Originally Posted by TimWalker

As more and more countries go 4T, we can expect no borderless utopia. I would refer people to a number of books I have quoted in other threads. I have to wonder if cognitive dissonance will set in as different countries repudiate Western notions of human rights; or will some cling to the illusion?

Utopia is a fond but delusive hope. A world civilization is just the fact of our time. Human rights are what people who are young and involved want. Those who are backward, are content with oppression. That is true in all countries, and I doubt that the USA is much more advanced than Egypt or Syria in that regard.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

During a 4T, you definitely want your Secretary of State/Foreign Minister to be a Nomad.

If most of the world is in Crisis mode, how else can your country survive? (And BTW, I regard WWII as exceptional circumstances-which explains why the lessons learned didn't apply to Vietnam).

Kerry, the first cohort Boomer, is doing an excellent job. I want him in the job, although I hope he practices what he preaches about climate change.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Our President is undeniably a Nomad -- just look at the gangland-style hit on Osama bin Laden.

He is part prophet and part nomad. He wrote a book on The Audacity of Hope, gives inspiring speeches with long-term perspective and offers liberal plans like Obamacare. He also knows how to get down to business and concentrate on getting things done, when he can.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Crusades must be vetoed however enemies of freedom and human rights need to be put down with extreme force.

But we can't interfere in every country that abuses freedom and human rights. First of all, we'd have to turn that force upon ourselves too, and arrest our own president. Second, those are crusades too. A smart prophet will know that.

We don't need a nomad with bully tendencies like Christie. Nomads might not make very good diplomats. It depends on the individual though. You guys push generational ideas too far, always at the expense of prophets and boomers.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Crusades must be vetoed however enemies of freedom and human rights need to be put down with extreme force.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But we can't interfere in every country that abuses freedom and human rights. First of all, we'd have to turn that force upon ourselves too, and arrest our own president. Second, those are crusades too. A smart prophet will know that.

We don't need a nomad with bully tendencies like Christie. Nomads might not make very good diplomats. It depends on the individual though. You guys push generational ideas too far, always at the expense of prophets and boomers.

Both of the ideas presented here are incorrect. History has always shown that the important questions of society have always been solved by naked force. The solution for the international order is not a strengthening of the UN or some other international body in order to give it "teeth". The true solution should be a return to pre-1648 international rules when the primacy of force had been recognized. The great empires of the age like the roman empire, the hellenistic empires, the persian empire, the qin empire, the han empire, the byzantine empire, the various great caliphates, the mongol empire, the song empire, the ming empire, the spanish empire, the napoleonic empire and various regional empires such as the various japanese shogunates, even lesser known empires such as the aztec, inca, mali, songhai, various indian and southeast asian regimes. All of these recognized the supreme law of force; restorationism would take off the rose colored glasses in terms of conducting policy and return to these fundamental roots in the world's civilizational tradition.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Both of the ideas presented here are incorrect. History has always shown that the important questions of society have always been solved by naked force. The solution for the international order is not a strengthening of the UN or some other international body in order to give it "teeth". The true solution should be a return to pre-1648 international rules when the primacy of force had been recognized. The great empires of the age like the roman empire, the hellenistic empires, the persian empire, the qin empire, the han empire, the byzantine empire, the various great caliphates, the mongol empire, the song empire, the ming empire, the spanish empire, the napoleonic empire and various regional empires such as the various japanese shogunates, even lesser known empires such as the aztec, inca, mali, songhai, various indian and southeast asian regimes. All of these recognized the supreme law of force; restorationism would take off the rose colored glasses in terms of conducting policy and return to these fundamental roots in the world's civilizational tradition.

Back to the red meme, or Mars meme!

http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Both of the ideas presented here are incorrect. History has always shown that the important questions of society have always been solved by naked force. The solution for the international order is not a strengthening of the UN or some other international body in order to give it "teeth". The true solution should be a return to pre-1648 international rules when the primacy of force had been recognized. The great empires of the age like the roman empire, the hellenistic empires, the persian empire, the qin empire, the han empire, the byzantine empire, the various great caliphates, the mongol empire, the song empire, the ming empire, the spanish empire, the napoleonic empire and various regional empires such as the various japanese shogunates, even lesser known empires such as the aztec, inca, mali, songhai, various indian and southeast asian regimes. All of these recognized the supreme law of force; restorationism would take off the rose colored glasses in terms of conducting policy and return to these fundamental roots in the world's civilizational tradition.

I actually do not disagree. When I wrote of the need to put down enemies with extreme force I was not alluding to the UN or similar constructs. The UN is headed for extinction. We all know it (although some are still at the denial stage).

In any case, I suspect that the emergence of a pre Westphalian order is an inevitability. On this we also agree.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

In any case, I suspect that the emergence of a pre Westphalian order is an inevitability. On this we also agree.

Feudalism?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Feudalism?

Or absolute monarchy.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I actually do not disagree. When I wrote of the need to put down enemies with extreme force I was not alluding to the UN or similar constructs. The UN is headed for extinction. We all know it (although some are still at the denial stage).

In any case, I suspect that the emergence of a pre Westphalian order is an inevitability. On this we also agree.

The UN is doing just fine. It is relied upon now more than ever. The New World Order made it more important. It is nation states that are headed for extinction. And not a moment too soon, for the peace of the world. We can all get along; regardless of race or national origin. Not getting along on that basis, is just instilled by the PTB.

Magic Monarchs don't work out. But what people forget is that monarchy in real feudalism had major checks from the king making Papacy/clergy (now just a discredited relict) and needed the trust of loyal feudal bondsmen. It wasn't really a "Sun King" scenario (that's something the French tried to copy from Asia during the Enlightenment).

If you want to know what the future is, it's all the rule bending "work arounds" that have crept into our social systems in last 100 years. Today's ad hoc administrative work arounds become tomorrow's First Principles. Convenience becomes necessity. Yesterday's contingency/loophole is tomorrow's universal rule. That's how it works. What nobody expects is that the footnote loophole that at first applies to "just super special extenuating circumstances" eventually becomes the new primary determinative rule that applies to all people at all times.

So for example, feudal kings were officially bounds by honor, loyalty, religious faith, etc. Those were the feudal First Principles. But practically, kings always needed money, so there were lots of unofficial work arounds for merchants with coin in their purse. This came to a head eventually, so in merry old England Thomas Bolyn - the descendant of successful merchants, not feudal era nobility - married into the Tudors and thus changed the face of monarchy (on hindsight).

Now, those feudal first principles are a joke or anathema to our current age. Money rules all, Left and Right think completely in terms of money and economy, the rational economic man. Those are our first principles. But practically speaking, we have our own work arounds (often justified as necessary in service of economic man but gradually undermining the system from within). That's the future. What are the work arounds? Everything we justify as a means to an end. Legally, administratively, socially. Everything that doesn't really add up - because they serve a purpose "for the time being."

To see the "crap sack feudalism" that preceded the change-over to official rule of the merchant class, watch the TV series "The Tudors." The monarch is a small minded fool who spends his time on sexual escapades, while the real brains and political craft is practiced by the (in the feudal sense) "ousider" Bolyn (and justified by the feudal PTB as expediency of the moment). In the background, we see (Sir) Thomas More writing his "Utopia." No big loss when the ship of fools that was the late feudal order was swept away by the (at that time) much more inventive, intelligent, and forward looking merchants. Quantitative change (increasing influence of merchant classes) becomes determinative qualitative change (feudalism becomes capitalism).

What's worth looking at is what everyone beholden to the old order was "holding back against" before the transition. Was Bolyn a "force of corruption [feudalism's view]" or was he "seeds of the future [capitalism's view]"? Depends on perspective.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

To see the "crap sack feudalism" that preceded the change-over to official rule of the merchant class, watch the TV series "The Tudors." The monarch is a small minded fool who spends his time on sexual escapades, while the real brains and political craft is practiced by the (in the feudal sense) "ousider" Bolyn (and justified by the feudal PTB as expediency of the moment). In the background, we see (Sir) Thomas More writing his "Utopia." No big loss when the ship of fools that was the late feudal order was swept away by the (at that time) much more inventive, intelligent, and forward looking merchants. Quantitative change (increasing influence of merchant classes) becomes determinative qualitative change (feudalism becomes capitalism).

What's worth looking at is what everyone beholden to the old order was "holding back against" before the transition. Was Bolyn a "force of corruption [feudalism's view]" or was he "seeds of the future [capitalism's view]"? Depends on perspective.

When exactly did the official change-over from feudalism to capitalism occur?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Or absolute monarchy.

I don't think you know what the word "Westphalian" means, in a political context. The Peace of Westphalia didn't really affect absolutism one way or the other; Louis XIV, Peter the Great, Stalin, and Hitler all came after, without violating the Westphalian order. Indeed, as the Peace of Westphalia asserted the primacy of sovereign states as the normative political unit, absolutism was actually complementary. See Hobbes' Leviathan, published 3 years afterward, for details.

"Pre Westphalian" would imply a world not based around sovereign states, whether that be the neo-feudal anarchy of John Robb's Global Guerrillas or the magical 1-world wankfest of Eric's fantasies.

Pre-Wesphalian....think of feudalism during the middle ages.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Utopia is a fond but delusive hope. A world civilization is just the fact of our time. Human rights are what people who are young and involved want. Those who are backward, are content with oppression. That is true in all countries, and I doubt that the USA is much more advanced than Egypt or Syria in that regard.

But The entire concept of human rights as currently constituted is largely idealistic nonsense. Just look at WW2 when the allies failed to move against the axis before the axis was fully built up because that would have broken the peace. Later when the allies had practically won the war they let the soviets occupy eastern europe creating an new even stronger enemy rather than allowing a weakened germany and japan to be buffers against the newly created soviet empire. Other examples include the aftermath of 9/11; the US government showed its ineptitude when it failed to carpet-bomb and then launch a full-scale invasion of large segments of the middle east in the spirit of the mongols in retaliation. This showed that the american leadership did not psychologically understand the enemy and that the enemy regarded mercy as weakness, as a result any deterrence value created by the afghan and iraqi campaigns was squandered when muslims saw such scenes as US soldiers handing candies to muslim children; the islamists laughed and said "what a bunch of weaklings", the chinese drew similar conclusions as well. As a result many of our troops paid the ultimate price when insurgents disguised as regular civilians would walk up to us troops appearing friendly and then ambush and kill our troops. This would not occur if muslims were to deal with a restorationist america. All of these examples also tie back to the naive notion that there should be a "policed" or "regulated" world order, a delusion that goes back even further, to at least the 1600's.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

But The entire concept of human rights as currently constituted is largely idealistic nonsense.

Not nonsense at all, actually. The concept of human rights of course goes back to the Enlightenment, which was a reaction to the religious wars that almost destroyed Europe at the time. The concept of a human right is that it is a right that you, one person, have because you are a human.

As a human individual, it didn't matter whether you were a Catholic, a Protestant, Jewish, or one of the numerous exploratory new reformist sects (Huguenot, Mennonite, etc.) or even non-religious. So long as you followed the laws of the land, you were entitled to the same rights from the sovereign (the government) as any other individual.

Notice that the locus of these human rights is the individual. The individual human asserts these rights vs the sovereign and thus vs society.

All this has changed, unofficially of course, since the latter half of the 20th century. Collective rights began to be asserted, both in post-Colonial contexts ("We Africans/Desis/Chinese/Sudamericanos/Algerians/etc want to rule our own countries," Franz Fanon, Gandhi, etc.) and within the major powers (identity politics).

This fundamentally changed the moral locus of rights and also of the cultural narrative. "Who you are" (meaning, which category or "identity group" you were a member of) became just as important part of your speech and civic activity as what you were saying and doing. Self-evident rights "as an individual human" were no longer sufficient, now rights were derived from and ethically dependent on collective social categories. So this is all really post-Enlightenment.

There is an attempt to turn back the clock and re-impose undefined "groupism" that includes "everyone," but it's really mostly aggregates of smaller identity groups that are claimed to have political affinity/alliances. This is true on the international stage and also within the politics of the major powers.

So collective assertions of rights are here to stay, it looks like. Pandora's Box has been forcefully and willfully (although perhaps not always judiciously or presciently) crammed open over the course of several decades and it will not close. How this will shape up, who knows. What history shows is that rights initially set aside for the few will be equally demanded by all, sooner or later. Equality wins out in the moral sphere, in the long run. That's the Kantian Categorical Imperative at the essence of all ethics and law.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

Not nonsense at all, actually. The concept of human rights of course goes back to the Enlightenment, which was a reaction to the religious wars that almost destroyed Europe at the time. The concept of a human right is that it is a right that you, one person, have because you are a human.

As a human individual, it didn't matter whether you were a Catholic, a Protestant, Jewish, or one of the numerous exploratory new reformist sects (Huguenot, Mennonite, etc.) or even non-religious. So long as you followed the laws of the land, you were entitled to the same rights from the sovereign (the government) as any other individual.

Notice that the locus of these human rights is the individual. The individual human asserts these rights vs the sovereign and thus vs society.

All this has changed, unofficially of course, since the latter half of the 20th century. Collective rights began to be asserted, both in post-Colonial contexts ("We Africans/Desis/Chinese/Latinamericanos/Algerians/etc want to rule our own countries," Franz Fanon, Gandhi, etc.) and within the major powers (identity politics).

This fundamentally changed the moral locus of rights and also of the cultural narrative. "Who you are" (meaning, which category or "identity group" you were a member of) became just as important part of your speech and civic activity as what you were saying and doing. Self-evident rights "as an individual human" were no longer sufficient, now rights were derived from and ethically dependent on collective social categories. So this is all really post-Enlightenment.

There is an attempt to turn back the clock and re-impose undefined "groupism" that includes "everyone," but it's really mostly aggregates of smaller identity groups that are claimed to have political affinity/alliances. This is true on the international stage and also within the politics of the major powers.

So collective assertions of rights are here to stay, it looks like. Pandora's Box has been forcefully and willfully (although perhaps not always judiciously or presciently) crammed open over the course of several decades and it will not close. How this will shape up, who knows. What history shows is that rights initially set aside for the few will be equally demanded by all, sooner or later. Equality wins out in the moral sphere, in the long run. That's the Kantian Categorical Imperative at the essence of all ethics and law.

We need to go back to a religious and cultural outlook to the world, modernism has actually unleashed greater barbarism rather than suppressed it. Both communism and nazism as well as WW2 era japanese militarism were derived from modernist ideology. Although slavery existed since the beginnings of civilization, southern slavery and other versions of 18th and 19th century slavery were much worse than any pre-enlightenment version of the "peculiar institution" due to the new modernist influences (the racial ideology was derived from modernist thought). The ancient and medieval idea that certain aspects of human nature are unchangable needs to be revived. The enlightenment has enabled far more genocides than it has prevented.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

We need to go back to a religious and cultural outlook to the world, modernism has actually unleashed greater barbarism rather than suppressed it. Both communism and nazism as well as WW2 era japanese militarism were derived from modernist ideology. Although slavery existed since the beginnings of civilization, southern slavery and other versions of 18th and 19th century slavery were much worse than any pre-enlightenment version of the "peculiar institution" due to the new modernist influences (the racial ideology was derived from modernist thought). The ancient and medieval idea that certain aspects of human nature are unchangable needs to be revived. The enlightenment has enabled far more genocides than it has prevented.

Also, consumerism, technologism and some additional isms are portals to barbarism. The current norms (or sad excuses for them) cannot hold. But their ends will be violent.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Kerry, the first cohort Boomer, is doing an excellent job.

... Or foot in mouth disease carrier wrt Ukraine.

I want him in the job, although I hope he practices what he preaches about climate change.

Are you sure?

Originally Posted by US Today

The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact "to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity" in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

"We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement," said Rizanenko, a member of the Udar Party headed by Vitali Klitschko, a candidate for president. "Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."

...

Rizanenko and others in Ukraine say the pact it made with the United States under President Bill Clinton was supposed to prevent such Russian invasions.

The pact was made after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and became Russia, leaving the newly independent nation of Ukraine as the world's third largest nuclear weapons power.

...

To reassure the Ukrainians, the United States and leaders of the United Kingdom and Russia signed in 1994 the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" in which the signatories promised that none of them would threaten or use force to alter the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

They specifically pledged not to militarily occupy Ukraine. Although the pact was made binding according to international law, it said nothing that requires a nation to act against another that invades Ukraine.

The memorandum requires only that the signatories would "consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments." Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear warheads in return for the promise.

...

The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated "with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well."

...

"Everyone had this sentiment that for good or bad the United States would be the world police" and make sure that international order is maintained, Rizanenko said of the Budapest pact.

"Now that function is being abandoned by President Obama and because of that Russia invaded Crimea," he said.

"In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine," he said. "If you have nuclear weapons people don't invade you."

<- Climate change, [beavis/buttheat] heh heh, he said climate change [/beavis/butthead]







Yup. We have a winner. If ya have da nukes, ya don't get invaded. I'm sure Japan , S Korea, Phillipines, etc. got the memo. Thank you China. Proliferator extradanoire and climate goes from the frying pan [global warming] into the freezer [nuclear winter].

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

... or the magical 1-world wankfest of Eric's fantasies.

Bwahahahahahahahahah holy fuck, do you know how much it hurts when an energy drink hits nasal tissue?

Nuclear winter is largely a myth.

1. There has been very little evidence of firestorms actually lofting material into the atmosphere. The only thing that has been demonstrated to do so to any significant degree are volcanoes. As impressive as even 1988's nuclear arsenal was, it wasn't exactly the Deccan traps.

2. It's questionable to what extent modern city centers would produce firestorms in the first place. Steel and concrete don't exactly burn well. (NOTE: This is not to say that there wouldn't be fires, just that they wouldn't be anything like say, '40s Tokyo.)

3. The same guys who predicted nuclear winter in the TTAPS report also predicted that Saddam's burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields in the Gulf War would destroy agriculture in South Asia through the same sort of effects. Didn't happen.

There might be localized cooling, a rise in long-term cancer rates, but once the dust settled (with radiation dropping to background levels within a couple of months in most places) there'd still be enough people and industry left to fight WWIII.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Bwahahahahahahahahah holy fuck, do you know how much it hurts when an energy drink hits nasal tissue?

Thanks. And the answer is, not quite as much as snorting Hydroxycut to win a bet in Airborne school.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Nuclear winter is largely a myth.

1. There has been very little evidence of firestorms actually lofting material into the atmosphere. The only thing that has been demonstrated to do so to any significant degree are volcanoes. As impressive as even 1988's nuclear arsenal was, it wasn't exactly the Deccan traps.

2. It's questionable to what extent modern city centers would produce firestorms in the first place. Steel and concrete don't exactly burn well. (NOTE: This is not to say that there wouldn't be fires, just that they wouldn't be anything like say, '40s Tokyo.)

3. The same guys who predicted nuclear winter in the TTAPS report also predicted that Saddam's burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields in the Gulf War would destroy agriculture in South Asia through the same sort of effects. Didn't happen.

There might be localized cooling, a rise in long-term cancer rates, but once the dust settled (with radiation dropping to background levels within a couple of months in most places) there'd still be enough people and industry left to fight WWIII.

Ah, OK. Hrmmmm.... lesseee some prior data.

OK, I win.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html

1962 = bang up year.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yup. We have a winner. If ya have da nukes, ya don't get invaded. I'm sure Japan , S Korea, Phillipines, etc. got the memo. Thank you China. Proliferator extradanoire and climate goes from the frying pan [global warming] into the freezer [nuclear winter].

Not to mention, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, etc.

In the end, it really does not matter all that much. Whether via the US-France-UK umbrella or DIY, the idea of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons cannot be "un thought." They will be used.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ah, OK. Hrmmmm.... lesseee some prior data.

OK, I win.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html

1962 = bang up year.

Radionuclides, sure. Vast quantities of soot and ash dwarfing the effects of, say, Mt. Pinatubo blowing in 1991? Unlikely.

It's worth pointing out that the Year without a Summer was so devastating to life on this planet that... nobody has really heard of it.