'You can’t effect Putin being a traitor or a retard and Zelensky being Jewish, but you can start rediscovering your identity and doing Aikido, at least'
far more interesting than zanon take downs - really interesting tangent.
I must admit that I do not want to believe what you are writing, but unfortunately it makes absolute sense. A real party-pooper, so to speak. Well, time to practice Aikido (or whatever martial art, I guess that point is in practicing...)
"You can’t effect Putin being a traitor or a retard and Zelensky being Jewish, but you can start rediscovering your identity and doing Aikido, at least."
Did you mean "You can't affect ... .?" As in I have no power to influence Putin or Zelensky?
I was a libertarian follower for 30 years. I subscribed to, and read, libertarian journals such as Reason and Liberty. I read Murray Rothbard and of course Ayn Rand (who hated libertarians and created objectivism, whose difference from libertarianism I still don't understand).
Anyway, I began getting away from it around the time Trump came on the scene. Protectionism and border control made sense. Rollo has put the refutation of libertarianism beautifully: it ignores the existence of hostile groups acting in concert who have a tremendous advantage over individuals acting alone. In the US, we are happily importing Mexican drug cartel members and MS-13 gangs, who will happily reform their gangs inside the US and chop the heads off opposition. You also have the prospect of hostile countries enforcing their own dominance over your soft free market economy. Sure, you can get lots of very cheap stuff made in China; I have trouble finding anything in my house that wasn't made in China. But when it comes time to assert US sovereignty over its own territory, the industrial base is gone.
There is a fallacy though: ~A ==> B. The fallacy is that "if A is false, then B is true". You need a gardener, but that doesn't mean any gardener off the street is better than a wild patch of weeds. The US, by the way, played the part of the Imperium in the 20th century, enforcing open commerce lanes and even threatening to blow up egregious offenders who got too aggressive. The US told Israel, France and Britain to back off from the Suez Canal in 1956.
The most resilient plant community is a diverse one. You can enforce a separation of plant species, but if you have only one type of plant, the garden can collapse suddenly. The US began trying to suppress peoples, cultures and nations which would have been better left to flourish in their own areas. Iran in 1953, and Afghanistan in the 1980's. The US should have left the USSR alone to sort out Afghanistan, which it actually did before the US sponsored the heavy jihadis to wipe out the independent Afghan government bequeathed by the USSR.
In other words, you need a gardener, but an intelligent gardener who will allow different, possibly incompatible, species to flourish in their own areas. Nationalism is good, but you need a few superpowers who understand their roles and limitations. You may have some local, low-IQ peoples who consistently support a government that confirms their ethnocentrism while genociding their own people. The best you can do is wall them inside their own boundaries and let them govern themselves the way they wish. Some of the more intelligent ones may want to escape and if they are intelligent and moral enough to contribute to your own nation, you can let a limited number in.
Here's some description of the globalists with whom Putin and his pals wish to be chums. It's not clear how the ethnic oligarchs in Russia mesh with these organisations, but they must have found a way.
Another nice one, thank you RS. 'Reality' is probably not either-or, but more of a cyclical process like the Chinese yin-yang circle. One of those ancient Greeks, maybe Empedocles I think, said that there is continual strife between 'Love' and 'Hate'. Love is not always good, because it compresses everything more tightly together, which is fine for 'Earth', but oppressive for the other elements. Hate is not always bad because it enables the other elements to make room for their own identities, which expansion is good for 'Fire' and 'Air' but not for 'Water' and 'Earth'. No one can keep things static for long.
perfect way to wrap up the post.
'You can’t effect Putin being a traitor or a retard and Zelensky being Jewish, but you can start rediscovering your identity and doing Aikido, at least'
far more interesting than zanon take downs - really interesting tangent.
I must admit that I do not want to believe what you are writing, but unfortunately it makes absolute sense. A real party-pooper, so to speak. Well, time to practice Aikido (or whatever martial art, I guess that point is in practicing...)
beautiful ending to this article
Fuck you, Substack, I had a good comment typed out and yet another app crash.
Great article, Rurik. I'd gladly embrace "spiritually [identity]" if it meant an end to the absurd theater of lies and gayness of the current world.
Managed war, managed "surrender".
I'm torn between the light and dark
Where others see their targets, divine symmetry
Should I kiss the viper's fang
Or herald loud the death of Man?
I'm sinking in the quicksand of my thought
- Quicksand
Bowie
Well here we go. Just personally I think a normalization in the relations between the West and Russia would offer some more convenience
This was a great capstone to the whole years long affair.
"You can’t effect Putin being a traitor or a retard and Zelensky being Jewish, but you can start rediscovering your identity and doing Aikido, at least."
Did you mean "You can't affect ... .?" As in I have no power to influence Putin or Zelensky?
“from which value could be extracted and the population kept impoverished. “
That’s Yankee policy since the American Civil War, don’t feel special.
I was a libertarian follower for 30 years. I subscribed to, and read, libertarian journals such as Reason and Liberty. I read Murray Rothbard and of course Ayn Rand (who hated libertarians and created objectivism, whose difference from libertarianism I still don't understand).
Anyway, I began getting away from it around the time Trump came on the scene. Protectionism and border control made sense. Rollo has put the refutation of libertarianism beautifully: it ignores the existence of hostile groups acting in concert who have a tremendous advantage over individuals acting alone. In the US, we are happily importing Mexican drug cartel members and MS-13 gangs, who will happily reform their gangs inside the US and chop the heads off opposition. You also have the prospect of hostile countries enforcing their own dominance over your soft free market economy. Sure, you can get lots of very cheap stuff made in China; I have trouble finding anything in my house that wasn't made in China. But when it comes time to assert US sovereignty over its own territory, the industrial base is gone.
There is a fallacy though: ~A ==> B. The fallacy is that "if A is false, then B is true". You need a gardener, but that doesn't mean any gardener off the street is better than a wild patch of weeds. The US, by the way, played the part of the Imperium in the 20th century, enforcing open commerce lanes and even threatening to blow up egregious offenders who got too aggressive. The US told Israel, France and Britain to back off from the Suez Canal in 1956.
The most resilient plant community is a diverse one. You can enforce a separation of plant species, but if you have only one type of plant, the garden can collapse suddenly. The US began trying to suppress peoples, cultures and nations which would have been better left to flourish in their own areas. Iran in 1953, and Afghanistan in the 1980's. The US should have left the USSR alone to sort out Afghanistan, which it actually did before the US sponsored the heavy jihadis to wipe out the independent Afghan government bequeathed by the USSR.
In other words, you need a gardener, but an intelligent gardener who will allow different, possibly incompatible, species to flourish in their own areas. Nationalism is good, but you need a few superpowers who understand their roles and limitations. You may have some local, low-IQ peoples who consistently support a government that confirms their ethnocentrism while genociding their own people. The best you can do is wall them inside their own boundaries and let them govern themselves the way they wish. Some of the more intelligent ones may want to escape and if they are intelligent and moral enough to contribute to your own nation, you can let a limited number in.
Here's some description of the globalists with whom Putin and his pals wish to be chums. It's not clear how the ethnic oligarchs in Russia mesh with these organisations, but they must have found a way.
https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/who-runs-the-world-organized-crimes
Does Putin really want to replace Zelensky as chief clown on the world-stage?
In reference to "is it good for me and mine"...
The earth is the prize.
Another nice one, thank you RS. 'Reality' is probably not either-or, but more of a cyclical process like the Chinese yin-yang circle. One of those ancient Greeks, maybe Empedocles I think, said that there is continual strife between 'Love' and 'Hate'. Love is not always good, because it compresses everything more tightly together, which is fine for 'Earth', but oppressive for the other elements. Hate is not always bad because it enables the other elements to make room for their own identities, which expansion is good for 'Fire' and 'Air' but not for 'Water' and 'Earth'. No one can keep things static for long.