Correct. The way I frame it is that there is rule of law of natural law (reciprocity) and under that free trade is moral trade. And there is the absence of that rule of law and that is immoral free trade. You can guess which culture put forward the latter.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:16:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796606690214940775
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796605840973259117
RT @Geiger_Capital: The first felony conviction of a former US President wasn’t for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, illegal CIA coups, drone…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 14:52:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796555395676459467
Unlikely. They assisted us against the taliban. That was enough of a reason.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 05:13:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796409729318789607
Reply addressees: @ToujoursFidale @TheHammurabi
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796408688288411809
–“Q: What did the US achieve in invading Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?”–
Suppression of the funding of terrorism – which is a means of warfare. The fact that he middle east is a low trust low competency civilization not capable of producing the trust and trustworhty behavior necessary to produce sale organizations of social, economic, political, and strategic success, and therefore has to resort to terrorism, which these untrusting and untrustworthy and demonstrably incompetent people demonstrate, is no different from the conduct of war.
So these countries warred by either aggressive conquest (Iraq) repetition of aggression (Iraq), fostered terrorism (Afghanistan and Libya – for some reason Pakistan get’s a pass), or constraining the principle financier of terrorism in the world, Iran, and it’s efforts to destabilize the region (syria), and Iranian participation in the collapse of the only mertious country in the middle east (Lebanon), by taking advantage of lebanese tolerance for islamic activism.
There are three bad actors left in the word: Iran, Russia, and China. They are the remaining countries that seek to restore the age of empires and reverse the western innovation of the production of the sovereign nation states defended by federations around a core state.
These revisionists seeking to restore empires where the elites can prey upon the people (because that’s what all three countries do).
The anglo-american mistake was not letting Macarthur in China and Patton in Russia end both empires permanently, which let them attempt to capture Iran, which in turn we placed the Shah, who was then overthrown by these primitive barbarians that are a threat to the Iranian people, their neighbors and the peace and prosperity of the world.
No more empires
No more world wars
No more subject peoples.
Everyone carries their own weight.
Everyone free, engaged in peaceful trade, and the production of goods, services, information and commons for the people.
No more immorality making excuses for primitivism.
(BTW: I notice you didn’t mention the USA saving of muslims in europe when slavic europeans and in particular russians sought to exterminate the muslims in the balkans.)
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @TheHammurabi
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 03:20:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796381247641403393
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796377464912167057
Гарне відео
Порада для редакторів: “недійсні” погано перекладається англійською мовою. У цьому контексті це означає «неефективний», «нелегітимний» або «незаконний». Для західної аудиторії фраза «нелегітимним і несправедливим», що означає «illegitimate and unjust», є кращим набором термінів, який допомагає чіткому перекладу.
Good video.
Advice for Editors: “недійсні” does not translate well into english. In this context it means either “ineffective”, “illegitimate”, or “illegal”. When reaching a western audience, the phrase “нелегітимним і несправедливим” meaning “illegitimate and unjust” is a better set of terms that assists in clear translation.
Reply addressees: @pigskin454
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 00:21:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796336109493874688
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796196413501485068
Q: WHAT ABOUT THE MORALITY OF US MILITARY ACTION AND EVEN INVASION?
For what reason did the US invade the countries it invaded? I’ve answered this question a few hundred times.
What immorality, injustice, aggression, violence, or war has caused the US to conduct a policing action against any country? List them all. Go ahead.
They are always policing actions for the simple reason that we DON’T want to conquer and rule others. We only want to create prosperity and human rights by preventing others from conquest and rule of others.
My only criticism of US and NATO postwar policy is that we tell people we’re prohibiting the production of empires that have been the source of thousands of years of human war poverty and suffering, and promoting national sovereignty, democracy, economic prosperity, and human rights.
But we don’t tell people that if you allow a government of your people to aggress against you or especially against others, the that violates those principles under which we protect world prosperity trade, finance, and law, which has made the world wealthier and more secure and more healthy than ever before, and more so than mankind ever dreamed possible.
So if you as a people violate those principles necessary for the prosperity of humanity in industrial and technological modernity, that not only will your government pay, but your people will pay for tolerating such a government.
No excuses. Because the consequences are too great. And it is that statement of the carrot of prosperity but the failure to state the stick of punishment that allows for the misrepresentation of the purpose.
You may not be a moral enough person, family, clan, tribe, nation, religion, and civilization to try to advance humanity even if only out of self defense against those who would use aggression rather than cooperation – but europeans, or at least anglo and germanic europeans are so.
And that is the greatest moral ambition available to mankind.
Even if, for some reason, we have tolerated the evils of Jewish parasitic financialism and jewish seditious leftism, to capture western education, academy, media, and government, to spread degenerate incentive for destructive anti-social, ant-familial, anti-national hedonism that under democracy is advanced by women, who are the most hedonistic and consumptive creatures evolution and the gods have ever made.
We can however stop that. And you an help us stop that. But it’s not by the primitive means that the countries we have taken military policing action against.
Affections for you and all mankind.
CD
Reply addressees: @TheHammurabi
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-30 23:22:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796321385905557504
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796314326640497026
The feeling at the time has little impact on the understanding over time.
I have three opinions.
1. First, everyone wants the Palestinians to ‘go away’ because no one wants them or they’d take them in. They have their opportunity to create a viable polity and they don’t – instead they live on various international charities, and entertaining themselves with terrorism. While it’s one thing to fight and use terror it’s another to use islamic brutality. And Palestinians show no interests in doing otherwise. Israel must occupy both territories and end the threat or between reproductive differences and costs of producing a jew vs an arab mean Israel, especially with the large number of fundamentalist ‘parasites’ on the rest of the population, mean israel is unsustainable. As such I see Israel continuing until the west bank at least is under full control and settlement driving out the Palestinians. I can see them allowing the gaza strip. I see the USA continuing to wait out russia, iran, and china. I see israel giving the USA cause for attacking Iran. The USA won’t do that until israel gives it no choice.
2. Second, strategically it is valuable to maintain Israel as the only high tech economy, with a strong education system, and a good government in the region. This is akin to china being threatened by a democratic hong kong and Taiwan, to Russia being threatened by a democratic Ukraine, and Iran being threatened by a democratic and successful Israel – because their success brings into question the legitimacy of the governments of China, Russia, and Iran for their populations.
3. Third, by and large, the world hates the jews like the Palestinians and the Jews hate each other. So no one wants the jews or the Palestinians. In fact, most countries would love it if they could deport Jews to Israel without fear of international demonization. So, I don’t expect anyone to allow the collapse of Israel for the simple reason that it’s both strategically valuable and no one wants them to move elsewhere.
Reply addressees: @hyperlambda
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 22:30:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795945805607505921
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795942346766553135
THERE ARE ONLY THREE PROBLEMS IN BRINGING ABOUT A REVOLUTION.
You an prepare for it thoroughly. But the Overton window is always the cause of the trigger event. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1795634488048865625
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 20:07:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795909791396528254
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1795634488048865625
RT @NoahRevoy: The “mind your own business” mentality is killing the west.
The West’s collapse began when mature men stopped enforcing (vi…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 19:07:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795894730720477608
No he wasn’t. What geostrategist or economist of any merit has that opinion? He did NOTHING. He met with no one. He gave china open license. And he’s the reason for the decline in american influence that gave china and russia the incentive to return to expansionary militarism.
Are you crazy?
General academic thought is this: some f the population want’s a mommy or priest to make theme feel good (soothe their anxiety) because they both feel out of control, and can’t understand the world we live in. Some of the population wants the opposite because they do understand the world we live in.
Obama satisfied the former and failed the latter.
One of the worst presidents in history with one of the most disastrous legacies.
Reply addressees: @bendreyfuss
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 18:42:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795888371631288320
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795818042703974489