JUDGEMENT:Apple is killing it’s ability to pivot to MSFT pro. market share when iPhone inevitably declines “@Apple just pulled a Microsoft”
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-24 09:51:00 UTC
JUDGEMENT:Apple is killing it’s ability to pivot to MSFT pro. market share when iPhone inevitably declines “@Apple just pulled a Microsoft”
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-24 09:51:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kcLOOK AT THE PREVIOUS MUSLIM INVASIONS OF EUROPE
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-20 14:59:00 UTC
TERROR ALERTS AS MERE BLAME CIRCUMVENTION FOR FAILURE
—“Of course there are potential “terror alerts” over Thanksgiving. That’s how the state keeps you in perpetual fear. It’s all bullshit.”—
Its actually how they attempt to circumvent blame by issuing warnings all the time so that even though people get murdered, they can claim they were not caught unawares – even though they were. Since ‘awareness’ requires ‘actionability’ to have any meaning.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-20 12:41:00 UTC
Well, if Krugman says China’s about to crash, I’m gonna say that it’s his (albeit limited) area of expertise, and he’s probably right. And that, as I suggested, the next ‘great upheaval’ will occur in the 2020-2025 range.
(I thought they couldn’t make it past 2010.)
They’re preparing for their civil war, just as we are preparing for ours. And we can only hope that they happen at the same time, so that both are occupied internally by the end of the capitalist universalist era, and the return to nationalism and kinship.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-20 12:12:00 UTC
—“Curt: What are your views on anthropogenic climate change?”— The question is not whether the climate is changing (it always does), and not whether we are contributing to it (it seems like we might be), but whether our contributions are meaningful (causing a marginal difference), or whether they are merely noise amidst the normal solar cycles (hard to tell), and whether given that we should be entering another period of cooling (it seems though we are), even if we will raise the temperature, if it’s actually harmful or beneficial. Now, even if that is said we must choose between lowering the consumption of energy, lowering our use of petroleum products, or lowering the size of the population. The evidence would indicate that the most important method of correcting the problem is to convert to nuclear power where possible, and to reduce the population of the planet to the point where we able to consume (convert) as much energy as we possibly can, in order to innovate (and exit the planet) as fast as we can. Or whether we expand the population indefinitely. This is the real debate. And the rest of it’s all lies as far as I can understand. 1B seems to be a good top number for a planet like earth.
—“Curt: What are your views on anthropogenic climate change?”— The question is not whether the climate is changing (it always does), and not whether we are contributing to it (it seems like we might be), but whether our contributions are meaningful (causing a marginal difference), or whether they are merely noise amidst the normal solar cycles (hard to tell), and whether given that we should be entering another period of cooling (it seems though we are), even if we will raise the temperature, if it’s actually harmful or beneficial. Now, even if that is said we must choose between lowering the consumption of energy, lowering our use of petroleum products, or lowering the size of the population. The evidence would indicate that the most important method of correcting the problem is to convert to nuclear power where possible, and to reduce the population of the planet to the point where we able to consume (convert) as much energy as we possibly can, in order to innovate (and exit the planet) as fast as we can. Or whether we expand the population indefinitely. This is the real debate. And the rest of it’s all lies as far as I can understand. 1B seems to be a good top number for a planet like earth.
THE BOURGEOISE SOCIETY HAS BEEN A CATASTROPHE.
There is a vast difference between the scientific enlightenment which was a tremendous success, and the classical liberal seizure of political power through the various revolutions against the aristocracy and the monarchies.
Yes we can blame the aristocracy from failing to evolve the organization of the state and incorporate the bourgeoisie. And yes we can blame the bourgeoisie for failing by incorporating the proletariat and women into the house of commons.
But in the present, of the Marxist proletariat(worldwide), the classical liberal bourgeoisie, the ‘liberal’ priesthood (20th century), and the martial aristocracy(antiquity to 1800), all have failed except the martial aristocracy. And more frighteningly, they have failed quickly, and in succession.
The aristocracy created markets in every aspect of life: freedom, marriage, commerce, commons, dispute resolution, and rule. But failed to abandon their rents and accommodate the finance and merchant class when commerce rather than agrarian territory evolved to the central source of production.
The classical liberal bourgeoisie tried to make the market everything, at the expense of the tribe. They tried to create a monopoly of the entrepreneurial classes. And they failed. They destroyed the family and community as a unit of production. They brought people to capital rather than capital to people. Even if the primary beneficiaries of their financial order were the common people’
The Marxists proletarians resisted the bourgeoise’s impact on home and family – and committed the greatest crimes in human history by trying to take over rule from the bourgeoisie. They tried to create a monopoly of the laboring classes. And they failed. They destroyed entire nations, tribes, families, economies and traditions. Worst of all they destroyed all trust.
The secular priesthood we call ‘liberals’ or ‘the cathedral’ tried to take over from the Marxists, in pursuit of a global secular religion consisting of utopian promises, pseudoscience, and faith in the persistent expansion of technology – and destroyed the entirety of western civilization in less than a century.
They tried to create a monopoly of the secular priestly caste. And they failed. They failed because they treated as equal in potential and demand people who are not. As the classical liberals destroyed the family as a unit of production, the liberals destroyed the nation as a unit of production.
But only the martial aristocracy forced the creation of markets in everything by the total prohibition of monopoly – even a monopoly of rule – by resisting all unification and federalization until Napoleon used fiat credit to create ‘total war’ and forced them to relent out of defense.
Only the monarchy created markets for the voluntary production, distribution, and exchange of goods, services, information, and commons, between the classes.
And only the aristocracy understood that each class’ attempt to create monopolies would lead to a breakdown of the cooperation between the ‘estates of the realm’ – what we call today ‘the social classes’.
Aristocracy creates a monopoly: the prevention of monopoly by the enforcement of markets.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 12:52:00 UTC
Retweeted Bulgakov’s Pilot (@BulgakovsPilot):
“We fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph.” #NewRight https://t.co/RZEUJWVfux
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 13:40:00 UTC
In each great transformational era we cast off the errors, justifications, and lies of the prior. And in doing so produce waves of retaliation by new errors, justifications and lies by those who benefitted from the former, or find opportunity in the newer.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 09:31:00 UTC
Cosmopolitanism, Globalism, and the Empire are dead. It’s just going to take another decade for it to die off.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-15 23:07:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798663865332420608
Reply addressees: @iamthehamish @SpeakerRyan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798663352842993664
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/798663352842993664