Cenk. The constitution and it’s rights, obligations, and inalienations apply to citizens and citizens only. It’s not a religion. And the concept of universalism you’re advocating isn’t western. It’s middle eastern.
Sorry.
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 02:31:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914869824746053649
Reply addressees: @cenkuygur
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914819885181673771
–“What do you mean by universal ethno nationalism?”–
It means that given the distribution of differences between groups that we should maximize the capacity of ethnicities to self govern in those cases where the marginal difference in those ethnicities generates demand for different personal, social, economic, and political traditions, norms, and institutions – and in particular economic and legal institutions to the degree that the degree of autonomy and informality under natural law varies by the degree of agency in the population and the resulting demand for formality.
Given that people vary in ability and agency for production, cooperation, and trust, people need institutions both informal and formal sufficiently persistent in all contexts to provide external regulation for continuous preservation and improvement of individuals and the group such that it imposes no harms on other groups by its failure to do so.
This is about all there is to understand to ‘peace prosperity and evolutionary development’. The problem of course is that knowledge, methods, processes, technologies, and the surpluses that provide the capacity to disrupt networks of parasitism and predation remaining from the age of agrarianism and early industrialization are equally unevenly distributed and that we are going through the same category of transformation as we did from hunter gather to agrarian, and agrarian to industrial and now to technological.
in some ways, as others before have oft stated, the industrial revolution was either delayed by the fall of rome and the abrahamic cancers of judaism, christianity, and islam, (and now, again, by the marxist sequence), or early, if we account for their vicissitudes, and that the technological revolution we are now experiencing could equally have happened centuries earlier, and so when we were less entrenched in falsehoods and thus struggling due to the falsehoods (again abrahamisms) and recalcitrant corruptions (bureaucratic religion of the ccp, common corruption of the russian oligarchy, archaic corruption of iranic muslim demand for another caliphate of ignorance.)
Evolution isn’t merciful. We either create it by cooperation or we are destroyed by it for failing to cooperate. And to cooperate by the law of evolution: the natural law of evolutionary computation by the natural law of cooperation by the natural law of sovereignty by the duty of insurance of reciprocity in our demonstrated interests.
It’s just calculation. It’s physics. We don’t get a choice.
Reply addressees: @RichardArion1
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 00:22:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914837156780232704
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914831346264105279
Rule of Law (NL) > Judiciary > Governments (Various) > Nations > Federations > Trade > Govt Legitimacy produced by trade and lost by it’s failure.
There are in fact disputes where some nation is cut off from access to the sea by another. This is a challenge of the two dimensional gravity bound, but not irreconcilable. We have been solving it for centuries.
Most quests for regional hegemony have been to suppress rent seeking (negativa) or acquire resources (positiva). There are very few ‘hot spots’ in the world that are not either national problems (most of africa, caucuses, some south america, etc), resource problems (mostly water, oil).
Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-22 19:14:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914759835889098754
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914758344646250708
I disagree a bit – yes the independence of the court is necessary, but yes the monarchy is necessary as a judge of last resort. A simple principle: “the monarchy is above the law in the restoration of the law” allows us to overcome the problems of democratic and organizational…
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-19 17:00:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1913638970711588885
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1913568379803406556
I dunno where disagreeing with this comes from – of course I agree and of course it’s true. My position vs martin is he thinks a small country like the Czech republic can have sovereignty without federation, and federation without largely adhering to natural law.
In other…
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-14 19:01:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911857327059415487
Reply addressees: @CloudByter @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911848719894331538
I dunno where disagreeing with this comes from – of course I agree and of course it’s true. My position vs martin is he thinks a small country like the Czech republic can have sovereignty without federation, and federation without largely adhering to natural law.
In other words, despite Martin’s anti-libertarian framing he himself is effectively arguing as a national libertarian, making the same mistake individual libertarians do except at national scale – it can’t work.
One needs power to deny all threats to possess sovereignty. Given modern technology, this largely means you need an advanced economy, sufficient prosperity from it, to afford weapons that give you relative sovereignty, and you need a federation to insure it.
And it means you must compromise with the members of your federation in order to retain their insurance (alliance). And that means you are limited or prohibited from doing what makes them walk away from that alliance, or turn against you.
We all live in a stategic equilibrium. We don’t get to pretend we don’t any more than we get to pretend we can evade gravity.
We live with humans who vary in needs and wants. Those humans organize into polities. Those humans usually have the ability to influence that polity even if it means leaving it. So any polity must serve the wants and needs of the humans within it to a sufficient degree that it retains the capacity to persist.
Martin accuses me of anglo optimism and effectively economic progressivism. My view is that evolution is merciless, and it is best to work in her favor. Groups like the amish survive because great powers cherish them out of ancestral appreciation. Otherwise, recidivist groups are crushed either by design or by evolutionary forces.
I don’t make the laws of nature I just describe them, and the costs of varying from them.
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-14 19:01:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911857326870650880
Self-Determination at All Levels – Martin Štěpán https://youtu.be/Tnf8ICfs7kA?si=GpQDm4mpXc9wphzA via @YouTube
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-13 19:23:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1911500532075938184
Of course. But I covered it in an earlier post:
1) Trump’s Domestic Objective: End international dependency, by increase domestic autarchy, and providing employment to many, as the world trade system collapses, causing capital flight to the USA, funding our insulation from the collapse and war, leaving the USA standing as we did post WWII. In effect what I understand is that we are finally in the phase of completing what we failed to in 1945: ending the age of agrarian empires and fully transforming to the industrial age of federations of nation states.
Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @sqpatrick77
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-03 21:33:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907909391606755330
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907908346256175491
I assume that ‘ending the remains of empires’ (Russia, China, Iran) either economically or militarily is going to be a costly necessity of our survival. I don’t see how it’s avoidable at all. Even if we are (as trump is trying to) redistribute the world order to those who benefit from it (most), then either way, the restructuring is going to take 30yrs. I think most historians of ‘change’ would hold about the same opinion. The world will be as different in thirty years as it was between 1850 and 1900, or between 1920 and 1950.
The pax americana of the 20th was only possible because most of the world committed suicide in the ending of agrarian empires and the transformation to industrial states – with some empires trying to survive because they were so backward (russia, china, middle east).
So like I said leading up to 2016, when the ball really started moving, I had some predictive ability up through 2020, but after that – well you know – timing is impossible, and outcomes are only vaguely imaginable.
My hope is that the current wave of innovation made possible by AI produces such ‘goods’ that we have something positive to focus on in this world. Otherwise, I can easily see the collapse of trade and the generation of conflict – particularly by starvation and energy warfare – such that we enter a cyclical decline on the scale of the roman empire. Would it last as long as the cancer cuased by the rise of christianity and islam? Probably not. But it would still be ‘bad’.
Reply addressees: @sqpatrick77
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-03 21:22:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907906693339725824
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907886185432719528
Just the opposite. The reserve currency is our strategic advantage – just as much as the atlantic and pacific oceans. The dollar is strategic advantage because we actually have rule of law. The country would be saved by exporting ‘non-integrating’ minorities, and especially those with below 100 IQ group medians. Because population is rapidly going to be more of a problem than a benefit. So you want the smartest population, meaning the one with the least ‘dead weight’ demographic distribution. … Evolution isn’t merciful.
Reply addressees: @RichardArion1
Source date (UTC): 2025-04-03 16:56:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907839525365362689
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1907838645769302428