The Ukraine Question

[AWellArmedCat]

Ukrainians and Russians are one people says Putin, then invader forces shell a nuclear plant. Fraternal feelings are going to soar in the 'UkrUSSR' after this, I'm sure:

The plant has been secured and there appears to be no danger of its exploding or leaking dangerous levels of radiation for now.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/worl...d-fire-2537666

That could of course change very suddenly, but I imagine Putin doesn't want to obliterate/irradiate all that juicy land he hopes to acquire. My guess is that this was a stunt to try and scare Ukraine into submission. Thankfully it failed

[Adam Strange]

"How is the war in Ukraine going? Today they confirmed the death of Russian General Major Suhovetsky. He's unsurprisingly a paratrooper. So let's discuss the role of paratroopers in Russian military doctrine. That'll shed a light on the course of this war and why Russia lost it."

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/stat...77671855292423

[Northstar]

IEEs don't typically subscribe to prophecies and religions, tending to make fun of doomsayers and prophetic conspiracy theorists. They also don't try to eloquently convince masses of people, more likely using blunt language (Te > Fe) to stand behind their personal (as opposed to group identified) convictions.

[DEAD]

How do you know these prophets are the real deal and aren't just saying shit while not having any actual connection to god?

She doesn't know. And most of them are full of bullshit. The rule should be "unless it's linked to the Bible and proven to be linked to the text itself, and doesn't contradict it then it shouldn't be accounted for". If that rule isn't defined, and the Bible verses aren't given in context, then it shouldn't stand as an actual prophecy that should be taken seriously. Even Prophecy has fallen short of the given standards in the Bible.

It even says in the Bible to test these spirits and not believe every one of them. Test them against the Word of God:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.1 John 4:1

And also, many of the Old Testament Propechies became fulfilled when Jesus came back:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:22-23

The only ones that aren't fulfilled are from the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels and Revelation. They are all in the Bible, and not from some random man/woman who has had a dream, or visited Heaven. It even says in the end of Revelation that there will be consequences if someone messes with these prophecies/words in the Bible:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

I know that you probably didn't expect this reply, but I wanted to try and clear a few things up on the logic behind so called Biblical Prophecy. And to say that no, not everything (or pretty much anything) that can be said about these 'prophets' is inherently true, and that they probably shouldn't be taken seriously. I know that Eliza would never step back and give you an answer like that, or take time to explain things like this. She is a deluded person (or a troll that's very good at playing this game) and probably doesn't take the Bible as seriously as you think she does.

[Aster]

What if NATO is corrupt Shadow Government and Putin is kinda crazy. What then? What thennn??? Why does one side have to be bad and one good. How about if they are both corrupt. Just saying. Politicians are about as endearing as used car salesman, who also happen to be closet sociopaths. Doesn’t really matter where they hail from.

[Poptart]

NATO has a great excuse to start a fight with Russia right now. A golden opportunity destroy Russia militarily. Why isn’t NATO seizing this opportunity?

Maybe NATO isn’t the aggressor. After all, NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance. Countries join NATO because they want to. Putin, on the other hand, is trying to violently force Ukraine into his sphere of influence.

[Poptart]

There are two sides to every story, but truth does not always lie directly in the middle.

[Enters Laughing]

NATO has a great excuse to start a fight with Russia right now. A golden opportunity destroy Russia militarily. Why isn’t NATO seizing this opportunity?

Maybe NATO isn’t the aggressor. After all, NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance. Countries join NATO because they want to. Putin, on the other hand, is trying to violently force Ukraine into his sphere of influence.

NATO doesn't want to get nuked.

[ILoveChinchillas]

The threat of mutually assured destruction makes war interesting. I suspect that the likelihood of mutiny goes up when WMDs are on the table and you have a situation like what's unfolding in Ukraine. And by that I mean that the party with the WMDs is more likely to revolt.

[Poptart]

NATO doesn't want to get nuked.

Makes sense. I guess NATO doesn’t pose an existential nuclear threat to Russia after all.

[ILoveChinchillas]

Makes sense. I guess NATO doesn’t pose an existential nuclear threat to Russia after all.

It does. It's just not using it.

[Baqer]

NATO is a defensive alliance. The only situation in which it poses a threat to Russia is if Russia invades a country in NATO. Sure, there are NATO countries/forces which have gone and done stuff(Like after 9/11 and in Libya), but at the end of the day these things were either 1. Didn't need NATO to happen or 2. Were an act of defense. Maybe you can make the argument that NATO would construct false flags to invade other countries, but at the end of the day the last country they're going to do that too is Russia, a nuclear power. Anyone saying that Russia is being threatened by NATO expansion is a Russian shill, because the only thing that NATO stops is Russian expansion.

[xerx]

Ironically, nukes seem to be one of the best guarantors of peace. As long as no one is dumb/crazy enough to use them they seem to be a net positive. They even the playing field enough for an otherwise weak country to seriously threaten potential bullies such that they can negotiate as equals

I've thought about this question a lot since last night, and I'm not so sure anymore that nukes would guarantee peace. If a country (or government) was facing an existential crisis (as Ukraine's currently seems to be), then, yes, perhaps. That country would be more willing to deploy nukes, and nukes would scare away that particular invader.

But what happens in the case of a limited military action that triggered NATO's Article 5 — if, say, Russia tried liberating Estonia's Russian population? Would we really be going to DEFCON 1, or would the Internet be debating the worth of destroying civilization for the sake of 300,000 people (which, incidentally, would also destroy Estonia)? Even if Russia straight-up conquered Estonia (with a small population of 1.3 million), my hunch is that we'd still be debating the merits of launching nuclear weapons.

So far, the West has been supplying Ukraine with weapons in open defiance of Russia. No nuclear war has resulted.

It's not clear that conventional warfare is going away because of the threat of nuclear war, which means that Putin in fact has a case, and that NATO's geographical encroachment really could pose a credible threat to Russia's defense imperatives (although, after this week's events, I can see why people might want to ignore or straight-up violate them, or to regard them as being offensive rather than defensive in scope).

There is even the possibility that we'll develop the means to neutralize nuclear weapons someday. Point defense systems against missiles are still ineffective. Israel has Iron Dome, but there are reasons to be skeptical about that system — An MIT professor evaluated Iron Dome and believes that it is over-hyped (with an effectiveness of 5% or below against Hamas rockets in 2014). But that could all change one day, which is something that Russian strategists do have to take into account.

[Eliza Thomason]

How do you know these prophets are the real deal and aren't just saying shit while not having any actual connection to god?

I check against what I know of the Lord and of scripture. I hacve been followign for a year now, with plentyof skepticism at firs because I am Catholic now, used to be non-denom Chrisitian, whicvh most of these are. But who am I to know whom God will chose to use? We all have errors in our theology; we are all imperfect. I see errors in theology, but I don't see errors in these messages. God gives discernemnt. Elijhah Streasms has a lot of discernment in the prophets they choose to use. The sheep knows their Shepherds v oice. So... that is a random answer to how I know, other than, "I just know" which tells nothing. But the reason for that is discernment which is a gift of God, that many people have, and I think like wisdom anyone can have, if they ask for it.

I think the Lord confirms the truth in the hearts of the people. We all know God, inside, because we come from Him and are made in His image so we recognize Him.

I hope that is a somewhat useful answer!

[Eliza Thomason]

Likewise, I respect your civility. Speaking with you isn't unpleasant even if I take issue with a lot of your posts.

We asre both pretty civil! As revealed in our recent temperment tests, we are both Sanguine/Plegmatics, marked by civility. : )

Additionally, I hope you understand that my issue is not with your faith in God or anything like that. I'm perfectly comfortable with religious diversity, and if your faith is important to you then far be it from me to attempt to deny you that. My problem is instead with your faith in "prophets" (fallible human beings) who fail time and again to be right about much of substance while still garnering tons of attention and in a few cases money too. This prophesying business is tangibly beneficial to them, even those who don't directly earn money from it gain attention (an arguably even more valuable resource these days), and I feel that generates a significant conflict of interest. If they were at least more consistently right about their prophecies I could forgive the conflict of interest, but given that, from what I can tell, they don't seem to know more than anyone else, I find it difficult to view them as anything more than charlatans preying on religious folk.

I definitely don't take offense. You have a right to your opinion! My opinion on the topic of prophecy has evolved over the months I have been immersed in it. The times we are in are epic and Biblical! God is doing something HUGE in our world. He says that in this time, everything that can be shaken will be shaken. He is shaking out the evil, and that looks frightening, but He assuresus everything will be okay, and to be at peace. He is sending prophecies of specific events, and many huge natural signs that we will see - earthquakes, volcanos, the sea churning - so we can know that He is now acting in the supernatural. Like the landscape is mimicing what is happening in the supernatural as evil is rooted out and exposed (the exposure part we will all see). God says we are enslaved in ways we never realized we were enslaved, and we will be freed, and we will rejoice greatly at what He has accomplished for us!

Prophets are people, and people are fallible, but it is one thing to be a fallible person and it is completely another to have nefarious motives like attention or income. NONE of the prophets I listen to are like that. You won't find any of those on Elijah Streams.

I want to make an addendum to my Putin comments.

As I stated in this thread, from God's word to prophet Julie Green, I know that God gave Putin some sort of go-ahead, but with warning he is to only go so far. Only one or two days later I heard a word from Troy Black that Putin did, or will, go too far, and because of that God will send plagues to Putin (not Russia, just Putin). That will certainly put a stop to that!

Last night I listened to Amanda Grace's latest and she had much to say about Ukraine and Russia, and like you, she has followed it closer than I. She reminded us that there is a lot of intel out including much that is put there to mislead us. And she talked of how in the Bible we see God using rulers and kings to accomplish His will, like using Cyrus to free the Isrealites from Babylon, which confirms that yes, God might use a ruler like Putin for a particular mission (like saving Ukraine from being being ussed by the evil world elite as a center for world human trafficking, if that is the mission - it is my guess, from intel I have heard, which could be inaccurrate). God uses their position, not their saintliness, to accomplish His will. It makes sense that God worded the prophecies I heard in the way He worded them, then.

I probably haven't convinced you of anything with that, but I've stated my case at least. I would just like you to understand that if I seem at all antagonistic, it is rooted in my not wanting you or others who share your faith to be fooled, not in any dislike for you as a person

Thank you for takign the time to state your case! I see your good will and did not take offense.

_

P.S. In that Amanda Grace video, she talked of the prophecy that many of us are very familiar with: that this month of March Biden will open his mouth on national TV and give secrets away. While many are saying Biden's slip about the Iranians was just another example of his senility, Amanda thinks this is one of those slips of what is actually happenign behind the scenes: the4 Iranians are involv ed in this. Kamala's reaction as he made this slip I watch this morning on a Hannity clip, and Kamalas face most definitely reads as a serious shock that Biden jsut spilt a big secret - her face is NOT "opps, there he is being stupidly senile again"

So I wil share this url of that video now: https://rumble.com/vwdwrj-amanda-gra...the-world.html
If you are interested in much better intel and informed thought about Russia and Ukraine than I could ever give, insights you are unlikely to hear of elsewhere, you may be interested in this. (But I am NOT offended if you dont' feel moved to spend time listening; we all have busy schedules and differing priorities). If you are interested, start at 9min., 45 sec., unless you are interested in all the news about her cute rescue animals! She begins telling about past prophecies given a year ago predicting this that would happen in Ukrain, and why.

[xerx]

Ukraine said it's killed 9k russians and that it has 100k defense force, so manpower-wise this equation is going to be much uglier for Russia. As long as Ukrainians get arms, it will take far more people to hold more than the east and south of Ukraine. If Putin doesn't take Kyiv, I think the Russians will hold the east and the south. I do think the Ukrainians will fight to the end in Odessa and not retreat from it like Kherson. From some of the image we saw of the plans, which might not be real, there are plans to attack Moldova too. If this is true, Russia will want a strip of southern ukraine to landlock ukraine and provide a bridge into moldova. And Georgia is likely to eventually get attacked as well.

You could be right, I don't know. Personally, I hope that Putin has already bit off more than he can chew.

[ILoveChinchillas]

NATO is a defensive alliance. The only situation in which it poses a threat to Russia is if Russia invades a country in NATO. Sure, there are NATO countries/forces which have gone and done stuff(Like after 9/11 and in Libya), but at the end of the day these things were either 1. Didn't need NATO to happen or 2. Were an act of defense. Maybe you can make the argument that NATO would construct false flags to invade other countries, but at the end of the day the last country they're going to do that too is Russia, a nuclear power. Anyone saying that Russia is being threatened by NATO expansion is a Russian shill, because the only thing that NATO stops is Russian expansion.

Yes but some of the countries in NATO have been escalating against Russia for some time. I'm not a Russian shill.

[Poptart]

It does. It's just not using it.

Exactly. They aren’t using it.

[ILoveChinchillas]

Exactly. They aren’t using it.

A threat is something that holds risk for someone involved.

The US, as a nuclear power, has always held risk for Russia. Therefore, it is a threat to Russia. The US belongs to NATO. Therefore, at least one portion of NATO threatens Russia. Since NATO is a defensive alliance, Russia has to be careful about who it invades - or else it risks invoking the wrath of the US and allied countries. The only reason it's going undeterred right now is because Ukraine is not part of the NATO alliance.

[Enters Laughing]

I've thought about this question a lot since last night, and I'm not so sure anymore that nukes would guarantee peace. If a country (or government) was facing an existential crisis (as Ukraine's currently seems to be), then, yes, perhaps. That country would be more willing to deploy nukes, and nukes would scare away that particular invader.

But what happens in the case of a limited military action that triggered NATO's Article 5 — if, say, Russia tried liberating Estonia's Russian population? Would we really be going to DEFCON 1, or would the Internet be debating the worth of destroying civilization for the sake of 300,000 people (which, incidentally, would also destroy Estonia)? Even if Russia straight-up conquered Estonia (with a small population of 1.3 million), my hunch is that we'd still be debating the merits of launching nuclear weapons.

So far, the West has been supplying Ukraine with weapons in open defiance of Russia. No nuclear war has resulted.

It's not clear that conventional warfare is going away because of the threat of nuclear war, which means that Putin in fact has a case, and that NATO's geographical encroachment really could pose a credible threat to Russia's defense imperatives (although, after this week's events, I can see why people might want to ignore or straight-up violate them, or to regard them as being offensive rather than defensive in scope).

There is even the possibility that we'll develop the means to neutralize nuclear weapons someday. Point defense systems against missiles are still ineffective. Israel has Iron Dome, but there are reasons to be skeptical about that system — An MIT professor evaluated Iron Dome and believes that it is over-hyped (with an effectiveness of 5% or below against Hamas rockets in 2014). But that could all change one day, which is something that Russian strategists do have to take into account.

Someone on the internet suggested that Estonia is the safest it's been in decades right now - the Russian army is occupied many miles away and Estonia is too close to St Petersburg to nuke.

"Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States,[20] and France[21] say that they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies. Historically, NATO military strategy, taking into account the numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact conventional forces, assumed that tactical nuclear weapons would have to be used to defeat a Soviet invasion.[22][23]

At the 16th NATO summit in April 1999, Germany proposed that NATO adopt a no-first-use policy, but the proposal was rejected.[24] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#cite_note-22

So, as things stand, unless Putin goes crazy, the Russians will "only" use nukes if they or their allies are invaded or if they are nuked first. But of course Putin is unreliable and he seems to consider Ukraine as Russia's territory. I had thought he'd be unlikely to use nukes on Ukrainian soil because who'd poison what they see as their land. But I fear Putin could do so if he is losing.

[Enters Laughing]

They're more optimistic (or perhaps more knowledgeable) than I am.

[Enters Laughing]

Interesting thread (replies):

[Eliza Thomason]

@Baqer, One fascinating psychology article is not enough. You need to read at least three, and at least one pop psychology book before considering yourself a credible armchair psychologist.

[Eliza Thomason]

NWO admits they can't survive the loss of Ukraine.

[Poptart]

[Toro]

Still waiting on the Illuminati to assassinate Putin.

[Aster]

Still waiting on the Illuminati to assassinate Putin.

I hope they do something showy and sacrifice him in bohemian grove wearing owl suits. maybe they will eat his heart or something. Hillary will be there. Front of the table. She’ll probably want to eat his balls or some shit. it’s time to come out of the closet and let their freak flag fly

[End]

I also expect that most people will not see much use for these words of the prophets I am sharing, but at least it should be an intersting curiosity, one that hails good news in a time of nothing but dreary news. But interest will increase when the astonishing predicted things start happening.

Perhaps whatever prophecies you've been getting into coincides with one heard from Father Chad Ripperger. Well, not so much a prophecy but rather a recent lamentation of Lucifer. He was exorcising a demon that used a name for Satan himself (meaning he was literally possessed by the devil) and the man who was possessed was absolutely bawling his eyes out like a little bitch. When asked why it said "He's going to take my power away soon!"

If you know anything about how demons work, well, they absolutely hate to say the names of holy saints, Our Lady, and the Lord himself. They can be forced to do so, but you really gotta force it (or rather, Jesus must compel them to do so) The "He" in this case would be God the Father. As Satan is the prince of this world the removal of his power would likely coincide with the exposure of the Illuminati. I also like Anonymous Conservative's name for them, Cabal Inc. (or Cabal for short). If all their surveillance networks get exposed it's game over for them.

Would explain why they're putting the pedal to the metal in many regards. If they're going to lose power soon they may as well get as many souls as they can damned to hell before the timer runs out and everything starts going wrong for them.

Is an attacking a nuclear power plant considered a war crime?

A nuclear power plant is on fire at Zaporizhzhia.

Putin and the Ruskies ain't dumb enough to bomb a nuke plant on purpose. Occupy and shut it down most definitely but destroying it with bombs and shells would irradiate everyone for miles and that's not good for anyone. Nobody wants Chernobyl 2.0.

However, it would make an ideal false flag/be a major propaganda win for the Ukranian side of things. Such an "atrocity" could convince outside powers to institute that "No Fly Zone" they're desperate to get instated. Always ask "Cui Bono" when it comes to shit like this. If one side doesn't really benefit in the PR or Military space at all but the other does in spades if a given story is true? Yeah, tactical fuckery is likely afoot.

Remember, this is as much a propaganda war as it is a military campaign. Iron clad proof of the dastardly deeds (for both sides) or it didn't happen. At least, not like they say it did.

Still waiting on the Illuminati to assassinate Putin.

Imagine if they try and fail. The old saying goes: "When you strike at a king you must kill him." Would be interesting to see where that leads.

Hell, even if it succeeds it won't be good as that sets precedent. If it did, well, now it's apparently A-OK to assassinate world leaders or even political rivals for reasons again. The Middle Ages and the whole WWI incident are why nobody with an ounce of foresight seriously wants those days to return in the first world. No easy way out of all this...

[xerx]

When Russia intervened during the Syrian civil war, ISIS fighters tweeted a video trash-talking Russia in each of their native languages. They all took turns saying "We will make Syria a graveyard for the Russians". Finally, they got to the Russian fighter, and he also said it (in Russian). Is there anything more masochistic than the Russian mind???

[AWellArmedCat]

But what happens in the case of a limited military action that triggered NATO's Article 5 — if, say, Russia tried liberating Estonia's Russian population? Would we really be going to DEFCON 1, or would the Internet be debating the worth of destroying civilization for the sake of 300,000 people (which, incidentally, would also destroy Estonia)? Even if Russia straight-up conquered Estonia (with a small population of 1.3 million), my hunch is that we'd still be debating the merits of launching nuclear weapons.

So far, the West has been supplying Ukraine with weapons in open defiance of Russia. No nuclear war has resulted.

Yeah, it's been on my mind a lot too. Just to be clear, I don't mean to be an advocate for weapons of mass destruction, but I can't help but wonder if Russia would've been willing to invade had Ukraine been in possession of a known nuclear arsenal. With regards to Article 5, I definitely don't think we would be willing to launch nukes, but my point was less about NATO being willing to defend an attacked member state with nuclear weapons, and more about the attacked state itself. NATO is almost certainly not going to feel threatened enough by a country like Estonia getting attacked and would be very unlikely to press the big red button, but Estonia itself...? Especially if they felt assured of their destruction anyways, I have a feeling they would be considering it very seriously. This is where I think there may be an argument to be made about nuclear weapons scaring off bigger bullies. I'm conflicted on the issue, and my opinion is malleable. It's just interesting to think about.

Not that this really needs to be said, but I sincerely hope 1945 remains humanity's first and final use of nuclear weapons on itself.

[AWellArmedCat]

But I fear Putin could do so if he is losing.

This is exactly the thing keeping me up at night lately. I keep hearing people say that Putin absolutely cannot win, is losing hard, or even that he has already lost, and this makes me nervous. If Putin believes it's all over there's no telling what sort of damage he may be willing to do in retribution.

I don't think he'll succeed even if he does decide to use nukes. Most likely someone in the Russian chain of command will refuse to make a call or turn a key, and the nukes won't be fired, but even the chance that he might give the order is terrifying, and I suspect the more he feels like he's lost the more he'll be tempted to try to take millions down with him.

If even one nuke gets fired, this could so easily set off a vicious chain reaction. If our worst fears are realized and NATO and Russia go ballistic at each other, China could easily take that as their cue to invade Taiwan, North Korea may take it as theirs to make a move on the South, and India and Pakistan might feel it is as good a time as any to wipe out their pesky neighbor. Hopefully even if one gets fired, everyone else has the sense to know that this will likely end our species, but we're all damned if not. The destructive potential of Putin's ambition is global and nearly unlimited.

Let's hope we're right in thinking that nukes are complicated enough to launch and involve enough people that there's at least one level-headed person in each of these countries who will refuse to turn their key. I think the odds are probably still in our favour, but the thread that this all hangs by is looking disturbingly thin lately

[Adam Strange]

Economic sanctions alone are not going to get Russia out of Ukraine, but they will turn Russia into another North Korea.

This seems to be the end point of Authoritarian rulers. Other countries don’t like you, there exists a tiny class of wealthy people while most of the population eats grass, and the rulers live in bunkers, in constant fear of assassination.

I think that every person who has the means is trying to get out of Russia at this point. This constitutes a brain-drain of significant proportions. The people who remain have been through a filter. Maybe they are fine with Authoritarian rulers. Certainly, in the States, there are people who want Trump returned to power. In any case, now they get to live their dream. I hope they enjoy it.


”Mmmm. Grass. Very tasty.”

[Adam Strange]

I believe that political leanings have a genetic basis. It is possible to breed wolves into Chihuahuas. Why would people be any different?

Is this why nothing in North Korea or Russia works? Is this why areas which voted for Trump are experiencing high and entirely preventable deaths from Covid? Or why these same areas are economic basket cases?

What happens when all the smart people leave an area?

Do bad economies creat stupid people, or do stupid people create bad economies?

Am I a man who works at a job, or a worker who happens to be a man?

[Poptart]

I believe that political leanings have a genetic basis. It is possible to breed wolves into Chihuahuas. Why would people be any different?

Is this why nothing in North Korea or Russia works? Is this why areas which voted for Trump are experiencing high and entirely preventable deaths from Covid? Or why these same areas are economic basket cases?

What happens when all the smart people leave an area?

Do bad economies creat stupid people, or do stupid people create bad economies?

Am I a man who works at a job, or a worker who happens to be a man?

Is there a genetic divide between North Korea and South Korea?

[Adam Strange]

Is there a genetic divide between North Korea and South Korea?

There might be, now.

The way you turn wolves into Chihuahuas is to shoot all the aggressive wolves and then let the rest breed.

I believe I've read that one of the ways that Liberals and Conservatives differ is in their Fear Response. Sneak up behind one and clap your hands together loudly, and measure the reaction of both types. Conservatives jump, Liberals turn around and wonder where that sound came from.

Have you ever wondered why North America is often called a Gamma culture, because of the high levels of innovation and the emphasis on Capitalism? I believe that N. America was settled by people who did not prosper under monarchies, and were willing to leave everything behind and start a new life in a new place. This sounds very LIE to me, but not exclusively so.

You could make the same argument about the settling of S. America, but there, the settlers encountered large pampas, which were ideal for raising cattle. One ranch owner, many ranch hands. In other words, an environment which naturally led to wealth inequality.

In N. America, the settlers encountered thick forests. A family had to clear a certain amount of land in order to eat, but there is a limit to how much land one man can clear, and this led to most people being relatively equal in terms of wealth.

So, prosperity requires two things; people who can produce it, and circumstances which allow it to happen.

Naturally, even in a population of all LIEs, the next generation is going to tend toward the normal. It might be possible to breed wolves from Chihuahuas, but I don't think that anyone has tried it.

[Ikite iru]

north korea = beta, south korea = gamma

[Enters Laughing]

This is exactly the thing keeping me up at night lately. I keep hearing people say that Putin absolutely cannot win, is losing hard, or even that he has already lost, and this makes me nervous. If Putin believes it's all over there's no telling what sort of damage he may be willing to do in retribution.

I don't think he'll succeed even if he does decide to use nukes. Most likely someone in the Russian chain of command will refuse to make a call or turn a key, and the nukes won't be fired, but even the chance that he might give the order is terrifying, and I suspect the more he feels like he's lost the more he'll be tempted to try to take millions down with him.

If even one nuke gets fired, this could so easily set off a vicious chain reaction. If our worst fears are realized and NATO and Russia go ballistic at each other, China could easily take that as their cue to invade Taiwan, North Korea may take it as theirs to make a move on the South, and India and Pakistan might feel it is as good a time as any to wipe out their pesky neighbor. Hopefully even if one gets fired, everyone else has the sense to know that this will likely end our species, but we're all damned if not. The destructive potential of Putin's ambition is global and nearly unlimited.

Let's hope we're right in thinking that nukes are complicated enough to launch and involve enough people that there's at least one level-headed person in each of these countries who will refuse to turn their key. I think the odds are probably still in our favour, but the thread that this all hangs by is looking disturbingly thin lately

Apparently the Russians are trying to accuse Ukraine of having nuclear weapons, as a pretext to use them against Ukraine:

The analyst said that the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service, was trying to “dig up dirt” to claim that Ukraine had built nuclear weapons, a pretext for a pre-emptive strike.

https://inews.co.uk/news/russian-inv...blower-1501734

After Russia fired missiles at that nuclear power plant, Putin blamed it on Ukraine (not directly relevant to the above point, but Putin could easily use such plants as a dirty bomb and blame it on Ukraine).

[Poptart]

There might be, now.

The way you turn wolves into Chihuahuas is to shoot all the aggressive wolves and then let the rest breed.

I believe I've read that one of the ways that Liberals and Conservatives differ is in their Fear Response. Sneak up behind one and clap your hands together loudly, and measure the reaction of both types. Conservatives jump, Liberals turn around and wonder where that sound came from.

Have you ever wondered why North America is often called a Gamma culture, because of the high levels of innovation and the emphasis on Capitalism? I believe that N. America was settled by people who did not prosper under monarchies, and were willing to leave everything behind and start a new life in a new place. This sounds very LIE to me, but not exclusively so.

You could make the same argument about the settling of S. America, but there, the settlers encountered large pampas, which were ideal for raising cattle. One ranch owner, many ranch hands. In other words, an environment which naturally led to wealth inequality.

In N. America, the settlers encountered thick forests. A family had to clear a certain amount of land in order to eat, but there is a limit to how much land one man can clear, and this led to most people being relatively equal in terms of wealth.

So, prosperity requires two things; people who can produce it, and circumstances which allow it to happen.

Naturally, even in a population of all LIEs, the next generation is going to tend toward the normal. It might be possible to breed wolves from Chihuahuas, but I don't think that anyone has tried it.

Ok Adam I usually respect what you have to say.

I’m not buying into this “genetic theory of democracy”.

[Enters Laughing]

[Adam Strange]

Ok Adam I usually respect what you have to say.

I’m not buying into this “genetic theory of democracy”.

You may be right. I have a lot of baggage from my parents, and I'm not a good enough Ti thinker to make clearly reasoned (or even rational) arguments sometimes.

It just seems to me to be something that is quite possible.

For the record, I work with people from all over the world, and the Russians with whom I work are incredibly intelligent. But they are here, in the States, because they were smart enough to leave Russia. We need more people like them here.

One guy has been sending money back to his family in Russia. I should ask him what his plans are.