logical fallacy, be wary of that. What I aimed for was the dimension of the total social progress, consciously and sensitivity wise, in the time gap between them in reference and by comparing to other such state's funerals of similar organizations and their character from the past, and again not to the person in question for whom it was organized and conducted for. This is a virtual medium hyperreality simulacra world still, not the real social physical world though still with a bit of an added caveat to that. But, I generally agree with you with the overall introduction of the internet has been a socially revolutionary thing in regards to a relatively open and unrestricted communication medium, available information pool, and the ability of general censorship, intellectual and thought suppression, and closed information cycles to exist and keep people ideologically trapped in. Though there are still online communities' cult dynamics problems and mutually reinforcing personal and ideological biases via targeted user personalized algorithmic amplification of a certain type of content and narratives. That's why you had the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights introduced right afterwards in the md-to-late 17th century I presume if I am not mistaking my history lessons, pardon and sorry for unintentional ignorance if that's the case of that in advance, so you have the notion of the first and foremost priority sacrality of individual rights, civil liberties and personal freedoms enshrined in your laws of the land, governmental and constitutional order that not even Kings or Queens can touch, so you wouldn't have tyrant kings like Henry the VIIIth and Charles the Ist arising again who enforce an order of absolutist unchecked divine right to rule by fear and who murder anyone who dares criticize, question, openly oppose or forward suggestion of alternatives to their way of ruling the country, even their most formerly trusted and intellectually brilliant closest court advisors and ministers like Thomas Moore who wrote the seminal work Utopia, starting the coinage, getting the ball rolling and popularization of the modern widespread usage of the term. I don't like going to echo-chambery quote-on-quote stereotypically left-leaning or biased spaces or checking them out now that often nowadays and more recently, since there is rarely something of personal development value to find there and it's over pervasive with the dread group-think dynamic that Leo so often criticizes as potentially dangerous as one of Ego's, and it's collective ego extension variant, favorite, socially acceptable subversion tools and tantamount to self-reliant and self-created personal development.

@AtheisticNonduality You don't have to if you don't want to though . I didn't write a response to your earlier written thesis and elaboration here to want to argue with you here on purpose just so you know I merely felt inspired to analyze and dig a bit deeper into what you wrote here to provide my own view and perspective on it inferred in some parts by some sociological concepts and theories from beforehand that I still think I memorized from before on some of the deeper underlying issues and problematics on this whole topic discussion that this thread formed around on that I see that I thought weren't being either properly communicated and/or addressed here to the wider posters, viewership, and readership on this sub-forum topic thread from an outsider and observers point of view and perspective. That's all

If it was Stalin's state funeral and open-casket coffin in 1953 in the USSR you would have to queue in and wait for 40 hours approximately at the backs of the line if you were a Soviet citizen from any part of the Union, coerced there in the first place in a lot of cases by force to get a wanted number of 'ordinary citizens', to pay respects to him in the (now removed) Mausoleum in Moscow. Now, people queue in and wait for up to 20 hours in line to pay their respects to a closed box containing the former 70-year old-ruling British female monarch as a part of an organized mechanized official state-funeral procession, where they were supposedly and officially not coerced by anyone to do so, but only out of a sense of personal loyalty, national solidarity, gratitude or social conformity whatever maybe the case deep down for each one. Boy has society evolved over the past 70 or some years. We have halved the waiting time by almost half at those at the back in state-organized, promoted, and orchestrated funeral procession queues! Such staggering, warp-speed progress and testimony of human socio-technological accomplishments of easing the pain of people's suffering due to waiting and boredom by just halving the total waiting time! At least now you don't have to go without sleep or be totally sleep-deprived and tired for 40 hours (but only 20, which is really nothing!) or sleep on your feet while you wait at a state-funeral procession of some supposedly symbolically important un-elected big shot!

And you are overly mystifying this, when there is nothing, in particular, to mystify it so much about. This is pretty simply clear and straightforward if you want to look at its human mind core. Paper currency, and now digital currency, was historically first pioneered and invented by the mercantilist-colonialist nations of today, later inherited by them in their transition to capitalism during scientific-industrial modernization progress to ease, simplify, make more efficient, and rationalize their transactions amongst themselves and the rest of the world (an easier more cost efficient social convention if you will) and value anchor their trading goods and services based on demand, rarity, cost and difficulty in acquirement in their exploitation, extraction, refinement, production, assembly, acquisition, extortion or plundering across their own continents, colonized lands or the great unknowns of the scientifically underdeveloped or undeveloped parts of the world - of course, the actual precise microeconomics and macroeconomics of this in economics are actually more complicated than that (and I haven't actually passed an economics course yet to explain it accurately, precisely and properly) but this is a layman's easier to understand gist of it if you just look at it from a historical point of view, whilst not holding unto any convenient, borderline deliberately naive ahistorical illusions about the seeming randomness and specialness of money grounded in some kind of mystifying, just randomly and happenstance agreed upon etherial collective agreement or covenant. It's easier to propagandize and marketize to people what their wishes, desires, wants, and needs should be via some sort of currency as an easier way for them to make them come true, realize and acquire them and henceforth have a much larger pool and basis of people to exploit, use and extract surplus value from via its manipulation. Marx compared the inherent value of money to a sort of fetishized idolatrous religious object, its value and worth being exclusively drawn from people's exclusive belief in its inherent specialness, scarcity, and borderline magical properties to materialize their needs, desires, and wishes into a tangible reality (if I remembered that one precisely and correctly ). The fetishistic power of money, or any sort of currency. That's what's only magical there to it, people's ability and readiness to be willfully, collectively agreed fooled, and deceived to it in order to find an easier route to fit in and increase their feelings of self-worth, self-value, status, and importance amongst other conformists and normies in society in their chosen self-preservation and survival route and the willingness of other's to exploit these base needs and desires for their own benefit, social and material advancement. Try accomplishing that with just labor vouchers, for example, not much prestige. mystification and symbolic power coming there with that, is there? Look, John, I acquired 100 labor vouchers on my social account yesterday for that successful pitch of my blueprint on the instant self-cooling mechanism suggestion for the solar panels of the solar-powered self-propelled and self-driving Maglev mass-produced public utility cars on the collective design team board, ain't I the swagger - lol . These things have emotional imprints because of the emotional effort involved in them and the intimacy of said emotions in such, and carrying over the residual effects of that as well in the collective subconscious mind of the previous generations. A mass mechanical and mechanized totalitarianism and rigid, collective idolatrous state funeral is the precise opposite of that said intimacy and deep self-reflection of emotions involved in that - it is a deliberate mass psychosis induction on the part of people governed over how they should and ought to suppose to feel on the passing away of one of those that ruled over them and how they ought to remember them, think and henceforth feel about them afterward after they have passed on the torch to the next one from that said ruling caste - it's an exercise of total ideological manipulation (henceforth emotional as well) on a mass scale involved on the basis of appealing to collective induced identities based mostly on feelings and needs of belonging via nationality in order to ensure the safety of the current hierarchical social order, status quo continuity, and ideological traditionalism is not broken down in this brief interlude crisis and legitimization vulnerability period when it is most at risk to be questioned, rebelled against and replaced with, once the collective emotional gaslighting spectacle and ritual is over and gone for a brief moment and period that is vowed through an underlying hanging air of fear and doubt in the background that comes with self-deluded conformity and in denial of the factor of existence of coercive, repressive state ideology and social ostracization mechanisms of the maintenance of such in it. The Christian absolutist monarchs of the past that ruled over on the basis of coming from hereditary bloodline aristocratic ruling houses over their state religion Ancien regimes you mean, that were supposed to be inferred the divine right to rule over 'their people' from God himself on the basis of wearing a golden, jewelry filled crown that was supposed to symbolize their honoring of God's Son sacrifice and pain for humanity by now replacing a self-sacrificial mocking crown of thorns of pain with a golden, idolatrous one of glory as Christian believers that are now self-entitled to rule over and still keep 'their forcefully converted flock' in check. A golden crown worn by a pre-selected and chosen king, queen, or person is a very materialist, overt hierarchical order oppressive power symbol epitome of bastardization and perversion of early Christian spiritual and humanistic teachings of the inherent equality, value, and worth of all human beings on the basis of all their souls being one with God in a community that comes with state-institutionalization, weaponization, and ideologization of religion as a moralistically gaslighting absolutist pre-requisite and justification of un-checked rule and domination of a select few in any given land or country. Btw, modern Christmas and Easter as it is practiced today in most Western and non-Western nominally Christian countries was in fact a crafted assemblage of appropriated of earlier practices borrowed from pre-Christian Paganism, earlier Christanity and was (re)invented in the modern form that it mostly takes today first by traditionalist and nationalist ideologues for the purposes of state legitimizations through nationalism and traditionalism back in the early to late 19th and early 20th centuries in the Victorian and Edwardian periods of the British Empire for those same monarchies lol, in order to further legitimize and stabilize their rule at home and overseas as based on notion of existing 'long traditions', create an atmosphere of conformity, loyalty and civility around it and ritualistic traditions among the masses in the British Isles and across the Empire and its colonies in order to further ensure the continuity of the existing social order there as is, create a basis for ritualistic social-cohesion around, said long-running religious traditions and export it to other Christian states in Europe and elsewhere across the oceans also interested to create new myths, rituals, and traditions to stabilize and ideologically legitimize their rule at home back as well as Christian state religious states as official state sanctioned holidays - by incorporating also these old, revised borrowed Pagan rituals and traditions from various Pagan pre-existing religious cultures and their speculated rites in their corresponding tribal pre-Christian proselytizing and pre-nation state areas - I didn't make this up this was well documented and explained how it works in the seminal work and book 'Inventing Traditions' in the Early Modern and Nation-State period by historian Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger.

I presume until a new Oliver Cromwell steps in and starts a new true "purist" revolution, this time of the British union collective identity-ego mind. ?

American Polish Sockdem Trotsky is mostly right on this one. The only hope I now see for the future for the the long term continuation, viability and survival of the British Royal Monarchy at this point is for the next in line Prince William or Harry of Wales to renounce his princely lifestyle of unfulfilling luxury and unsatisfying pleasure in his Royal Palace at Kensington and Anmer Hall, drop all his royal garments, titles and possessions, leave his wife and family, adorn a green, frugal and modest monastic robe as his only covering, go to the enchanted Arthurian woods at Broceliande in Brittany, France and practice ascetism and meditation with Merlin, and the other wizards and druids there until he rids himself of all the royals associated "pampered prince" negative karma and all the other possibly existing karmic debts through monastic purification and achieving "nirvana" , liberation from the Ego or "Ecne", enlightenment in Celtic mythology ?. And then we would have a truly an englihtened monastic monarch and an ensuing New Age of True Enlightenment in Britain again upon his return from his retreat in the enchanted woods of Broceliande, where he would reteach and spreading his teaching on the path towards the Truth of Ecne and the ethical code and practice towards it's achievement and attainment, like the Buddha did to Moksha ?

Even this sounds even more equitable and egalitarian in theory, since it is not automatically and implicitly assumed that one person is fit and next to rule and lead on strictly the basis of an existence in part or being part of some hereditary bloodline. Even though the Kim's are a de facto almost dynastic ruling family in that country at this point, they at least claim and pretend in their official narrative and propaganda that their relation to the Korean people they govern over is on the basis of inherent equality among all Koreans and achieving it as an eventual ideal and unifying all Koreans together under their version and vision of egalitarian socialism eventually - implicitly where it is assumed that all class divisions and their corresponding symbolically statuses and titles in society will melt away and only the legend of the Kim family leadership will remain in a mythical and mythopoetic narrative fashion as one of the ones most responsible that helped accomplish and achieve that for the sole benefit and equality among all the Korean people only in mind in which they would then also belong to as their eternally devoted equal part, only that they happen to be the one's chosen for that leadership role and in fulfilling of that eventual mission and dream ?. And that would not be the basis that they are the one's inherently superior to any given Korean on the basis of being a part of a ruling house or an aristocratic bloodline, just on the 'coincidental' fact ? they were the ones acquiring through or being chosen to that position of providential leadership by their own decades long accomplishments, achievements and bravery in fighting for their owns people interests, happiness and better future and for the destiny of their unwavering leadership in their dream of uniting Korea under their system by their own will, striving and effort alone, and not on the basis of being pre-determined for that role by virtue of belonging to a hereditary centuries old dynastic and royal intermingling ruling bloodline, with of course the implicitly assumed support of all the Korean people in this now decades, even centuries (if you count in the Japanese colonization of Korea in the late 19th and early 20th century) old dream of finally uniting their country as free and independent ?

What was practiced as form of economy in pre-slave holding, pre-feudal and pre-capitalist small communal tribes, tribal confederations or some small localized or native city dwelling societies Marx and Engels in some works (like A Letter on Russia to Vera Zasulich and the Holy Family to name a few as an example I think I remember from the top of my head) have categorised it and referred it to as a form of primitive communism existing within an 'arhaic' form of a commune or groups of communes.

Most of your questions and uncertainties regarding this topic and question are explained and answered in this very educational, relatively short and not to much of a long video apt with sources and quotations from actual Marxist, socialist and communist theoretical works in regards to general Marxist theory, in an attempt to explain what went actually wrong with socialism as practiced in some differing forms in some countries in their attempted transition to communism domestically and worldwide as their final stated goal, solution and aim from their and the world's economic and social developmental standpoint (apart from viewing through an SD theoretical lense) would not maybe be very accurate, precise, clear and be overcomplicating it as an attempt by me to explain it if somebody more elucidate, educated and intellectually refined currently than me already did it very eloquently, calmly here, with and by listing relevant authors and sources to a part of this question from a theoretical and historical developmental standpoint:

To sum up, from my POV, this historically fully uneducated Serb nationalist, conspiracist, and revisionist guy's borderline chauvinistic common trope talking points (aligning almost to a tee to official current Serbian state government line and propaganda) and the not much better quality, general educatedness, and informness of Vaushqip ''stage Green'' responses to him and personal takes against his claims and their joint, mutual contribution to the total level of educational value, shedding of light and knowledge they brought to the table to new people to this who just got into this topic, were curious and wanted to actually learn something more about this topic and issue in this ''debate'': One of the few pronounced things I found semi-inteligiblly witty in the whole discussion was the Marxism with Mass Grave characteristics verbal and word construction rhyming pun and dark humour joke, which I honestly and genuinely laughed at and found it kinda semi-inteligently witty and ironically funny, in a dark humoresque kind of way Analyzing Albanian Ethno-Nationalist Extremism in the Balkans University of Leiden Scholarly Publication.pdf Sources: Ethnic-Nationalism: The Tragic Death of Yugoslavia by Bogdan Denis Denitch 1997 Kosovo Liberation Army: Inside the Insurgency Henry H. Peritt Jr. 2008

.

Almost the same. I mentioned her in a conversation literally the night before the day on the 9th that it was announced that she was in a critical health condition and had passed away, with a newly met acquaintance of Serbo-Croatian origin from Germany that was basically about after Gorbachev has passed away at 91 what other Cold war-era living relics and famous people are still left and fairly old and are about to follow suit and pass away soon as well. I felt afterward it was sort of a kind of unintentional jinx on our part basically after he forwarded the news to me about her the next day at noon time Also, another friend of mine mentioned her in a conversation with another one of his friends also unintentionally unrelated to the news coming to him the day it was announced that she was in a critical state in a conversation about a Family guy skit she appears in. There is a sort of Jungian synchronicity almost at work sometimes that people who occupy a certain space in the collective consciousness or unconsciousness of a lot of people in the world - as a sort of induced collective stereotypes occupying a space in the minds of a lot of people across the world - that are about or expected to die to get often mentioned a lot seemingly by accident in a lot of seemingly unrelated and unconnected places and contexts just about as they are going to die and leave to the next space. And also there is a localized collective folk broad belief and superstition here at work as well that needs to be kept in mind and usually goes along the lines that those that are about to die and pass on to the other world get their names and life talked about and mentioned a lot first before they do, but I am pretty sure this sort of a broad, collective intuitive or superstitious-like belief is present in many and almost all human cultures around the world just in different phrasings, forms, and styles - for the fairly straightforward and obvious fact easily understood by all self-conscious human beings occupying any place or space on Planet Earth that we all eventually become equal and equals in death, no matter what kind of life we lived and how it was remembered by those still among the living

Careful Leo, don't forget the strict libel laws if you ever come to visit and phrase it that way on U.K. soil.? But putting that aside, good ol'Doc Charles Darwin would probably agree xD:

@Danioover9000 Tweet Translation: "When someone is 96 years old, he is truly a witness to history. Here we see Princess Elizabeth (19) meeting King Peter of Yugoslavia (22) for the first time. The year is 1945 and it is the baptism of the current heir to the throne, Aleksandar Karadjordjević. Elizabeth was the godmother together with her father George VI." RIP - Rest in Peace Lizzy ? She was truly a witness of history.

Glad you can understand ??

Indeed. We have finally reached a full-circle of some sort it seems ?

I didn't show condemnation to the person who recently passed away, but merely expressed criticism towards an institution that's continually being maintained and groomed in place. The most personal criticism that I expressed, and you can't even say that it was personal but merely directed towards the reactions and opinions of people, not the person in question, around the world reacting to this news, was the obvious glaring double-standard and hypocrisy in people's reaction, perception and opinions regarding this news, in relation to other more recent news, relevant to which part of the world they come, hail from and identify with. I had respect towards the person of Elizabeth, Lizzy in her role as a queen and monarch representing her states and countries interests and opinions, and not unoccasionally her own, when visiting foreign leaders and countries abroad. She acting as a representative of British royal interests, the Crown and generally Britain abroad had expressed favorable positions and friendly relations towards some countries in the past, including my own, when she came to visit first in the 1960s and then a second time in 1971 where she complimented and praised the cities growing and expanding urbanization plans and efforts and warmly commented on how the people of Britain admire and relate to the unbreakable spirit and unquenching striving of the people's of Yugoslavia to build a better post-war order and country for themselves and then received a golden plaque as a an honorary citizen of Belgrade. There are also unconfirmed rumours coming from the Yugoslav ambassador to Britain at the time, that in private correspondences, the Queen was herself personally uncomfortable with, against and opposed Labour PMs Blair's particular approach and policy of the U.K. being one of the countries on the forefront in advocating and partaking in the NATO aerial bombing campaign of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war of 1998-1999, because exactly of her friendly and warm visit twenty some years ago to Belgrade, and it is also rumoured that she personally opposed also some others of Blair's interventions elsewhere in the world during that time period. She was also dubbed "the Fairy Princess and Queen" by some foreign leaders and dignitaries at the other side of the Iron Curtain and across the non-Bloc alligned recently de-colonized countries due to her seeming inexhaustible ability to charm and melt the hearts towards liking and sympathizing with her and the British people of even the most toughest, antagonistic, and stone hearted of foreign leaders she met in her official visits to other countries mostly during the Cold War era - I think it was called something along the lines of "charm diplomacy", if I remember correctly and I am not wrong or mistaken. So in regards to her possible taken unofficial attitudes and relations towards my own country of background origin I respect her authenticity and individuality in taking those positions in relation to the sort of official mainstream prevailing wisdom there at the time, when she didn't have to at all but still did want to out of her own former individual personal contacts and relationships or fond past memories or attachments to a particular country. But she can be perceived fairly differently in some other countries, who had a very different kind of experiences with some parts and aspects of the British Royal House, Crown and the parts of history of the U.K. itself. To name just a few examples at the top my head, we can also talk about her role and importance of giving government-in-exile status to the former Karadjordevic Serb Royal Dynasty and in keeping cozy relationships up until now with the next heirs and lines to that dynasty as well with them within the official Royal British House of Windsor, but that would digress a bit too much off-topic and in other lines of broader argumentation and debates at this point I personally think. However all that doesn't mean one should not oppose monarchy as a form of institution, not as a content of what kind of person and his own personal importance or achievements currently occupies it. That is the definition of separating form from content in your mind, in order to see reality of a thing in a much more clearer way, and less possessively, less attached and less biasedly, in order not to feel personally attacked and offended when someone criticizes the particular constraining form and not a particular content in it at the time. Nevermind, what kind of person Lizzy really was or what her particular personal achievements or importance for the world during one of the single longest monarchical tenures and reigns in human history of 70 some years (the only one also who possibly reigned more than her from past European monarchs was Loius the XIVth, the Sun King, the absolutist French monarch from the 17th century) the problem is the form in which all that was achieved and operated from, which is observing from the responses here constraining in a cultural, borderline cult of personality and idolatrous sense, without which some of it wouldn't have been possible at the start in the first sense. It's a cost the content has to pay, and learn to actually not completely full identify with and eventually escape and evolve from, because of the narrowness and rigidity of the form it is in, that is then done at the expense of other more flexible and leanient forms that are actually more open-minded and less personally and culturally attached in a possessive reverent idolatrous way. This is a part of my opinion, (I would have planned to write something further in more detail as well explaining some of my underlying reasoning and logic, but I can't easily in this format over the phone and also I am bit low, constrained and limited on time and distracted and unfocused for it to do so effectively and efficiently due to studying for some exams) I merely felt the need to state it here because I felt the way this news and topic was being widely commented on, approached and shared was one-sided in the blinding singing of laurels and praises without dealing with some of the more difficult underlying issues connected with it now that one of the more easily recognizable and enduring symbols of contemporary British monarchy for some 70 plus years is gone, without dwelling on and dealing too much on the content of the person and her life itself in the parts of it where it can be separated from the constraining and limiting forms it took it's place in, and merely focusing on the problematizations regarding the archaicness, limitations and attachments to the forms itself, without the mental and emotional desire, willingness or ability to separate them from the content. My aim was not at all in the first to deliberately seek to offend you or emotionally trigger you @Danioover9000 or any other Brit or fan person here, that wasn't my intention and I am personally sorry and sincerely apologise if it came out like that, I merely wanted to criticize and point to an existing felt presence of an underlying mood of self-deception going on and distorsion and forced unity of content and form in the approach of this whole thread here towards regarding the concept of a monarchy, monarch, traditionalism, traditionalist collective identity, beliefs, customs and values and traditionalist monarchical rule, values, beliefs and customs as a form in some aspects, and not the content of the person in charge herself and her personal character or lived life, for which I personally admit in some aspects I have deep respect for. Hope you understand my motives and what I was aiming in first to achieve and point towards here, and not take too much personal attacks or offence towards that it was in any case directed against you and your beliefs or anyone's in particular here, which I can assure you first and foremost it wasn't. Tito and the Queen have a toast circa 1971, one of the more famous reproduced pop culture and merch photos here: "Usually the inscription below on the photos or t-shirts reads God save the Queen or smth of that sort."

Average westerners live reaction on deaths of famous old, still living remnants and relics of the Cold-war era people in a nutshell over the past week. Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the men most responsible preventing a full-scale and on nuclear showdown with the West at time of the critical period of the acceptance of the slow dissolution of Soviet Union and overseeing a relatively remarkably peaceful implosion and attempted democratic transition, never before seen on that scale in that point in history, of one of the world's largest in land mass totalitarian empires, at the expense of his own country of origin and upbringing background, in history relatively internationally insulated from the rest of the world and armed to teeth in nuclear warheads and weapons, dies at 91 years of age. Westerners: Meh. Elizabeth the Second of the Royal House of Windsor becomes Queen of the UK on the sole virtue of existing as the closest heir to earn that dynastic instituted hereditary royal title, essentially during her elongated reign serves as symbolic figurehead to cushion and procrastinate the collapse of the last remnants of the British Empire, and serves exclusively as a happen to be chosen this time about symbolic person to keep extending the lifeline and postponing indefinitely as much as possible the eventually inevitable wavering of UK traditionalist unitarist influence on and power the people's inhabiting the British Isles, in order to save face, live in the nostalgic never-ending memory and cope with the lost power and prestige of the collapsed, long-gone old civilization and empire of old for a few more decades, in a sort of an extended induced fantasy land trip of hyperreality simulacra version of British politics, dies at 96 years of age. Westerners: Ooooooh my God!!! I can't believe she died, we thought she was going to live forever!!! ??? We are so sorry, our deep condolences and sympathies to the still existing next-in-heir hereditary house royal family and all the people now hurting across the world!!! There should be 7 days mourning and silence everywhere possible!!! God save the Queen. This is not the time for questioning the reasoning and logic behind the maintenance of such an old, questionable custom in place and outdated political institution, not just used for show, prestige and pomp but for other hidden internal and external political status quo purposes as well, in the first place, you irreverent insensitive heathen scum (on an open-end "democratic" forum of all places were nothing should be declared sacred or holier than thou or left unquestioned).

I understand from your point of view and living experience living there, with what all that entails, with cultural norms, values and identity maintenances in the society. But the fact is that this political institution is highly outdated, no matter how much deep it is steeped in tradition, historical-civilizational narratives and national identity it is, and actually only now serves as a traditionalist veener for the political legitimization narratives and services of maintenance of a certain status quo in Britain in relation to keeping Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the political Union. The biggest problem with the indefinite maintenance of the status quo regarding this institution and political legitimizing order of things should be with the Welshmen, Scotts and Irish in Northern Ireland who want independent republics or some sort of a new national union on a more equitable republican basis in regards to autonomy on domestic and foreign policy and EU relationships. I know the traditionalists need to die off, but people fed up with these rigid, outdated hierarchical social structures and rules should also lift a little bit more of their own weight in order to be more solidarious with their countrymen in other Union states who want to go eventually out of this voluntary or involuntary arrangement skewed more towards mostly one-side.

RIP - Rest in peace. I hope the Brits (and the Japs as well) one day follow Orwell's advice really to the heart and abolish those outdated, tradionalist sociocultural political institutions (and when that follows, hopefully that will also soon afterward trigger and spell the end in kind of domino-effect of all the other tradionalist, rigid and repressive, cost-insufficient, and taxpayer drain maintenance of borderline economic vampirism of monarchist regimes across the globe after their legitimization narrative and world finger-pointing excuses of other cases still in existence is gone after the abolition of these two-three most famous cases) , connected with the hereditary landlord classes privellege legitimizations in Britain and with the desire to via interconnected royal houses inbreeding and intermarrying bloodlines and symbolical historical hereditary traditionalist legitimizations still hold Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in the political Union. As Orwell postulated the remnants of the monarchy in Britain was not supposed to and should not have survived World War Two, "The Lion and The Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941)": "The Lion and The Unicorn, which adressed the question of the division of British class and how the "family loyalties" (Orwell preferst his term to "British tradition") is mingled by class divisions, however, reaffirming them. And the relation of the British ruling classes to civil liberties and democracy seems to represent well this idea: The British ruling class believes in democracy and civil liberty of a narrow shape and hypocritical part. Anyway they believe in the letter of the law and sometimes will do it when it's not to your advantage. They show no sign of developing a truly fascist mentality. Freedom of every kind must obviously decrease as a result of the war, but given the current structure of society and its atmosphere there is a point beyond which it will not fall. Britain may be "fascistizaded" outside or as a result of an internal revolution, but the old ruling class can not, in my opinion, produce a true totalitarianism on their own. They are very stupid. It is largely because they have been unable to understand the nature of fascism, first we are in this whole mess. (Orwell, 1941, Apud DAVISON, 1998, p.476) Finally, finishing this letter, Orwell returned to the issue of the need to combine the war effort with a turn to the left, towards a socialist revolution as an essential condition for the defeat of fascism. Any comparison between the British domestic situation - the scarcity of products, the downturn in the economy and its shift to a predominantly war economy, increased state control over daily life, etc. - in 1914-18 and during the Second World War established the land on which Orwell was based this idea. One certainty was clear to him: the old capitalism had died. This last point of the argument - the necessity of social revolution as the only way for the defeat of fascism - is basically the same point that Orwell presented at The Lion and the Unicorn, released that same year, 1941, when he defends the need for a socialist revolution in Britain as a path to defeat, internal and external fascism, as seen above in this article and to which we will analyze in more detail now. In many measures, this is precisely the theme of the first Orwell's “London Letters” (published in Partisan Review, March-April 1941) In it, Orwell writes, analyzing British political and economic situation at the beginning of the year 1941: "Well, as the political situation, I think it's safe to say that we are currently in the middle of a cleaning that will not make much difference anyway. The reactionaries, which means more or less the people who read Times, had a scare in the summer, but saved by the skin of their teeth, and they are now consolidating its position against the new crisis that is likely to emerge in the spring. In the summer, there was the equivalent of a revolutionary situation in England, although there was no one to take advantage of it. After twenty years of being fed with sugar and water, the nation suddenly realized who were his rulers, and that there was a widespread availability of radical economic and social changes, combined with the absolute determination to prevent the [Nazi] invasion. At the moment, I believe that the opportunity exists to isolate the moneyed class and swing the mass of the nation behind a policy that resistance to Hitler and the destruction of the class with privileges can be combined." (Orwell, 1941, Apud Davison, 1998, p.352) As I've told, the idea of linking the victory against fascism to a socialist revolution, which Orwell refers in his first letter to Partisan Review, is not alone in his work. Rather, it would take shape during the year 1941, especially in the essay The Lion and the Unicorn. It was clear to Orwell that the war plunged the country into a revolutionary moment and the anti-fascist national mobilization could at the same time, isolate the elites and political force to the working classes and British averages. Considered his main political manifesto, The Lion and the Unicorn, the first part, "England your England" would be first published in London in Horizon magazine in December 1940 and later published in full text also in London in 1941. The internal debates of British politics; the role of the left intelligentsia and its alignment with Stalinism; and the possibilities for implementing a kind of democratic socialism (as opposed to "orthodox socialism" spent the Stalinist USSR) as a way of overcoming fascism and liberal democracy. All will be central themes in discussions of that text. In Part III of the text, entitled, "The English Revolution" Orwell traces the lines of what he perceived to be an ongoing revolution in England. Orwell opens the last part of his essay, arguing, on page 64, that a transition – which he defined as a "revolution" - was already under way in England, and that was only accelerated with the outbreak of World War II. Still on page 64, Orwell points out the war - and the necessary victory over Hitler - again, as a necessary catalyst of social and economic transformations. But he adds that it is also the driving force of the definitive break with the past and the Victorian liberal tradition of England - a war also between the "past" and "future". For Orwell, as it appear in the sequence of his essay (ORWELL, 1982, p.65), the ground rules of this process in motion, must be taken, however, by a popular social movement at the same time it should recognize the "failures" of "English socialism”. What is clear, at least in the reading proposed here, is the disruption with the hegemonic political left in England - communist and labor - but without abandoning the idea of the possibility of a "socialist revolution" in a Marxist sense. As we saw above, this view proposed by Rahv, looks a lot like Orwell's own prepositions during the World War. Even under intense bombardment of the Luftwaffe over London between 1940 and 1941, Orwell still rather defended The Lion and The Unicorn (1941), the need for socialist revolution guide the defeat of fascism in and out of Britain. However, Orwell believed, as Rahv, that direct war was the only possible response against the fascist advance and the danger it represented. With that, and there again the thought of Orwell is a kind of bridge between the arguments of Rahv and Macdonald, the socialist revolution (as advocated Macdonald) should lead to military defeat (as advocated Rahv) of fascism. As we have seen, the ideal of the socialist revolution was present both in the reworking of the political discourse of Partisan Review, as in Orwell's texts. This is the critical content of the British left intelligentsia, present in the first of the "London Letters", published by Orwell in Partisan Review in March-April, 1941, as seen above. The point of that text was maintaining the idea of the fight against Hitler and fascism represent the way for the promotion of the socialist revolution in England, similar arguments that presented in his first major work of the 1940s, The Lion and The Unicorn, published a month earlier. In another edition of his "London Letter to Partisan Review", now in July-August 1943, with the central theme the dissolution of the Comintern, Orwell begins to sketch a critique that assume a consistent way in their texts throughout the 1940s : "the image of the USSR and Stalinism (and its“ mystique” representation “of the [October] Revolution") as "myths" on the British left intelligentsia, gradually shattered among many communist intellectuals" (Orwell, 1943 Apud DAVISON, p. 286). The idea of "myth" will be reaffirmed years later in the edition of "London Letter" of June 5, 1945, when Orwell reflect on the permanence of a pro-Soviet sentiment among intellectuals of the British left, including the maintenance of a extremely favorable to Stalinism press - ignoring the crimes already revealed, as the purges, the political persecution of dissent, etc .. He writes, for example, about this: "(...) I always understood that the maintenance of this pro-russia feeling in England during the last ten years was due much more the need for an external paradise than any real interest in the Soviet regime, and that can not be contained by a appeal to facts, even when they are known." (Orwell, 1945, Apud ANGUS;ORWELL, 1968 [3], p.382) In the critique presented in his articles for the Partisan Review, since the mid-1940s, Orwell defines the Stalinist regime as a "myth" which appropriates the collective memory of the international socialist movement on the Russian Revolution of 1917, taking it as a founder event of Stalinism - and, therefore, Stalin, as a historical continuer of Lenin. He also states the inevitable condition of the need to "destruction" of the Soviet "myth", that the socialist movement reassume their democratic basis in the struggle for equality and social justice. This double movement will be explicit in Orwell's criticism, for example, in the introduction to the Ukrainian translation of Animal Farm, published in November 1947, and distributed in Munich, Germany, by the Ukranian Displaced Persons Organisation. There, Orwell is adamant in stating: "[...] I understand, more clearly than ever, the negative influence of the Soviet myth about the Western socialist movement. (...) And so far from the last ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted to revive the socialist movement." (Orwell, 1947, Apud ANGUS; Orwell [1968 [3], p.404-5]) Ideal which seemed very close with anti-Stalinist left's feelings lying around the Partisan Review in New York, through the new political projects outlined as alternatives to political narratives in dispute during the years of World War II." Source: Going 80 years or so forward in retrospect and hindsight, abolition of something in this situation seems like a pretty straightforward political moderate position in this case xD? The_London_Letters_George_Orwells_partic.pdf

Hey Meso thanks for taking the time of informing me, explaining to me and elucidating me on some of the things related to this topic of the current dynamics of Iraqi politics, internally and externally internationally, from the on the ground experiential and field empirical perspective. I will answer you shortly when I have the time again in more detail on some of my thoughts on each of the points and stuff that you said, wrote and asseerted here about this topic in question and how I view from an outsider's perspective, not living in there experience perspective, but from an attempt of drawing together and putting forward a comparative analysis connective thread on the similarities between yours and my countries of origin and upbringing background relatively recent political history and experience, and trying to form a relatable experientially similar connected vein that way in attempt of discussing it more in depth and throughly, and for it to seem more experientially relatable and to sound more similar and familiar from your experiential point of view as well! So I will get back to you in attempt of going through and discussing relatively more in detail on the last things you said and asserted here, once finish I some nearly impending stuff and obligations I have unrelated to that for some of the things I have regarding the studies on my faculty. Hope you can understand, I will get back to you here as soon as I finish that, no need for you to apologise as well for the delay in answering, I am myself more guilty of that more often than not than most people I presume ? So no need to ever apologise to me regarding that in this context, I would like myself to think and hold a value assertion that's it's never actually a delay or a late reply or response if it's for a good reason for a person's life! ?

@Mesopotamian Meso, just to check if you are doing all right, if your are fine and okay there? I have heard some foreign analysts online say that this is in fact the beginning of a another low intensity Iraqi Civil War, after the followers of an influential Iraqi nationalist Shia religious cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stormed the Presidential Palace/or government building after apparently the former president from the Shia religious group just stepped down and resigned from his post in the country, from all the current news I am seeing coming in judging from their content viewed only on face value. There is allegedly open shooting and confortations on the streets in Baghdad between the security forces of the country and the armed part of the protestors, seemingly from all the news and information incoming. I will keep people updated here if something also major happens. Alleged image and photo of US military transport helicopters evacuating the staff from their Embassies residency in Baghdad: