Theme: Governance

  • Putin uses non-russians to rule russians. In business he uses jews, in force he

    Putin uses non-russians to rule russians.
    In business he uses jews, in force he uses chechens.
    Why? Because Russian people won’t do it (reliably) because he has nothing to hang over their heads.
    Putin is a Gangster, he always seeks leverage.
    THis is, in the end, why he failed.
    He could have easily BOUGHT territory from Ukraine. Because honestly we (as a resident expat) wanted the east to go away. It’s where the ‘white trash’ and corruption lived.

    Reply addressees: @metnaor88 @John_Doe_964 @dr_duchesne @AEemus


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 20:42:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744822003331137538

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744809917599347076

  • POWER IS A NEUTRAL TERM. WHAT WE DO WITH IT ISN’T. Not true. Power: “The abililt

    POWER IS A NEUTRAL TERM. WHAT WE DO WITH IT ISN’T.
    Not true. Power: “The abililty to influence the probability of outcomes.” which is 101 political science. Truth can easily alter the probabiilty of outcomes. You do not mean power you mean coercion. Which is the ability to coerce…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 20:39:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744821292065312902

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744812559629197553

  • Notice Luke Wienhagen’s (@LukeWeinhagen) consistent framing of our work in the c

    Notice Luke Wienhagen’s (@LukeWeinhagen) consistent framing of our work in the context of the family. Notice my consistent framing of our work in the context of politics. So where I may emphasize the paternal at the macro scale, he correctly emphasizes the PARENTAL at the familial scale.

    Luke’s framing assists us in not masculinizing the paternal to the point of dictatorial obedience, but in the training of generations by the responsible to be responsible for the private and the common.

    Whereas my political framing calls into question the capacity of the empathizing, non-systematizing intuitions to make judgements at scales objectively.

    The point here is that Our Work is applicable at all scales in all circumstances but it requires you understand the different demands and different abilities of humans in those differing circumstances, because of our differences in the sense, perception, cognition, and capacity to function at different scales of time and population.

    Luke Says Smart Things: If you don’t follow Luke, you should. 😉

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 19:36:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744805389881753600

  • Notice Luke Wienhagen’s (@LukeWeinhagen) consistent framing of our work in the c

    Notice Luke Wienhagen’s (@LukeWeinhagen) consistent framing of our work in the context of the family. Notice my consistent framing of our work in the context of politics. So where I may emphasize the paternal at the macro scale, he correctly emphasizes the PARENTAL at the familial scale.

    The point here is that Our Work is applicable at all scales in all circumstances but it requires you understand the different demands and different abilities of humans in those differing circumstances, because of our differences in the sense, perception, cognition, and capacity to function at different scales of time and population.

    Luke Says Smart Things: If you don’t follow Luke, you should. 😉

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 19:36:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744804094345142272

  • RT @LukeWeinhagen: Western Patriarchy is really just Parentarchy (It is no surpr

    RT @LukeWeinhagen: Western Patriarchy is really just Parentarchy

    (It is no surprise those who undermine it behave like children)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 19:16:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744800447876022436

  • NO ONE IS LETTING RUSSIA WIN, AND OTHER SILLY NONSENSE –“Russia is winning beca

    NO ONE IS LETTING RUSSIA WIN, AND OTHER SILLY NONSENSE
    –“Russia is winning because it is militarily, industrially and diplomatically stronger than the US, which has been weakened by decades of neoliberal/neoconservative politics and economics.”–

    Peter Donalson, you are a nut or a clown.
    0) The USA’s weakness is due to opening the world to free trade at the cost of thhe working classes, and in particular in the hope that china would join the civilized world as a fellow player in maintaining the postwar consensus. That bet failed. We are currently repatriating industry as fast or faster than we ramped up for world war two. That weakness can be solved by continuing repatriation of industry here, closing the borders and repatriation of people to their place of origin, and ending the race-marxist program by purging our academy and schools, and reforming a subset of laws so that they return to their origiinal intentions.
    1) Russia’s military industrial complex was in Ukraine along the don river basin, because that’s where (a) coal was (b) food was (c) cheap water transport was. First they sent trucks in under pretense of humanitarian aid, to pull out the equipment necessary for military manufacture ack to russia, then second, they turned it into a wasteland.
    2) russia has no industrial complex which is why they can’t manufacture anything of material need, and are buying ammo, drones, and missiles from the few countries that have soviet era arms, or the minimum tech to build drones.
    3) Russia’s economy is smaller than that of Texas or Italy, yet it’s territory is over eleven time zones, most of which has limited single-season fertility, low population density, and this is why only Moscow and St Petersburg recieve funding for any kind of development whatsoever.
    4) Russia’s economy is low value add (as was the soviet) meaning that they produce food and petroleum, so they have food, energy, and little to no other trade, so the government lives off the proceeds of the petroleum industry from which half of the revenue is produced.
    5) Russia’s only tactic so far is the traditional russian tactice of pulling peasants and underclases from the remote regions and using human wave attacks, consuming vast volumes of imprecise artillery shells, and mining the daylights out of miles and miles of territory to slow the Ukrainians down.
    6) The USA+UK+NATO strategy is for Ukraine to continue to drain the military supplies, drain the available population , and cause the RU Govt to start to pull from Moscow and St Petersburg, to continue the war. A present RU is preserving it’s only remaining military asset – it’s airforce – which is it’s only means of defense remaining.
    7) The current pretense that the USA won’t fund Ukraine in to the future is a two-fold strategy. First, the republicans are holding it hostage against the democrats in exchange for closing the southern border, and second the government, is still attempting to pressure europe to carry more of the burden, and ramp up their military complex.
    8) The pretense that a trump election victory is going to work against Ukraine is also a propaganda position, Trump always preseves his ability to negotiate with the leadership of foreign powers so that handshake deals can be made, and the bureaucracy can’t screw up the process. His statement is that he would force them both stop is correct. The most likely outcome is that UA would have to give up Crimea in exchange for the return of the other territories – which are too expensive to reconstruct now anyway. But this would preserve UA capacity to maintain it’s economic viability by access to the black sea ports, and make use of its best agrarian land (most of which will be de-mind and returned to mass industrial farming instead of it’s previous lower performance. Meanwhile RU would not be deprived of it’s only warm water port, and not have to relocate all it’s investment to the east shores of the black sea.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @PDWriter @TheStudyofWar


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-09 18:42:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744791762294489088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736407573446754531

  • Not quite right Dr GC. 1) Cities exist because of geographic location in relatio

    Not quite right Dr GC.
    1) Cities exist because of geographic location in relation to trade.
    2) Cities evolve diversity because they were well run, because they developed rule of law among a homogenous people (excellent) and attracted more trade.
    3) The utility of such diversity is limited to single digits of the population.
    4) While with every doubling of population, density provides an increase of 20% of everything, that means both everything both good and bad.
    5) Cities like empires generate demand for authority the produces rent seeking bureaucracies.
    6) The ‘excellent diverse’ cities are genetic sinks (dysgenic).
    7) We have never been in the condition where the majority lived in cities and this appears to produce extraordinarily destructive externalities that we are only now beginning to understand.
    8) We are no longer in the condition where cities are advantageous for skilled labor, because the opportunity cost and transaction cost of communication has approached zero.
    9) While Mr Musk is re-demonstrating the importancde of Ford’s discovery of producing the entire value chain of production, this is not true for most production in an age of easy transport of components between areas of production. Ergo there remain and will remain a vast distsribution of labor and competency and capital for most production. Most famously the current 900+ companies worldwide it takes to produce a comupter chip in the most complex supply chain we are aware of. As such the only utility of density today is reduction of infrastructure costs and providing cheap labor for distribution centers (amazon). Imagine what’s going to happen when all those women we added to clerical work over the past fifty yeares are replaced by automation.

    Reply addressees: @diegocaleiro @partymember55


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 23:40:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744504457696530432

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744495887559295240

  • I’m not sure there is a logic to your question. The revolution was successful Th

    I’m not sure there is a logic to your question.
    The revolution was successful
    The same techniques would succeed in the west.
    Russian invasion has been destructive.
    Men stayed, women fled. Most people I know remain.
    Deaths have been easily absorbable by the remaining population.
    Their only problem like russia’s, germany, italy, in fact all of europe is the overemployment of women and the reduction of reproduction to below replacement levels.

    Are you trying to state that because RU invaded UA that a revolution even bigger than the civil rights movement won’t succeed in the USA?

    Reply addressees: @JimDuxhette


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 18:47:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744430734201282560

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744429829980901665

  • Standard Diagram Of Types of Rulers What’s missing? That’s a spectrum across the

    Standard Diagram Of Types of Rulers What’s missing? That’s a spectrum across the

    Standard Diagram Of Types of Rulers
    What’s missing? That’s a spectrum across the top from disorder to order – the privilage of an economic ruler is the result of the four previous types of rulers implementing rule of law that deviates as little as possible from the Natural Law… https://t.co/JH5vTRDE4o


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 16:39:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744398333936795952

  • Revolutions Against Authority Require Little Else But Showing Up I learned a gre

    Revolutions Against Authority Require Little Else But Showing Up I learned a gre

    Revolutions Against Authority Require Little Else But Showing Up
    I learned a great deal from the Maydan Revolution.
    If they can do it. So can we.

    (I don’t know which day this was taken but I was just off the picture on the bottom center if it’s the day Yulia Tymoshenko spoke on… https://t.co/scOG6wH3bi


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 16:36:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744397700089380915