COVID-19 is the climax to this 4T

[Isoko]

Blazkovitz,

P.1 Yeah I would estimate that a Trump victory would become the new norm for the Republican Party. In essence it is becoming the party of the white demographic in America. 

With the Democrats, if Trump wins, there is a huge debate on who will take over next. The split up is between the more centrist Kamala Harris and that wing or AOC and the far left wing. Considering how extreme American politics is going, I would wager on AOC making a run. 

Effectively she would embrace crazy far left policies that I think would cripple the country and eventually cause a peaceful secession along economic and of course demographic lines. Once again, if the centrists win, America might be able to hold together. Maybe.

P.2 I think that a world state is unlikely to be honest. I could see international cooperation eventually but we have been down this road before and it never seems to work in the long run. 

I always expected that the colonisation of space would go on a similar theme to the colonisation of the Americas. That is several world powers would attempt it rather then a singular government. It seems more likely once technology to do so is available and cheaper plus with competition it would heavily speed up the process. Like what happened in the space race.

As for the world state, I think Emperor Palpatine would be a worthwhile allegory in all that would go wrong. Personally so prefer a multitude of powers to keep the balance rather then one state too. Imagine having laws in place I don't like. I can't move anywhere else because it's the same law of the land.

That is why I enjoy national diversity. It keeps things in the balance.

P. 3 And this technology in essence destroys our Humanity and the concept of free will entirely. Yes a psychopathic child could become a murderer but do 99 percent of people? No. Should we all have the same feelings and emotions just for the sake of security? I think not. This reminds me of the Ben Franklin quote.

P. 4 Actually it had nothing to do with democracies as the other powers had plenty of skeletons in the closet. The British Empire did many atrocities and the Boer War is one perfect example. First concentration camps in the world. Under a Democracy. Or what about the trail of tears? Or the various massacres that have taken place? What about Dresden?

And all of these actions also took place I would like to add for the greater good. Oh and I know America actually founded the eugenics movement which later on inspired the Germans...greater good, greater good...

P. 5 Therapy could be a potential solution but it depends on the crime and the concept of free will. If it does not infringe on free will I won't argue.  

P. 6 Actually a lot of those so called democracies actually failed very quickly and ended up resorting quicker to dictatorship. Zimbabwe is a very good case example of this. As are many former colonies in the empire. In reality, empire was about money and nothing more.

P. 7 Actually yes I agree too. We have reached our technological peak. Usually two outcomes happen before we get to the next stage of development. Either an extremely rare genius is born that creates something out of this world and it is adopted...or it is a major war.

Usually it's unfortunately option 2.

P. 8 Actually this is a false argument. Democracies cause just as many wars as dictators. We can go through a long list but the latest example would be the Bush wars. Did people have a say? No they just went ahead and did it. All under the excuse that well you voted for us and we represent you...

Democracy is a very bad form of government and always eventually leads to caesarism and dictatorship anyway, as Oswald Spengler quite aptly pointed out.

P. 9 There won't be a predictable nuclear war with China and America in the next 4T. It's too predictable. No, the next war will be fought with the intention of actually winning. Countries will try to develop new ways of getting around the WMD problem so they actually have a chance of winning.

Also I don't think America will be a superpower too in the next 4T. It will probably be someone else at this point.

[Eric the Green]

(04-14-2020, 05:53 AM)Isoko Wrote: Eric,

What you are describing here is basically a liberal progressive version of the coming kingdom of God on Earth. Your ideas that the two world wars were apocalyptic events that had to be brought about in order to bring about the liberal utopia of tomorrow is almost like your own version of the book of revelations. To my eyes, it reads as basically the same typical American view point I have been reading for ages and that is apocalypse with an eternal ending.

The truth is this is just not how history works. You talk about cycles yet this point of view is very linear. The reality is the continued cycles of time along with competition and conflict, as we are now starting to see with the new great game being played out between the great powers of today.

The only reason there has been no mass shooting war is because of WMDs but if they did not exist, you can bet the elites in power would try to rustle up a large scale conventional war for their own purposes and the people would go for it. A bit of propaganda always works wonders, even in the internet age.

Before you say that the people don't go for war anymore, I have read reports of how jingoistic Americans felt after 9/11 and how excited some of the young guys were for fighting the Taliban. So in essence, the 1960s didn't achieve anything on that front.

The two world wars proved that war is futile and that ambitions for nations to dominate others is out of date. Whether that's a liberal utopia or not is a matter of what you call it. I call it just good sense. Most of us live in relative peace now in the developed world at least, and in many other places. Peace is just what we are coming to expect. But wars have not ended, and won't end for I don't know how long; I already admitted that, and yes 9-11 and Vietnam showed that. But those wars only continued to prove my point. So for humanity, it takes a while for people to learn. Given that, no I don't think utopia is on the horizon.

Quote:As for globalisation, there have been many periods of globalisation throughout history. Eventually they always end and a return to closed borders becomes the norm for a period. The latest Corona virus situation is probably the end of this current period of globalisation. Will there be other periods? Of course! And will there be more protectionist periods too? Of course! That is history.

As for a new renewed UN, I am sure it will be done. Peace in our time and all that. Then corruption runs riot again and we end up back to square one. Remember Star Wars and the Galactic Republic? All it took was for one guy, the Emperor Palpatine, to get into power and corrupt things and before you know, he could proudly declare that HE was the senate. It's the same thing in Human history and it will never change. Well maybe one day but it will take thousands of years.

Now you mention how everyone is going to become some coffee coloured race due to globalisation. I strongly doubt that the rest of the planet will go down that road. America? Probably because it is America.

But Europe? Especially Mother Russia? I'm nearly about to fall off my chair in laughter at your statement. Russia is one of the most closed off countries in the world. I live here and the people are incredibly nationalistic, even the liberals. A Russian liberal is like far right by American standards. I remember talking to a liberal guy here once and he was like, yeah we don't mind a bit of immigration but we don't want too much as it'll ruin Russia.

Every single person I have spoken to here particularly the young, have strong feelings about immigration and are downright very critical of it. They actually think the West has gone mad and how stupid can they be to let in all these people.

I think though there is a reason for this and that is America has always been at heart a liberal society where as Russia is the conservative one. These days though the Russian point of view is attracting the middle ground in Europe more then the American one.

Also last comment about how the blue must always win otherwise America will be a banana republic. Erm, Eric, America already IS a banana republic. No offence but if you let in millions and millions of low IQ people no matter what race or ethnic group, you are going to get just that, a banana republic filled with mass corruption and mass poverty. The future of America in my eyes resembles something like a mixture of Brazil and South Africa. That is a small elite surrounded in slums of the poor.

How are you going to support all these people when automation comes your way and they have no more jobs to do? What are you going to do when these people feel desperate, get hold of America's guns and decide to go on a crime spree? 

I've seen America's future after spending time in South Africa and trust me, it ain't pretty. So I think in America's case, going to the red would actually be a better idea in the long run because if you keep going blue, it'll just end up destroying your country.

I thoroughly disagree with all this. No surprise. Trump has aroused fear of immigrants here in the USA, but there was no problem to begin with. This was nothing but a campaign slogan, and you and others are using it to characterize our immigrant situation. It has no relation to reality. Problems have increased in a last few years because the conditions in the central american countries are so bad. Part of this is indeed "history," the history of USA domination and neglect. The alliance for progress that JFK started is the better course. As countries get more prosperous, peaceful and democratic, they don't leave to come to the first world.

I certainly don't subscribe to your apparent support of aparteid. South Africa was a thoroughly messed up place and still is, but getting rid of aparteid was a great advance. We can expect black people to progress like others do. People are people, and racism is a huge and destructive lie. I understand that people prefer to associate with people more like themselves. But I probably have more in common with an educated black person in a blue state than a redneck white guy from the deep rural south or a hick from the deep sticks who votes for Trump. But like it or not, people are different, and our lesson today is to get along with everyone regardless of where they come from as best we can, since there's no stopping globalization now. Everyone is everywhere, whether they are Africans or white rednecks, liberals or conservatives, religious or atheist, white, hispanic, asian or black or whatever, and that trend cannot be stopped. To think so is truly unrealistic. The technology alone makes your hope to return to the middle ages or renaissance great-power era a futile fantasy. Times change and we don't go back. What's for sure is that if people in the USA keep voting for Republicans, who support, perpetuate, cause and uphold and maintain the banana republic system of "a small elite surrounded in slums of the poor," then of course we in the USA will end up like Brazil or South Africa or Honduras, IOW banana republics. We will do better the blue way, voting for programs that lift people up, and knowing and believing that they can indeed lift people up, because THEY DO.

When I say globalization, I don't mean no borders, imposed uniformity for the whole world, or domination of the globe by a few big companies or nations. Unity within diversity is the best course.

If you live in Russia, then your milieu is very conservative, that's for sure. There are movements to get rid of the thug ruler, but Putin has the land pretty much bought up and in his pocket now. I don't see much hope for Russia anytime soon. All we can do is try to contain the damage it does to the rest of the world. Russia is a truly pathetic case, and has been for centuries. Certainly no land to compare to, or in any way take into account in looking to the future.

I don't go by Star Wars. I don't believe Oliver Stone either. I have better ways of predicting the future than that. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. I would not like to return to ancient or medieval times, or use them as a benchmark, even if there were some worthwhile aspects to them to preserve and admire. People today have a lot more freedom, peace and prosperity than they did then. We do make progress, even if in fits and starts. But we DON'T make progress when we view things cynically. Only idealists have any role in creating the world.

[Warren Dew]

(04-14-2020, 10:53 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Not to mention that after colonising a few dozens of planets, a civilization should  become virtually indestructible. So even if Earth is gone, there will be Mankind or its descendants (in the Orion's Arm scenario they are called the Terragens).

Is interplanetary colonization even still on the table?  There are many Boomers and X that are enthusiastic about it.  I haven't heard any Millenials enthusiastic about it, and my Z kids think it's irrelevant to today's world.  It's a classic "Okay, boomer" issue.

Quote:What is more cruel? To apply this technology, or to do nothing and allow the psychopathic child to become a murderer?

How about letting him become a surgeon, a profession where sociopaths excel?

[Warren Dew]

(04-14-2020, 12:11 PM)Isoko Wrote: And all of these actions also took place I would like to add for the greater good. Oh and I know America actually founded the eugenics movement which later on inspired the Germans...greater good, greater good...

Making genetic engineering available under free market principles would probably be okay.  Parents would select traits based on the individual good, which would be more difficult to pervert into tyranny.

[Eric the Green]

(04-14-2020, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-14-2020, 12:11 PM)Isoko Wrote: And all of these actions also took place I would like to add for the greater good. Oh and I know America actually founded the eugenics movement which later on inspired the Germans...greater good, greater good...

Making genetic engineering available under free market principles would probably be okay.  Parents would select traits based on the individual good, which would be more difficult to pervert into tyranny.

Eugenics?? Talk about socio-pathology.....

[Warren Dew]

(04-14-2020, 04:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Eugenics?? Talk about socio-pathology.....

Do you oppose abortion when the fetus has Down Syndrome?  Do you oppose preimplantation genetic diagnosis so parents can avoid having children with cystic fibrosis or other debilitating genetic diseases?  To my way of thinking, having those options available to parents is beneficial, even though it's eugenics.

[pbrower2a]

(04-14-2020, 04:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-14-2020, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-14-2020, 12:11 PM)Isoko Wrote: And all of these actions also took place I would like to add for the greater good. Oh and I know America actually founded the eugenics movement which later on inspired the Germans...greater good, greater good...

Making genetic engineering available under free market principles would probably be okay.  Parents would select traits based on the individual good, which would be more difficult to pervert into tyranny.

Eugenics?? Talk about socio-pathology.....

Individual good or individual vanity? I might have been a good parent, but I would have been a risky sire. (You probably know by now what the risk is). 

It would be very tempting for parents to seek to breed super-athletes. Ted Williams, anyone? Sandy Koufax? Gordie Howe? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Talk about a great meal-ticket in middle age! Of course such would make professional sports less special. It is better that people ask whether George Brett is the Joe DiMaggio of his time as a figurative expression than as a literal clone or near-clone. 

Say what you want, but we need plenty of mediocre people -- farm-laborers, shelf-stockers, cabbies, retail clerks, busboys, assembly-line workers... it is the rarity, indeed uniqueness, of a Katherine Hepburn, a Mstislav Rostropovich,  Henri Matisse, a Hokusai, a Beethoven... of course some things must be done exceedingly well to be worthy of fostering the talent. Excellence in milking a cow isn't as rewarding to others as is excellence in writing screen plays. But far more people need milk than can appreciate a string quartet.

[Eric the Green]

(04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-14-2020, 04:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Eugenics?? Talk about socio-pathology.....

Do you oppose abortion when the fetus has Down Syndrome?  Do you oppose preimplantation genetic diagnosis so parents can avoid having children with cystic fibrosis or other debilitating genetic diseases?  To my way of thinking, having those options available to parents is beneficial, even though it's eugenics.

I would not call that kind of thing eugenics, because eugenics refers in our culture (and you referred to it as well) the 1920s movement in America that inspired the Germans (the Nazis). Selective breeding to improve the race. This was long before any such technological feats existed.

[Warren Dew]

We need an alternative word for it, then.

[Eric the Green]

Your move

[Isoko]

Eric, Eric, Eric,

You have a good heart but you are a naive optimist. You dream the dreams but cannot see the reality. I would be happy to engage you in a more spiritual debate at some point but I think for the sake of the forum I'll keep this to a private discussion.

Anyway, onto the discussion.

The current elites love war just as much as the elites of 1914. It is a good money maker for them and helps to reduce the population as they see fit. That is what power does. People at the top do not care but for their own wealth and are quite sociopathic about it too. Like I said before, they cannot have a war right now because of WMDs but if they did not exist, I could guarantee you we would have had a great war over Crimea by now or something major with Iran.

As for South Africa, where did I say I support apartheid? On the whole I am actually anti apartheid and pro Mandela. The reason? Because that whole system could not work and was oppressing people. When you have 20 percent ruling over the other 80, inevitably such a house cannot stand. I do not at all support the former government and I will say they were responsible very much for South Africa's problems.

However, America going further to the left, to the blue, will just destroy it as much as right wing apartheid did to South Africa. Reason? Because first of all, you have a declining economic base in America. You have no major manufacturing or agriculture of the future to employ the largest mass of humanity. Coming automation is going to make labour intensive jobs redundant.

You talk about programmes to help people. Big question? Where is the money going to come from? You can keep printing all you want but eventually that dollar note is going to become worthless. Russia and China are going to try to get the dollar replaced as the world reserve currency in 10 years and when that happens, America is pretty much finished. More than likely there will be a default.

Then what are you gonna do? Millions of poor and uneducated people, mostly of immigrant origin, with no jobs, no access to basic services and no money? It's a huge disaster waiting to happen and will turn America into the next SA or Brazil.

Honestly, I just cannot see a way to turn around America at this point. You guys are going to get your USSR moment either this decade or a couple of decades from now. Hence why I believe the 4T is starting now.

As for Russia, actually Russia is playing the game correctly. The only reason people are protesting is down to they want more money. That's it. If Putin puts more money into the system, the people will be content with Putinism. No one per se actually is against Putinism, just they want more cash. Which is usually the case for Russia. Social agendas does not take a priority.

Even still, Russia has a great destiny ahead of her. When America does decline, Russia will move in to become the new policeman of Europe. The Europeans are now starting to do more business with Russia then America. Macron pretty much proved this when he called Putin first rather then Trump over the Soleimani affair. Same with Italy wanting great relations with Russia.

There is many potentials for Russia. She has problems but much great potential if she deals with those problems. If they get the birth rate sorted out, economise Siberia, taking a more leading role in Europe, Russia could potentially end up a superpower in the late 21st or 22nd century. Depends on how she plays her cards and who leads. Yes, yes I know you will disagree and question it but I'm just offering an opinion.

I'm happy living in Russia though. It's safe, the cities are mostly clean and I think the government is doing a better job of handling 21st century problems then the West so I cannot complain. I'd rather live here then in America.

Also Eric, just to let you know, I'm not actually far right or alt right, in case you are wondering. I'm more centre right with a more Russian/European point of view which to the American eye is very right wing but here is perfectly normal.

[Isoko]

Also you mentioned that I have a great hope to return to the past. Where did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth. I never said I idolised the past. I merely stated that history goes in cycles and continually repeats itself. New powers arise, they take over, you have peace, they decline, new or identities emerge and history goes on. That is all I said.

But I would like to add that Europe is going back to the nation state when the EU implodes...

[Warren Dew]

(04-15-2020, 03:58 AM)Isoko Wrote: You talk about programmes to help people. Big question? Where is the money going to come from? You can keep printing all you want but eventually that dollar note is going to become worthless. Russia and China are going to try to get the dollar replaced as the world reserve currency in 10 years and when that happens, America is pretty much finished. More than likely there will be a default.

Your criticism is valid, but there will not be a default.  Rather, if Eric has his way, more and more money will be chasing after the same amount of goods, which will ultimately end with inflation.

Quote:As for Russia, actually Russia is playing the game correctly. The only reason people are protesting is down to they want more money. That's it. If Putin puts more money into the system, the people will be content with Putinism. No one per se actually is against Putinism, just they want more cash. Which is usually the case for Russia. Social agendas does not take a priority.

But here, the same is true.  Printing money without fixing the economy just results in inflation.  For Russia to do better, they need to fix their markets.  As long as the economy is controlled by oligarchs, they will simply arrange to extract more from the people so they can increase their own consumption.  Russia needs structural changes to improve investment and productivity to resolve this issue.

[Isoko]

Warren,

I am torn between the hyper inflation scenario and the default one. I think a lot also depends on the reserve currency. That is the big question mark.

As for Russia, yes this is pretty much what the youth are complaining about. They want an end to the current oligarchy and for more economic investment into the economy. However, on the other hand, they would like to keep the free socialist stuff as well such as the free healthcare and other government subsidies so it is kind of a toss up.

Like people have told me here, it will take another Putin to bring a better system about which is the standard mantra for the Russia. But Western democracy it will not be.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-14-2020, 04:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-14-2020, 10:53 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Not to mention that after colonising a few dozens of planets, a civilization should  become virtually indestructible. So even if Earth is gone, there will be Mankind or its descendants (in the Orion's Arm scenario they are called the Terragens).

Is interplanetary colonization even still on the table?  There are many Boomers and X that are enthusiastic about it.  I haven't heard any Millenials enthusiastic about it, and my Z kids think it's irrelevant to today's world.  It's a classic "Okay, boomer" issue.

It only takes one successful Mars mission to change it. I cannot imagine we are glued to this one planet forever... If we abandon space, our civilization will stagnate and eventually decline.

Actually, 17% of UK millennials believe Mars can be colonised by 2100. Not bad. 17% still can make history.

But I noticed a change in culture since the late 2000s. The past started to seem more exciting than the future. Millennials are one of the most nostalgic generations ever. Even their Leftism is not based on the idea of Progress, but on another one I called Inclusivity in my political compass. However, they are expected to become hubristic during the 1T. That might make them interested in space to prove their greatness.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-14-2020, 11:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: We need an alternative word for it, then.

Transhumanism

BTW eugenics is just selective breeding, the way we created 200 dog breeds. It's not fundamentally evil, just it doesn't work.

[Blazkovitz]

(04-14-2020, 12:11 PM)Isoko Wrote: P.1 Yeah I would estimate that a Trump victory would become the new norm for the Republican Party. In essence it is becoming the party of the white demographic in America. 

In this case the Republican become unelectable since pure-blooded Whites will be a minority in America.

Quote:With the Democrats, if Trump wins, there is a huge debate on who will take over next. The split up is between the more centrist Kamala Harris and that wing or AOC and the far left wing. Considering how extreme American politics is going, I would wager on AOC making a run. 

Makes space for a third party, standing for civilized values, rejecting both ethnocentrism and false morality of SJWs.

Quote:P.2 I think that a world state is unlikely to be honest. I could see international cooperation eventually but we have been down this road before and it never seems to work in the long run. 

Democracies cooperate well, it's the dictatorships that don't. For the same reason policemen cooperate well, but criminals cannot trust each other. Despite all their shortcomings NATO and the EU are way more effective than the UN ever was.

Quote:As for the world state, I think Emperor Palpatine would be a worthwhile allegory in all that would go wrong. Personally so prefer a multitude of powers to keep the balance rather then one state too. Imagine having laws in place I don't like. I can't move anywhere else because it's the same law of the land.

That is why I enjoy national diversity. It keeps things in the balance.

Even more balance would exist if there was no nations, but only tribes of few thousand people, as in the Stone Age. Why don't you aim at this ideal?

Quote: Should we all have the same feelings and emotions just for the sake of security? I think not.

Eliminating pathologies that lead to crime doesn't mean that "we all have the same feelings and emotions". There are many types of healthy personalities. Research the Enneagram, MBTI or Big Five.

Your argument could be used against curing physical diseases. Cancer is a form of body diversity. And giving the deaf the ability to hear destroys their deaf identity. Some Leftists say this in earnest.

Quote:P. 4 Actually it had nothing to do with democracies as the other powers had plenty of skeletons in the closet. The British Empire did many atrocities and the Boer War is one perfect example. First concentration camps in the world. Under a Democracy. Or what about the trail of tears? Or the various massacres that have taken place? What about Dresden?

I'd still live under the British Empire than under the Nazis or Bolsheviks, or under Xi Jinping. For every victim of a democracy you can find many victims of tyrannies.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

All recent governments guilty of mass murder were ranked "not free" in the Freedom House report. Should be obvious.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DEFINI...RACIES.HTM

Even dynastic autocracies, which are not as bad as Nazism or Bolshevism, produce leaders like Louis XIV or Ivan the Terrible. The dynasties were overthrown by democrats. If they came back, they would no doubt learn to be more ruthless to dissenters.

Quote:Democracy is a very bad form of government and always eventually leads to caesarism and dictatorship anyway, as Oswald Spengler quite aptly pointed out.

So your argument is: democracy can lead to dictatorship, so it's bad, but dictatorship is good. I don't get it. Democracies degenerate when people lose interest in political participation. Lack of Civic values. Also, lack of Romantic values makes some people trade freedom for the illusion of security offered by a tyrant.

[Isoko]

Blazkovitz,

P. 1 The big question regarding America is if the various demographic groups can successfully mix together and build a new society. Looking at history, it can be the case but the process is usually a long, drawn out affair. With minimal immigration, it can be easily done but America has simply let in too many people to truly assimilate them all and make them good Americans in a short amount of time.

Also with the problem of class and wealth inequality which itself connects with the racial aspect, I cannot see America successfully standing together anytime soon. Yes, the Republican Party will become the white party, those various ethnic groups that identify with what I call white America will join it and this itself will be a catalyst for forming what I call the old America or new Republican nation down the line.

Liberal democracies are not very good at handling massive demographic changes on a short time frame. To keep such a nation in place, you need very hard right dictatorial enforcement to keep it together. It can work with such methods but you need to keep the economic opportunities available to the new population.

Otherwise you end up with breeding grounds of poverty and eventually you end up with new nations being created out of the collapse of the old Union like with the former USSR or the former impoverished people getting into power like with South Africa.

Now South Africa becoming a black governing majority is not necessarily a bad thing and I am fond of Nelson Mandela. He did actually save the country from a brutal civil war. Not only that but he actually revived an economy that was heading for an economic meltdown due to the apartheid government wasting money on WMDs which they didn't need and other military projects.

The problem is after Mandela, the ANC was filled with corrupt officials who just wanted to enrich themselves and the country has been deterioating since. What needed to be done was for true power sharing to have taken place and for the whites to have worked with the blacks in order to make a better economic conditions for South Africa. Instead it never happened, old hatreds remain, most of the whites have left and the corruption continues. Which is a damn shame because the rainbow nation had a good chance.

But this itself is a huge lesson and therefore it America's potential fate without some hard thinking required.

So looking at the current situation, what with a major crisis now brewing, I'd estimate an American separation into two or three new countries in about 20 - 30 years.

P. 2 A third party would be good but the problem is it would need to have alot of strength and right now American is split between the red and blue culture with no actual room for the middle. Only way you can have a third party be successful is if the country collapses and something new and strong arises out of the ashes. Otherwise it is going to be the same old tug of war.

P. 3 Actually Democracies do not cooperate well at all. They are very inefficient, lead to bitchy infighting all the time, invite different personalities and corporations that have their own nefarious agendas and always ultimately form into oligarchies. Democracy usually works when the money is rolling in but then the whole system struggles to maintain itself during times of real crisis.

To be honest, Putin's government functions better then the U.S government right now due to the fact that it is pretty much under one man. If Putin makes a decision, it gets done quickly. No need for courts to get involved, no need for panicking about votes, it just gets done. Take the Corona crisis, Putin pretty much shut the country early and that is why the cases have been minimises alot here.

In the Democracies? They are all struggling and starting to slowly break down because of the different factions involved in decision making.

Not saying Putin's system is perfect as no system is perfect. They all break down in the end. But that is life. I'm just saying that Democracy is just not the end result and that it can and will continue to break down until a strong man (or woman) puts it back together again. Then the cycle repeats.

P. 4 We could also say more balance would exist if Humanity itself did not exist but it does so why not actually try to preserve what we have and do the best we can rather then trying to force a one world solution? As Russians like to tell me, we will cooperate with global affairs but we still want to run things here in Russia and not lose our identity.

But to be honest, this whole march towards unity seems to be an American thing if I'm honest. Americans have always been obsessed with trying to build their own version of some kind of kingdom of heaven on Earth. Kind of like a manifest destiny. It is evident in you people.

But the rest of the world is not particularly concerned with it and are happy to go their own path.

P. 5 Treating diseases and destroying people's personalities for the greater good are two different things. And I would like to add that no matter how much you try to play around with nature, it always has a very bad habit of biting back.

P. 6 All Empires are tyrannies. The victors write history. If the Allies had lost WW2, we'd be criticising their empires and praising the Greater German Reich for giving us a better life.

You do realise that the British Empire has a higher body count then Nazi Germany, right? It was statistically proven recently. They even best the USSR, go figure...

As for freedom house? Do anyone take that website seriously anymore? I mean geez, you have more freedom to say things in Russia then you do in America yet somehow America, despite its politically correct ideology, is more "free".

Yes, yes, you will criticise it and go Putin, corruption, blah blah blah but hey, no system is perfect. But my point is, I don't have to watch my speech here. In Britain? Oh boy lol. One wrong word and that you was it.

Freedom house? I call it hypocrite house.

P. 7 My argument rests on that no system is infallible, there is positives and negatives to many systems, there is no perfect system and life will continue to rise and fall depending on what you have. There are golden ages and crisis periods. That is history. That is life.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I don't expect any generation to promote manned interplanetary missions, let alone interplanetary colonization, during a 4T. During a 4T don't expect any big projects unrelated to Crisis issues.

[Tim Randal Walker]

A few years ago I began to notice (online) calls for America to retrench from International affairs.

I began to notice arguments for this based on the rise and fall of great powers. To summarize, when a great power begins to experience "imperial over stretch", it has two choices:

1. The great power may try to maintain the status quo. This tends to lead to decline, and the country may turn into a has been, and into a backwater..

2. Retrenchment from international affairs. The former great power may do well as a country, even if its power or influence is drastically curtailed in international affairs.

Sorry, I don't recall exactly where I found this stuff, or which (former) great powers were studied. This if off the top of my head while I drink my morning coffee.


To rephrase.... If a country is going into "imperial over stretch", its best option is to get out now. To go while the going is good.


Peter Zeihan (zeihan.com) has been monitoring U.S. involvement in international affairs, and he has indicated that the trend is towards disengagement/retrenchment.