Not sure I follow...i see the current meta-conflict as between a free society and a totalitarian society. I know we aren't completely free, but dissent and differences are a luxury we enjoy that the globalist powers seem to want to eliminate
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Relative to China? Or Iran? Protect what you have
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'll split the difference here. I think an ideal model is suffrage among a sufficiently competent constituency. This cohort would then elect a narrower range of leaders who all agree on the fundamentals, w/just enuf degrees of freedom for policy to be adaptable in a dynamic world
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Narrow suffrage is helpful, but that ship sailed decades ago. Do we value freedom or not? That is the question of the current age. Freedom is messy and weak. But better than the socislist/fascist/communist uni-party alternatives
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ele_mint @PunishedBoomer
If you have no enforced state religion then people will meme themselves into a synthetic religion for power seeking. Religions allow cooperation without direct communication - ideal for taking over a state. No "freedoms" can exist when a hostile religion captures all offices.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Team warfare dominates human affairs because it is necessary for men to cooperate to do anything more advanced than catch fish out of a river. Having a secret (or not so secret) team is a way of winning conflicts when your enemies have disavowed teaming up.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.