Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Hard to imagine that’s true given all the evidence everywhere in the world. Comp

    Hard to imagine that’s true given all the evidence everywhere in the world. Compare the right (christian, jeffersonian, rule of law, natural law) with left (authoritarian, socialist, communist) all are hostile to natural law, rule of law, christianity, and all the responsibiilty they require. I mean, nazis were left-socialists, ussr was left socialist, china was left communist, the failed states of south america were left-socialists. I can’t think of anyone that’s right wing (christian, jeffersonian, rule of law, natural law) that’s anywhere near as military as the left is almost everywhere – for the simple reason that naturallaw doesn’t requires we change people. Only that we police irreciprocity that violates natural law.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:50:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632136572865769472

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632134713597886469

  • That’s clearly not true, because people stopped doing it. My question is, can we

    That’s clearly not true, because people stopped doing it. My question is, can we restore it now that the government has taken over control of what used to be church governing.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:13:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632127135790907394

    Reply addressees: @IAMWILLNICHOLLS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632116037159092227

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt

    Reply addressees: @IAmAsaJ


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126636798750720

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126637125824514

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096

  • Well, while you’re sentiment’s correct, technically speaking, the UA never had t

    Well, while you’re sentiment’s correct, technically speaking, the UA never had the chance to get a ‘leadership’ because between organized crime, the oligarchs, the corruption of the remaining post-soviet bureaucracy, and those who were ‘bought’ by the Russians, they couldn’t produce a leadership until this war gave them both leadership, and the means of gutting all four sets of parasites.
    Fixing a post-soviet country without a wing of the government that is large enough, to exert power in favor of the people, is almost impossible. Belarus is small and homogenous enough to do it. Ukrainian east west divide plus all the corruption organizations made it very difficult. (And I had some very minor role at the very fringe and it seemed impossible -which is why the UA population wanted to join the EU: it would force that cleanup in their favor.

    Reply addressees: @ChPayton1 @Lavrovskyi


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 20:19:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632113676302811140

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632110596807180292

  • Well, while you’re sentiment’s correct, technically speaking, the UA never had t

    Well, while you’re sentiment’s correct, technically speaking, the UA never had the chance to get a ‘leadership’ because between organized crime, the oligarchs, the corruption of the remaining post-soviet bureaucracy, and those who were ‘bought’ by the Russians, they couldn’t produce a leadership until this war gave them both leadership, and the means of gutting all four sets of parasites.
    Fixing a post-soviet country without a wing of the government that is large enough, to exert power in favor of the people, is almost impossible. Belarus is small and homogenous enough to do it. Ukrainian east west divide plus all the corruption organizations made it very difficult. (And I had some very minor role at the very fringe and it seemed impossible -which is why the UA population wanted to join the EU: it would force that cleanup in their favor.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 20:19:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632113676432863233

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632110596807180292

  • (Thinking: Conservative vs Progressive or class values? Meaning, what means did

    (Thinking: Conservative vs Progressive or class values? Meaning, what means did each class use to virtue signal.)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 19:38:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632103235220652042

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632090844873527296

  • DO YOU USE THESE TERMS AS THEY’RE DEFINED? (Conservatism doesn’t mean satus quo,

    DO YOU USE THESE TERMS AS THEY’RE DEFINED?
    (Conservatism doesn’t mean satus quo, it means empiricism. Progressivism doesn’t mean progress it means anti-empirical utopianism.)

    Conservatism: Conservatism shares some common values with Classical liberalism, such as a preference for limited government and free-market economics. However, Conservatives tend to be less socially liberal and are less supportive of individual liberties such as same-sex marriage and drug legalization.

    Classical Liberalism is an ideology that emphasizes individual freedom, limited government, and free-market economics. In comparison to other competing ideologies, classical liberalism has distinct differences and similarities.

    Libertarianism: Libertarianism is an ideology that shares many values with classical liberalism, such as individual liberty and free-market economics. However, libertarians tend to be more extreme in their views and advocate for the complete abolition of the state, whereas classical liberals believe in a limited government that plays a role in protecting individual rights and ensuring a level playing field for economic competition.

    Progressivism: Progressivism is an ideology that emphasizes social justice, equality, and collective action to solve societal problems. While classical liberals support individual freedom and limited government, they do not necessarily believe that the government should play a large role in promoting social justice or equality.
    … Also: American Liberalism, American Democratic Party, European Democratic Socialism.

    Socialism: Socialism is an ideology that emphasizes collective ownership of the means of production and the creation of a classless society. In contrast, classical liberalism is based on the belief that individual freedom and economic competition are the best ways to create prosperity and improve people’s lives. Thus, classical liberals are critical of socialism’s emphasis on central planning and state ownership.
    … Also: Leftism, Communism.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 18:34:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632087054329815042

  • DO YOU USE THESE TERMS AS THEY’RE DEFINED? (Conservatism doesn’t mean satus quo,

    DO YOU USE THESE TERMS AS THEY’RE DEFINED?
    (Conservatism doesn’t mean satus quo, it means empiricism. Progressivism doesn’t mean progress it means anti-empirical utopianism.)

    Conservatism: Conservatism shares some common values with Classical liberalism, such as a preference for limited government and free-market economics. However, Conservatives tend to be less socially liberal and are less supportive of individual liberties such as same-sex marriage and drug legalization.

    Classical Liberalism is an ideology that emphasizes individual freedom, limited government, and free-market economics. In comparison to other competing ideologies, classical liberalism has distinct differences and similarities.

    Libertarianism: Libertarianism is an ideology that shares many values with classical liberalism, such as individual liberty and free-market economics. However, libertarians tend to be more extreme in their views and advocate for the complete abolition of the state, whereas classical liberals believe in a limited government that plays a role in protecting individual rights and ensuring a level playing field for economic competition.

    Progressivism: Progressivism is an ideology that emphasizes social justice, equality, and collective action to solve societal problems. While classical liberals support individual freedom and limited government, they do not necessarily believe that the government should play a large role in promoting social justice or equality.
    … Also: American Liberalism, American Democratic Party, European Democratic Socialism.

    Socialism: Socialism is an ideology that emphasizes collective ownership of the means of production and the creation of a classless society. In contrast, classical liberalism is based on the belief that individual freedom and economic competition are the best ways to create prosperity and improve people’s lives. Thus, classical liberals are critical of socialism’s emphasis on central planning and state ownership.
    … Also: Leftism, Communism.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 18:34:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632087054447259656

  • “WHY RU IS STILL WALKING” Well, we’re spending .05% of our budget, and Russia’s

    “WHY RU IS STILL WALKING”
    Well, we’re spending .05% of our budget, and Russia’s entire stock of arms and men is being decimated. And the Ukrainians are still producing higher kill ratios. So our plan to ‘bleed russia to death’ now instead of fighting them later is working flawlessly. The only reason RU is still walking is that the West wants to change administration and policy rather than destroy the RU military entirely. Why? There is no good to come from another Russian collapse. Just ending Russian aggression, and completing Russian transformation to a modern state that’s a civil member of the world system of cooperation and trade.

    Reply addressees: @blackintheempir


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 17:59:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632078382178467841

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632033555835494400