Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • #Ukraine demands that the USA, France, and Britain either respect the Budapest A

    #Ukraine demands that the USA, France, and Britain either respect the Budapest Accord, or return its nuclear arsenal.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-02 01:09:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439930488728616960

  • False Comparison. USA’s objective is self determination. Russia’s is justificati

    False Comparison. USA’s objective is self determination. Russia’s is justification of power and corruption.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 22:22:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439888314922201088

    Reply addressees: @ThabangMokotong

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439887366774595584


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439887366774595584

  • Proper Threat: Withdraw or we will sink the entire black sea fleet. #Crimea

    Proper Threat: Withdraw or we will sink the entire black sea fleet. #Crimea


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 22:20:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/439887886465630208

  • IS EASTERN UKRAINE TOO?

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116810/putin-declares-war-ukraine-why-and-what-nextTARGET IS EASTERN UKRAINE TOO?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 18:55:00 UTC

  • Back when I was in university, I did a little work with war games. It was very l

    Back when I was in university, I did a little work with war games. It was very little. But the experience was life altering.

    The absolute out-of-the-blue perfection of Putin’s invasion of Crimea is EXACTLY the kind of scenario that lands in your lap.

    I can pretty easily imagine what’s going on in the states right now.

    There is no compelling strategic interest in crimea.

    The Russians have a legitimate claim to the territory.

    We have used the same arguments in Panama and other places.

    BUT

    The west’s self image is predicated on being the police of self determination and the prohibitor of taking territory by force. The west loses, it loses it’s entire claim for moral legitimacy.

    It would have been easier for Putin to just engineer crimean annexation without troops. But you know, it’s BETTER FOR HIM to exercise muscle.

    GUTLESS MORON IN WASHINGTON

    This is why you don’t elect progressives to the presidency.

    They’re almost always confused. This president is not only confused. but lazy and stupid.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 12:56:00 UTC

  • Obama is the worst president in American history – even worse than Carter

    Obama is the worst president in American history – even worse than Carter.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 08:32:00 UTC

  • So I guess Putin is going to take Crimea by force? Use it as his “Grenada and Pa

    So I guess Putin is going to take Crimea by force? Use it as his “Grenada and Panama”? His resurgence? Show a little muscle? Smart really.

    No problem here. Self determination. If they Crimeans go for it, well, then I can’t make a libertarian case against it. No state has the right to control a body of people that do not wish to be controlled by it.

    (The federal government has no right to control the people of Texas for example.)

    Hate the state.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-28 11:27:00 UTC

  • THE RUSSIAN ‘SPIN’ I completely understand (a) Putin’s ambition to create an eas

    THE RUSSIAN ‘SPIN’

    I completely understand (a) Putin’s ambition to create an eastern trade zone, (b) his desire to restore Russia to the world stage (c) the right of people in lands that contain an ethnically Russian majority to self determination, (d) the territorial investment and historical relation with Crimea, (e) the strategic importance of the black sea ports, (f) his fear that the revolution against corruption here in Ukraine will (justly) spread to Russia and unseat him.

    What I don’t get is his SPIN, and his media’s spin, that the current government is somehow not legitimate when given the extraordinary corruption here was on a scale so significant that it affected the GDP.

    I mean, corruption is always immoral, but at some point its pervasive enough that it becomes not just immoral but material, and at some other point it becomes not just material but catastrophically destructive. And the corruption here is in the catastrophic category. I mean, you can’t claim that anyone conducting that level of corruption is legitimate. You simply can’t. It will backfire on you.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-28 01:15:00 UTC

  • Which Situation Is More Likely To Lead To Progressive Outcomes: A Republican Party That Continues To Support Extreme Candidates & Positions, Or One That Is More Mainstream And Thus Successful, But Also Open To Compromise?

    In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

    We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

    As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

    So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

    1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

    2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

    3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

    All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

    1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

    2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

    So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

    Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

    So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

    If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

    So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise

  • Which Situation Is More Likely To Lead To Progressive Outcomes: A Republican Party That Continues To Support Extreme Candidates & Positions, Or One That Is More Mainstream And Thus Successful, But Also Open To Compromise?

    In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

    We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

    As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

    So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

    1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

    2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

    3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

    All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

    1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

    2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

    So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

    Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

    So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

    If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

    So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise