For instance, I believe that in the feodal past lay people used to genuinely believe that kings got their authority from God; not because kings were good observants of the precepts of religion (they were not), but because that protects the self-esteem and helps hide the facts that their life was dependant of the whimsical violence of the princes.
I find it surprisingly hard to try to convince myself that there is no such thing as "rule of law", that for instance the overthrown of a non-aligned regime could be just about the oil and competition with China, although I know that's how future historians will deal with that non-story; There is some surprising amount of resistance from within to this idea. It's interresting to do the experiment.
The idea that cosmopolitan, educated, and cultivated people could be left like deer in the headlights by brutes setting themselves through by force reminded me of your description of TMT, or at least the ego-protective "helps hide the facts that their life was dependant of the whimsical violence of the princes" part of your explanation.
Does this unpacking make any more sense?
(meanwhile, the Melian Dialogue is the source of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46479662 )
Brutality only to outsiders-- see how he handled Mamdani face to face. Like 2 lions ?
https://youtube.com/shorts/dV8wsaaY0oQ
I'm sceptical of directly "transpiling" lessons from history-- & in general I find that Austrians are full of it* (sorry! It does feel like they are on the elitist end of the populist-elitist divide)
*Earnings
Ps: >Be the change yo want to see
It's Gandhi's saying that needs (more) elab :) I'll be that hypocrite and leave you to it
E- 1974 Lorrance
https://jenniferlphillips.com/blog/2021/2/24/origin-story-be...
>We but mirror the world
>However, the passage was written in the explicit context of animal attacks.
> Mamdani face to face. Like 2 lions ?
As that old russophone meme went: the diner sits; the waiter stands?
(can't find it right now, but along the lines of strategic ambiguity this is an amusing one: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEZLJn8WYAQreU0?format=jpg&name=... )
This is wonderful! Not only does Gandhiji speak on multiple levels, but unlike many who attempt it he carries the conceit through to perfection, offering valid first-aid advice to complete the surface reading. https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/cwmg_volume_thumbview/M... (if one were only to read the first and last few pages, one would miss completely the change of tone in the middle; did EAB pick up this habit from the subcontinent?)
Heh. I just noticed DJT literally used the words "extraordinary military operation" during his press conference; does VVP's «специальной» have vastly different connotations in ru from "extraordinary" in en? Unlikely to be intentional plagiarism, maybe just parallel evolution?
History repeats
But then again, it has to
Nobody listensLike: "weaponize constitution against executive branch".
https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/why-federal-courts-are-unli...
What was it you had in mind? A more effective ICJ?
(Some will argue, eg that getting ERII schooled in (nothing but) the subtleties didn't do anything)
Department Ministerium
of für
Homeland Staats-
Security sicherheit
so I'm probably just a whiner and malingerer.There's always the general lesson; even if Hillel[0] didn't get nailed to a stick[1] for preaching it, he doesn't seem to have many followers in, say, Likud.
A more specific lesson for the Old Country would be The Frogs Who Desired a King?
I've lifted^Wliberated this from somewhere, but can't remember where atm: the trouble with revolutions is that when they succeed[2], you rapidly discover that you didn't need a better government, you needed better people.
One reason I haven't finished the Durants' The Story of Civilization yet is that if you binge it, you rapidly discover that despite the pleasant turns of phrase, it's largely 13'549 pages of people treating each other poorly.
Pedantry to (nothing but): ERII could at least take a Landy offroad[3], even if in practice, as a lady, she often left it up to her chauffeur.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder#/media/File:H...
[1] I do love the characterisation in Master & Margherita which makes it sound like Mr. INRI was maybe on the spectrum (come to think of it, M&M is another frame story, but with the fantastic and realistic elements reversed)
[2] as the US 1776'ers, the Girondins, and the Mensheviks (to take just 3) might know?
[3] making her more accomplished than the modal Chelsea Tractor driver?
The law of large numbers suggests that all of the hegemons:
bellatores military ML
laboratores economic IEF
oratores political DI
should optimise their practices and procedures for the population mean[0]: although one of them will obviously have slightly better people at any given point, which one is subject to time and chance, and the odds that that advantage would be larger get exponentially smaller.(then again, the boundaries are more porous[1] than in the feudal days; I know of at least two MGIMO alums moonlighting in the economic realm)
[0] we've already covered 孫中山's triad, right?
[1] or are they? I think a typical "retirement plan" for an aging but rich bellator was to endow[2] a monastery with a comfortable amount of land, and then take orders there, because who would bump off an orator[3]? In the modern world, I see RAK (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/12/29/world/29FACEBOOK-...) has grown a long beard since I last saw him; is he in the process of transitioning from bellator to orator? Maybe not: he seems to be feeling acutely unwell.
[2] compare El Cid's provision for his wife and daughters; or even Goldmund's father "gifting" Blaze the pony
[3] compare "Hideyori's son, Kunimatsu (age 8) was captured and beheaded; his daughter Naahime (Princess Naa) (age 7) was sent to Tōkei-ji, a convent in Kamakura, where she later became the twentieth abbess Tenshūin (1608–1645)."
I'm not interrested in the mind of violent sociopaths as much as I'm interrested in that of the decent people who have to accept to live under their rule, not only because of the numbers involved. Rulers might be a bit shy about their motives at times (although I can apreciate a candid one), but living under one's reign is one of our strongest taboo - thus my interest.
On one hand, there's the option of voting with one's feet, which Zweig describes in "Die Welt von Gestern" (1942)
On the other hand, another alternative is "inner emigration", eg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innere_Emigration
On the gripping hand, there might be the possibility of ignoring wanna-be authoritarian leaders but convincing people not to follow them, à la https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24786278
Maybe there are more possibilities of which I am unaware; of these three, I chose the first.
Both those who voted for Trump or abstained from Harris believed they were acting _against_ authoritarians.
(BB was kinda fiction-in-a-fiction and would have provided no clue either for Harris and against Trump-- and 1984 (/Schachnovelle) didn't give a clue on how you might recognise an inner party-goer if you ran into one? Maybe Animal Farm would be better?)
Maybe it looks to you as if those who voted for Trump believed they were acting _against_ authoritarians, but I've lived among them.
I was still living in their midst when they tarred and feathered the Dixie Chicks (as they were then) for having the audacity to say GWB's Iraq Adventure might not be the most wonderful thing since sliced mayonnaise. (could we say they "cancelled" the Chicks?)
Then they claimed to be voting for DJT (a public figure whose bully bona fides go back at least 4 decades, eg https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6131533-trumpdeathpe... ) on an "isolationist" platform.
But now they're cheering Operation Southern Spear as if it were a homecoming game, as they did for GHB's Iraq. My local paper even had https://x.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266 (sorry for the X link) in it this morning.
They may say they're voting on a mind-your-own-business-principle, but whenever you look at what they do, they've consistently been voting on a leader-principle.
</anger>
Q. How do you describe a principled authoritarian follower?
A. "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind"
Inner Party Pigs
Outer Party Dogs
Proles the Equal animalsAsk PH (or Algolia it) about who he is angry with on the left. Those who drove the Swing voters (the prole equivalent of interchangeables) over to the other side or got Biden to "abdicate" . Loosely reminds me of the turncoats at Sekigahara and Bosworth Field
https://www.hkml.net/Discuz/viewthread.php?tid=125577
(*The rival camps that the Trump "inner corporatists" take seriously are SV "inner-outer party" (Shu Han?) and WallStreet/Fed (Wu?). With their bands of incorrigible rationalists/technocrats.
Imho Trump _wants_ leftist intellectuals distracted from his true strategy, and this is why he's more careful with Mamdani-- enemy of my enemy yada yada)
One of the ways to learn a smattering of a language would be to look at YouTube comments; sentences of the form "in YYYY they still made real music" and "is anyone watching in YYYY?" seem to occur in every natural language.
(for Sekigahara I wonder if part of the issue was credibility: if Tokugawa promises so many koku, you can be pretty sure you're getting them [and in the event he even lasted into his 70s] but if Ishida promises you so many koku, well, a lot can happen in 7-8 years: what are the chances that young Toyotomi will honour Ishida's old deals?)
Edit: come to think of it, both Shu and Wu do spend many of their waking hours trying to figure out how to intermediate themselves into any possible otherwise-dyadic transaction... Wei supposedly does as well, but compared with Shu and Wu, at least here, Wei has a light touch.
Re koku:
You bring the point that politics goes back to an older mode where one does not have to account for solidarity (so, not even morality)?
(Headspace is crowded. Might have to take things slowly.)
True, but you were talking about voting Trump/Harris, which pretty much implies the wide electorate, no matter who the real selectorate may be.
(speaking of selection, I completely forgot to include the judiciary in previous models. Would the whole Civil Rights thing have even happened if it hadn't been for the Warren Court?)
[Not that Warren was an angel, but despite his bigotry in other ways —or maybe because of it?— he was able to win state office by just winning both party's primaries, which I hadn't even known was a thing]
Now SV (purports to fill that role, as a champion of the "technocratic faction")
There's a wonderful line in one of the Retief stories where The Corps Diplomatique Terrestrien attempts to introduce "one sentient one vote" on some planet out in the galactic boondocks, and the natives instantly grasp its corollary: one less sentient, one less vote...
I'd believe the low of SV to be such a force; the high appear to be heading for https://www.angryflower.com/348.html , and I've been away for over half a lifetime, so I don't know what the mid may be doing. Blowing in the wind, probably?
Certainly casual Trump-watching is even less useful than the old days of Kremlin-watching; his inner circle changes so often (cue Bueno de Mesquita & Smith) that it's a good thing we have the web now — the airbrush artists probably would've organised and gone on strike if they'd had to keep up.
(I guess I should give DJT his due: I had thought the two party system was a structural problem, yet he's delivered an existence proof that it is indeed possible to do something about it)
* should someone send all 535 members of congress a copy of the snakebite article? It's not going to be me; that's their problem.
using those words as search terms yields:
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2/english/rep_supp7_vol1_a...
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2.shtml
In practice, command responsibility is generally upheld against losing commanders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
but an effective way to avoid being tried, at least in the short term, is to be a winning commander: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-02-02-0072-...
(Alexander the Great, on his deathbed, was asked who would inherit his empire; whether because he was an early "realist" or because he was apathetic or simply narcissistic [or?], he replied: the strongest)
Furthermore, even before the purely legal aspects of UCMJ, there's the plain common sense of Adm. Holsley (Ret.): https://www.southcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/Article/4359115...
> "To be a trusted partner, [SOUTHCOM] must be credible..."