右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
不难发现自由国际分子用来对付国际敌人的制裁手段，或者是已经、或者是注定要被自由派用在他们国内的对手身上。他们对制裁所伤害的平民没有任何怜悯，不论他国还是本国。
美国在很多安全无保障的地区资助了生物实验室，有些地方是科学共同体不守规则，有些地方是潜在的冲突高发区。去年你质疑这个做法的合理性，搞不好被打成右翼阴谋论者，今年质疑，可能就要背上敌对势力传声筒的骂名。主流媒体总会塑造应时的narrative来屏蔽对主流科学界的任何非议。
科学家一旦挑战主流媒体的核心narrative，比如斗胆声称武汉病毒源于实验室，或者lockdown弊大于利，就自动失去了主流媒体的保护，成为千夫所指的异端。因此主流媒体和主流科学界之间有隐秘的利益交换：科学家支持或者至少不反对主流媒体的narrative，换取主流媒体narrative对他们权威的维护。类似传染病专家支持BLM在疫情期间集会的做法，是利益交换的一部分。
上述利益交换的指向是塑造一个驯顺而尊贵的科学家阶层，他们的真理不能逾越统治阶层设立的社会规范，他们的角色是将主流意识形态神圣化的祭司团体。
科学家一旦挑战主流媒体的核心narrative，比如斗胆声称武汉病毒源于实验室，或者lockdown弊大于利，就自动失去了主流媒体的保护，成为千夫所指的异端。因此主流媒体和主流科学界之间有隐秘的利益交换：科学家支持或者至少不反对主流媒体的narrative，换取主流媒体narrative对他们权威的维护。类似传染病专家支持BLM在疫情期间集会的做法，是利益交换的一部分。
上述利益交换的指向是塑造一个驯顺而尊贵的科学家阶层，他们的真理不能逾越统治阶层设立的社会规范，他们的角色是将主流意识形态神圣化的祭司团体。
专门看了一下有关经济制裁效果的研究，从Economic Sanctions Reconsidered这本书最后一章里选了一些内容堆在了这个帖子里，题目是自拟的：
Be realistic about what economic sanctions can do
整章全文链接在最后。
Be realistic about what economic sanctions can do
整章全文链接在最后。
Turncoat Don @TurncoatD
Batya Ungar-Sargon on the evolution of journalism from working class trade to ranks of the elite. From Bill Maher 3/11/22.
https://twitter.com/TurncoatD/status/1502770558341050370
记者的责任是speaking truth to power, 而他们现在成了power结构中的一层。
Batya Ungar-Sargon on the evolution of journalism from working class trade to ranks of the elite. From Bill Maher 3/11/22.
https://twitter.com/TurncoatD/status/1502770558341050370
记者的责任是speaking truth to power, 而他们现在成了power结构中的一层。
不少亲西方人士非常支持西方在对敌斗争时降低文明标准来打击对手，他们把文明社会规则看作可以在不择手段的斗争中抛弃的摆设，这种态度不幸确证了他们仍然被蛮夷的出身局限着视野。他们看不到轻易地降低标准打击会让西方赢了世界、丢了灵魂。
有些洼地键政家动辄意淫西方为了推广“普世价值”让自己的人民抛头颅洒热血，是很丑陋的。他们意淫西方精妙布局，让小国受难以便挫败主要对手，并对此大加赞赏，也是很丑陋的。他们意淫自己仇恨的大众被施以不人道的对待，并对此进行道德辩护，同样是丑陋的。西方不需要这样的支持者，洼地是他们永远的精神家园。
奥巴马说自己打了三针以后还是感染了武毒，各大媒体立刻把Pfizer的CEO请进演播室，宣传打第四针的必要性，个个都是Big Pharma的肉喇叭。
Tom Elliott @tomselliott
Today in Journalism:
CBS This Morning lands interview w/ Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla, doesn’t ask about recently disclosed report on adverse events.
Gayle King: “I’m a Pfizer girl!”
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1500829022963605509
Tom Elliott @tomselliott
Today in Journalism:
CBS This Morning lands interview w/ Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla, doesn’t ask about recently disclosed report on adverse events.
Gayle King: “I’m a Pfizer girl!”
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1500829022963605509
文明程度越低的社会越喜欢意淫/鼓励/歌颂儿童参战，苏联有小夜莺把德国鬼子引入埋伏圈的故事，还被收入了中国课本，中国有小兵张嘎和王二小，伊斯兰国有一批童兵。
Rasmussen Reports @Rasmussen_Poll
"If a wider war breaks out in Europe, should the U.S. military be involved?"
All Voters - Yes - 49%
- Yes by Income -
Under $30K: 37%
$30-50K: 48%
$50-100K: 51%
$100-200K: 52%
Over $200K: 66%
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1498778759893327872
可见平民主义和反战立场的联系不是偶然。
"If a wider war breaks out in Europe, should the U.S. military be involved?"
All Voters - Yes - 49%
- Yes by Income -
Under $30K: 37%
$30-50K: 48%
$50-100K: 51%
$100-200K: 52%
Over $200K: 66%
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1498778759893327872
可见平民主义和反战立场的联系不是偶然。
历史怎样评判欧盟和“端起碗来吃饭，放下碗骂娘”的波兰、匈牙利的冲突，不取决于后两者是否违反欧盟法规或者和专制国家眉来眼去，因为欧盟如今的法规本身未必经得起历史评判，而说到与专制国家勾兑，多瑙河红太阳和欧州核心国家不过是百步和五十步之别。决定后人看法的是在这些大是大非的问题上哪一边是对的：一个国家是否应该对接收哪些移民、多少移民有最终决定权？导致社会种群急剧改变的无限制的大规模移民是否可行？是否应该遏制到处搞文化颜色革命的自由主义国际势力？社会有没有理由立法保证其永续发展所需的非自由主义/反进步主义基础？
假如上述问题的答案倒向波匈一边，那么他们难看的吃相在史书上会被描绘成在一个疯狂的时代里理智而勇敢的政治姿态。
历史怎么评判两国当然不取决于民小怎么看。说到底，任何重要的对错是非都不取决于民小怎么看。
假如上述问题的答案倒向波匈一边，那么他们难看的吃相在史书上会被描绘成在一个疯狂的时代里理智而勇敢的政治姿态。
历史怎么评判两国当然不取决于民小怎么看。说到底，任何重要的对错是非都不取决于民小怎么看。
军工复合体的刽子手们磨刀霍霍，准备用又一代美国年轻人的鲜血为干涉主义祭旗。他们在新闻界的喉舌仍然像伊战时那样丑恶。
说到历史评判，历史会用一个简单的标准评判疯狂而危险的2022年：当事人的说法、做法是在平息冲突，还是火上浇油？Escalate or de-escalate? 经受评判的不只是恶人，还有暗怀私心和丧失理智的好人。
二十年后美国某监狱里，三位犯人谈起入狱的原因。
几年前进来的那个人说：“我反对AOC, 法庭说我不够进步”。
去年进来的那个说：“我没倾家荡产支持AOC, 法庭说我不够进步”。
刚刚进来那个说：“我是AOC, 法庭说我不够进步”。
几年前进来的那个人说：“我反对AOC, 法庭说我不够进步”。
去年进来的那个说：“我没倾家荡产支持AOC, 法庭说我不够进步”。
刚刚进来那个说：“我是AOC, 法庭说我不够进步”。
如果设计一张调查问卷，检验亲西方人士政治是否成熟，有一个问题应该列入其中：“你是否认为自由之家每年的全球报告是衡量一个国家政治文明程度的至高无上的标准，还是仅仅若干重要标准之一？”
正好借这个检验保守派成色的危局推荐一些神智清醒的右翼分子：
Allum Bokhari Breitbart记者，专注于批判互联网巨头
Christopher Rufo City Journal专栏作家，活动在对抗种族批判理论的前线
Jordan Schachtel 反对外交主流的国际政治评论家
Lauren Southern 纪录片导演，拍过南非种族仇杀、欧洲移民危机、美国种族暴乱的影片
Patrick Buchanan Paleocon的代表，右翼平民派先驱
Pedro Gonzalez Chronicles编辑，活跃的右翼平民派
Ryan James Girdusky The American Conservative专栏作家，关注民调和选举
Sohrab Ahmari The American Conservative编辑，近年出现的Post-liberal的代表
Steve Sailer Taki's Magazine专栏作家，专注于种族问题
Yoram Hazony 作家，代表作The Virtue of Nationalism, National Conservatism Conference牵头人
Allum Bokhari Breitbart记者，专注于批判互联网巨头
Christopher Rufo City Journal专栏作家，活动在对抗种族批判理论的前线
Jordan Schachtel 反对外交主流的国际政治评论家
Lauren Southern 纪录片导演，拍过南非种族仇杀、欧洲移民危机、美国种族暴乱的影片
Patrick Buchanan Paleocon的代表，右翼平民派先驱
Pedro Gonzalez Chronicles编辑，活跃的右翼平民派
Ryan James Girdusky The American Conservative专栏作家，关注民调和选举
Sohrab Ahmari The American Conservative编辑，近年出现的Post-liberal的代表
Steve Sailer Taki's Magazine专栏作家，专注于种族问题
Yoram Hazony 作家，代表作The Virtue of Nationalism, National Conservatism Conference牵头人
很多亲西方人士攻击西方自私其实是出于自私的理由，想流欧洲人、美国人的血来换取自己无力建立的政治秩序。不论他们的动机如何值得同情，他们在有机会影响西方决策时的所作所为总以拉欧美下水为目标。西方内部的好战分子和狂想家会无视本国核心利益，配合他演一出大戏，让平民甘愿把子弟送到遥远的异乡受死或者杀戮。当年谎报萨达姆有WMD的伊拉克吹哨人就是成功的诱骗者。不要再给这类人成功的机会。
Mitch McConnell这种头脑永远停留在冷战时期的活化石早就不适合领导GOP了。他不知道也不关心基层选民想要什么，像他的许多同僚一样，做了一辈子大企业、军工复合体、华盛顿uniparty的poster boy.
Michael Millerman @M_Millerman
Two political tendencies in Russia's history over the centuries, meeting in Putin, who recently moved decisively upward on this chart, away from Europeanization towards Eurasianism.
https://twitter.com/M_Millerman/status/1504497251464458247
Michael Millerman @M_Millerman
This is from Alexander Dugin's book called Martin Heidegger: The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, which I'm translating. The first part will be out later this year through
@canonicxyz.
https://twitter.com/M_Millerman/status/1504497686237655045
Two political tendencies in Russia's history over the centuries, meeting in Putin, who recently moved decisively upward on this chart, away from Europeanization towards Eurasianism.
https://twitter.com/M_Millerman/status/1504497251464458247
Michael Millerman @M_Millerman
This is from Alexander Dugin's book called Martin Heidegger: The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, which I'm translating. The first part will be out later this year through
@canonicxyz.
https://twitter.com/M_Millerman/status/1504497686237655045
Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.
- Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, 1993
- Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, 1993
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, 1938
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, 1938
一个基本判断：一个人或者一群人，由容忍专制转向支持民主，这会不会令他们的品性得到立刻提升？如果看看海外民运支性难改的样子，答案应该是不会。不论是个人的还是集体的德性，都是远比对政体的态度复杂的东西。所有预设德性在一个民族转身之际可以瞬间飙升的话语，都是虚假宣传。所有轻信这些宣传的决策都会在现实面前变得苍白。
文化战不是单靠论证能赢的，进步派影响不断扩大不是因为他们有最好的论证。他们在自由主义为他们铺好的平台上巧妙而坚定地运作了权力，如此而已。精妙的论证本质上是少数人自娱娱人的游戏，社运需要的动力远比论证更可感也更坚实。能将文化战逆转的军团是千千万万虽然不擅抽象思考，却心地善良、现实感健全的白丁。团结他们需要的是强韧的社群、明智的政策、以及在恰当时刻毫不怯懦地展示行政权力。
>>文化战不是单靠论证能赢的，进步派影响不断扩大不是因为他们有最好的论证。他们在自由主义为他们铺好的平台...
进步分子如今能让生理男性大大方方地站上女子体育的领奖台，剥夺本应属于女性的荣誉，侮辱公众的基本认知，是以理服人的结果吗？不是。对抗这出荒谬的丑剧需要什么高深的理论，严密的论证吗？不需要。需要的是无数愿意保卫社会的民众团结起来，需要的是代表他们在一纸禁令上签字的手腕。有些关涉权力运作的问题没有不以运用权力为核心的解决。谁认为在是非如此分明的基础问题上也要搞一场大规模辩论或者全社会协商才能采取行动，他要么是想为自己的阶级僭取权力的知识分子，要么是受了他们蛊惑。
认为在政治可以彻底理性化，认为某种抽象的理性在政治中是一切并非全然理性的因素——信仰、常识、传统、风俗、民族情感——的终极判官，是自大的幻想。
>>Michael Millerman @M_MillermanTwo political tenden...Some (chinese) said , Alexander Dugin represents the evilness of Russian Chauvinism.
>>Some (chinese) said , Alexander Dugin represents t...
杜金因为时局被人不时扯到，但没什么人认真读他。我电脑上有一本他的《第四政治理论》的英文版，大致看了几眼，觉得比洼地国师刘小枫、甘阳之流高出不少。至于有没有他的粉丝们说的那么深刻，就不知道了。
其实反贼们真正需要的是一场“小翻译运动”，翻一些主流之外的作家丰富一下思想和话语。在反贼的处境中最能激发思考的可能是意识形态光谱边缘的作家，刘仲敬是最显著的例子。
在twitter上观察了一下“大翻译”的情况，受众大多是懂中文的人，文明世界似乎没有太大兴趣观摩洼地生物的丑态。我感觉它在政治上能带来一个不大不小的改变：将来西方考虑该不该在全面制裁强国时把国人要遭的罪当作可以容忍collateral damage, 这些翻译可以给主张应该的人提供一个论据。该论据在当下的对应物是“俄国人七成投票给普京”。
>>进步分子如今能，剥夺本应属于女性的荣誉，侮辱公众的基本认知，是以理服人的结果吗？不是。对抗这出荒谬的...
刚看到这图 感觉共和党应该好好宣传一下拉拢中间女性 帮助恢复正常价值观 民主党既然选择统战成本更小更有利的LGBTQ群体 那之前的女性权力资源肯定会被顶替 这下可以感受下白男的待遇了
>>认为在政治可以彻底理性化，认为某种抽象的理性在政治中是一切并非全然理性的因素——信仰、常识、传统、风俗、民族情感——的终极判官，是自大的幻想。
这种幻想，却可以无视理性，让一时情感满足之愚众按照给他们灌输幻想者的理性算计来行动。
归根到底还是理性的，某些人过度膨胀到已经失控的那种。
>>精妙的论证本质上是少数人自娱娱人的游戏，社运需要的动力远比论证更可感也更坚实。能将文化战逆转的军团是千千万万虽然不擅抽象思考，却心地善良、现实感健全的白丁。团结他们需要的是强韧的社群、明智的政策、以及在恰当时刻毫不怯懦地展示行政权力。
如果这种逻辑是真，那么也就是说，他们其实需要做到「服从情感，是人类的生活方式」这种地步。因为要说「常识」，一般人的常识其实和坚定的情感认同分不开。否则，他们就能轻易说服，而不是「容易操纵的愚众」。常识这个词最适合的定义，也就是「熟悉」。堪称西方十九世纪理性人代表的帕累托，早就在他那本今天没几个人会再看的社会学经典里指出了「熟悉，所以情感认同」的人性真理。
但「白丁」们或人民这种「服从情感」的存在状态，其实从来就没有改变过，看《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》就明白，看看之后的苏格拉底之死也明白。
只要做到一次情感上的共鸣，愚众就在你的手中，主流媒体做这些事有多容易呢？当年的亚历山大六世就十分透彻地明白了必须禁止古登堡印刷机的必要性。但一个真正理性的人，是不会去努力从事根本无法做到之事的。所以，当年那位教皇硬是想这么做，只不过是顺应自己真正的情感而已。同理，现在仍然在思考「变回去」的，也很难说自己不是囿于情感……
另外，有什么社运，能超过让英国再次独立，又把川普送进白宫的那一次？
=========================
非抬杠，只想以理性说事，尽量摒弃情感式思路和结论。
>>刚看到这图 感觉共和党应该好好宣传一下拉拢中间女性 帮助恢复正常价值观 民主党既然选择统战成本更小更有利的LGBTQ群体 那之前的女性权力资源肯定会被顶替 这下可以感受下白男的待遇了
选择边缘是颠覆者的自然倾向，也是最简单的识别标志，就和认三叶草差不多。
但反着做不等于一定有利于选票，毕竟运动员的票太少，而喜欢「看稀奇」的观众票太多。这一点很重要，特别是对需要（门）票的那一帮各种组织、企业、媒体，以及在各种政府发饷的左类社会（颠覆）组织的苦哈哈打工仔们。他们一样是大群的票。
所以，几个可怜巴巴的女性运动员的遭遇，即便心酸，即使催人落泪，但在选票这个绝对的政治正确面前不重要。They don't matter now, and they won't matter in the foreseeable future.
========================
千万别以自己的理性去顶替愚众的神经反射回路。
这种自虐瘾我已经满足了十辈子的份量，以后会见人就劝「苦海无边，回头是岸」。
>>杜金因为时局被人不时扯到，但没什么人认真读他。我电脑上有一本他的《第四政治理论》的英文版，大致看了几眼，觉得比洼地国师刘小枫、甘阳之流高出不少。至于有没有他的粉丝们说的那么深刻，就不知道了。...
意识形态服务于权力，就和军师服务于军阀的性质一样。深刻与否，端看效果，比如：
>>在twitter上观察了一下“大翻译”的情况，受众大多是懂中文的人，文明世界似乎没有太大兴趣观摩洼地生物的丑态。我感觉它在政治上能带来一个不大不小的改变：将来西方考虑该不该在全面制裁强国时把国人要遭的罪当作可以容忍collateral damage, 这些翻译可以给主张应该的人提供一个论据。该论据在当下的对应物是“俄国人七成投票给普京”。
这些「自愿」为某个意识形态主张而卖力「揭丑」的人，他们自发行动就是效果的体现。推着他们行动的是情感。
出于自己价值行动的人，则会把重点放在以价值为尺度的「批判」上。理性在主导。
虽然看起来他们都在同样行动，但是「他」「们」之间是没有交集的。若光以看表面的错觉为准，就和投身共产主义革命的社会改良理想家犯的错一模一样，即分不清在什么时候自己用情感做了决定，却偏偏以为是理性思考的结果。
所以，杜金的精神与现实价值评判，实在轮不到俄罗斯的「外人」们。也确实是真的没意义，如果不是能靠自己嘴皮子应用一下去锁定去研究俄罗斯观念史的资金的话。
我个人的感觉是，和 history of philosophy 相比，其实 history of ideas 毫无意义。就像罗杰·斯克鲁顿所说，“大多数人无法理解真实，所以谬误总是有更大的社会影响力”。而且这类观念谬误，其实每个时代都一样。
说出「幸福的家庭都相似」的那位俄国文豪，显然对「价值」的认知就是他自己真心认可的那一种。其实真正的状况是，通往真理的道路处处皆有，而谬误的小径永远都是那几条，缺乏变化的单调，看多了真是腻得恶心。但那又怎样？人能认识所谓世界的规律，不就是靠经得起时间考验吗？
挑个美国的「不幸」社区，家家走访一下，看看「毒品」、「早性早育」、「破碎家庭」、「福利」、「教育」、「寄养家庭」、「种族」、「帮派」、「抱怨」之类的词还有没有不能覆盖到的？观念上的那就更简单了，除了「非逻辑」、「反逻辑」之外，还有什么？但对大多数人来说，能随心所欲不就是绝对幸福的唯一定义吗？
这类，无非社会之外的原子化散沙，一点小钱就能卖命，所以权力者利用起来容易，所以要福利，毕竟「养兵千日，用兵一时」。真的变成「社会人」了，哪来的方便又廉价炮灰可用？这些炮灰也是事实性的烂泥扶不上墙，谁愿意花，谁又有这么多资源去扶？这么做的价值又何在？进步？改变？就是好就是好就是好？那不就是用炮灰之前的准备吗？
然而即便是明白这些事的Candace Owens或是Thomas Sowell，能这么说吗？他们又不像gratesque这个ID一样不怕社死。而且话一出口，他们这种人想做的事就已经败了。就跟那位大骂黑人「就是下贱，承认吧！」的黑人牧师一样。情感成了对立，就再也不可能有所谓理性和沟通了。
如果，你既不想做苏格拉底，也不想做卡珊德拉，那么……你知道我想说什么了。总之，改换一下自己的理性观察（包括情感认同）位置比较好。
========================
现在我真的明白了：真话，只能由不怕社死的人说。
何清涟那种稀有之人，汉语圈儿内我真的只见到过一个。能这么做，其实就已经踏上了名为荣誉的巅峰。
新保和自由国际分子鼓励强力干涉的理由，用中国话讲，是正邪不两立，民主不偏安。战争贩子Bill Kristol的讲法是民主不能在专制政权满世界扩张的情况下于本土苟全。按这个思路，假若不能在欧洲边陲痛击沙皇，沙皇的盟友会在多瑙河畔巩固统治，在爱丽舍宫篡班夺权，在宾州大道复辟成功。在赫尔松被践踏的、在马留浦被围攻的、在敖德萨受威胁的，是西方民主的未来。对这番扯淡，只需指出它和让美国陷入越战的多米诺骨牌理论，以及发动中东战争的源头反恐理论，是同一套愚蠢逻辑。
“这个国家出生率低，所以该国掌权的保守分子不是真保守”难道不是一个很搞笑的推理吗？提升出生率难道是保守分子想提高就能立刻提高的？而且你一查他们嘲笑的那些国家的执政党，个个都是付出了实际努力促进生育的，这不正是保守分子做他们该做的事儿吗？
>>“这个国家出生率低，所以该国掌权的保守分子不是真保守”难道不是一个很搞笑的推理吗？提升出生率难道是保...誰說的
>>关于过去几年顿巴斯平民生活的两部纪录片：
中文世界反复出現的觀點
多伦多星报复述了最近一项基于民调的研究，主题是对疫苗的态度和对俄乌战争态度的关联，调查结果显示对接种疫苗的开放态度和支持政府介入俄乌冲突高度正相关：
星报转述说：
The study concludes the results point “to the highly corrosive influences of disinformation.”
“This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that’s contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision-making. And it doesn’t seem to be going away. Things are getting worse,” said Graves. “I don’t think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians. They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”
所以研究者的结论，用直白的语言说，是我们的社会里有一群白痴，他们看的信息来源在疫苗和俄乌冲突问题上造谣，这帮偏听偏信的白痴是民主的威胁，积极注射疫苗的反俄好公民才是我们的榜样。此为如何利用“中立”研究来生产意识形态党派话语之一例。
如何基于以上民调得出一个相对无偏见的结论？考虑以下两组由两个态度组成的立场，哪一组更“自然”，或者说其形成过程更少依赖于权威的宣导：
A: 允许权威机构向自己体内一次两次三次地注射物质 / 支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
B: 不允许权威机构向自己体内注射物质 / 不支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
显然B更“自然”。采纳A要求主体对权威的宣导和行为有高度信任，这种信任是长期规训的结果。涉及的权威不仅是主流媒体，还有科学共同体、政府、经济组织和军队。接受A的公民相信主流媒体基本讲真话，而且掌管社会各领域的精英能把事情办好。所以民调里两类人的差别，用更中立的话语描述，是对权威（及其塑造的主流意识形态）的信任程度之别。
虽然任何社会都需要对权威的信任才能运作，但流于盲从的信任会将社会带入迷途，民主社会也不例外。知识分子眼中好公民对于民主的威胁，恐怕不比“白痴”更小。
星报转述说：
The study concludes the results point “to the highly corrosive influences of disinformation.”
“This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that’s contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision-making. And it doesn’t seem to be going away. Things are getting worse,” said Graves. “I don’t think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians. They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”
所以研究者的结论，用直白的语言说，是我们的社会里有一群白痴，他们看的信息来源在疫苗和俄乌冲突问题上造谣，这帮偏听偏信的白痴是民主的威胁，积极注射疫苗的反俄好公民才是我们的榜样。此为如何利用“中立”研究来生产意识形态党派话语之一例。
如何基于以上民调得出一个相对无偏见的结论？考虑以下两组由两个态度组成的立场，哪一组更“自然”，或者说其形成过程更少依赖于权威的宣导：
A: 允许权威机构向自己体内一次两次三次地注射物质 / 支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
B: 不允许权威机构向自己体内注射物质 / 不支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
显然B更“自然”。采纳A要求主体对权威的宣导和行为有高度信任，这种信任是长期规训的结果。涉及的权威不仅是主流媒体，还有科学共同体、政府、经济组织和军队。接受A的公民相信主流媒体基本讲真话，而且掌管社会各领域的精英能把事情办好。所以民调里两类人的差别，用更中立的话语描述，是对权威（及其塑造的主流意识形态）的信任程度之别。
虽然任何社会都需要对权威的信任才能运作，但流于盲从的信任会将社会带入迷途，民主社会也不例外。知识分子眼中好公民对于民主的威胁，恐怕不比“白痴”更小。
每次一个高法法官进医院，反对他的那一边就盼着他死，实在是美国社交媒体上最不体面的景象之一。
>>每次一个高法法官进医院，反对他的那一边就盼着他死，实在是美国社交媒体上最不体面的景象之一。不一定，左派判大法官死是不考慮左右的（比如逼布雷耶提早退休）只會考慮重新提名一個年輕的馬克思主義法官。
>>考虑以下两组由两个态度组成的立场，哪一组更“自然”，或者说其形成过程更少依赖于权威的宣导：
A: 允许权威机构向自己体内一次两次三次地注射物质 / 支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
B: 不允许权威机构向自己体内注射物质 / 不支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
显然B更“自然”。采纳A要求主体对权威的宣导和行为有高度信任，这种信任是长期规训的结果。涉及的权威不仅是主流媒体，还有科学共同体、政府、经济组织和军队。接受A的公民相信主流媒体基本讲真话，而且掌管社会各领域的精英能把事情办好。所以民调里两类人的差别，用更中立的话语描述，是对权威（及其塑造的主流意识形态）的信任程度之别。
虽然任何社会都需要对权威的信任才能运作，但流于盲从的信任会将社会带入迷途，民主社会也不例外。知识分子眼中好公民对于民主的威胁，恐怕不比“白痴”更小。
这几段，看起来的感觉就像是正在读汤因比《历史研究》在现实中的新案例。
「当“超人”们无法成功地获得大众发自真心认同的追随，那么一种强制性的社会（重复）训练就会取而代之」
（上面是按照我记忆和理解的大致意思，重新表述一次。真感兴趣的人应该去读《历史研究》的原文版）
从没几个人看得见的历史真实而言，在希腊--罗马的土壤中，诞生于基督教这枚种子的西方文明，如今也正式进入了汤因比所说disintegration的阶段。Spengler以自己的诗性直觉所感知到的东西其实没错，尽管他不能表达得像汤因比一样清楚。现在各种把suicide of the west用来吸引眼球的时髦title们，相对来说，其实已经比鸡毛蒜皮还要鸡毛蒜皮。而在此类话题开始流行的二十多年前，亨廷顿以晦涩的方式再说一遍他的前人们说过的话，也没有更好的效果。所以，基本上可以做结论了：文明社会的自然趋势不可改变。
比Spengler更早的尼采其实也差不多明白了，然而独自一个人面对那种绝对的黑暗与孤独，他的下场就是我们看到的那种。和多少有些哪怕是争议和充满敌意的关注的Spengler与Toynbee相对比，在世之时真真正正没人懂的Nietzsche只能说是不幸。
在《历史研究》中还有一句我记得十分清楚的：「……所以吉本是错的，基督教并没有杀死罗马，而是迈步跨过了一具尸体」。
我真心认为，咱们这类人面对disintegration的时段，只有两个真正有意义的选择：
- 加入（前提是顺应社会，或者说「大形势」的方向。任何「功成名就」，舍此前提就不复存在）
- 继续以自己的方式，坚持保有那份生命力，以留在后世「跨过那具尸体」的文明末裔兼再生者的记忆和血脉中。（在这种视角下，基督教乃至整个西方文明的 'death and rebirth' 这一主题，就将在尼采以痛苦的文字表述的 eternal recurrence 之中再来一次）
什么都不做，那其实是选择了「被大形势带着走」，或者叫「做头在沼泽里快快乐乐享受泥巴浴的猪」。
想要得兼也是不行的，人不可能同一时间既往左又往右。今天往前，明天退后，满足的是游疑不定的心，不是现实的欲求，更不是价值所寄托的愿望。
>>每次一个高法法官进医院，反对他的那一边就盼着他死，实在是美国社交媒体上最不体面的景象之一。
这是民主政治的现实，或者叫自然的归宿，是苏格拉底也坦然接受的民主之结晶。（或者对今天更合适的说法，叫「结石」）
原因只能如此总结：民主所养育的「民主人」，必定渐渐无法真正维持民主的基石。托克维尔算是在两个世纪前就明白了美国的民主今天要面对的麻烦。
Patrick Lee Miller @Plato4Now
To people hoping for a palace coup: which general, which oligarch, which minister would you prefer to Putin? What is his path to power? Are you confident he’d be better, not worse? Serious question, to which Navalny and Russian Liberals are not a serious answer.
There is a fantasy here in the West that the ‘90’s were a period of nascent Liberalism in Russia that Putin ended. But from what I gather, few Russians remember the ‘90’s fondly. Instead, they suffered under the oligarchs the West enabled, discrediting Liberalism in their eyes.
Rather than ending their period of freedom with despotism, Putin is seen as reigning in the corruption of the oligarchs, restoring stability and a small measure of popular prosperity. Perhaps this will change now as his economy staggers and he contemplates martial law.
Time will tell. But unless the troubles ahead for Russia shuffle its domestic politics, the constituency for Navalny and the Russian Liberals is more in Western dreams than Russian polls. A successor to Putin, in sum, could end up being more nationalistic and more aggressive.
https://twitter.com/Plato4Now/status/1499469119825002501
To people hoping for a palace coup: which general, which oligarch, which minister would you prefer to Putin? What is his path to power? Are you confident he’d be better, not worse? Serious question, to which Navalny and Russian Liberals are not a serious answer.
There is a fantasy here in the West that the ‘90’s were a period of nascent Liberalism in Russia that Putin ended. But from what I gather, few Russians remember the ‘90’s fondly. Instead, they suffered under the oligarchs the West enabled, discrediting Liberalism in their eyes.
Rather than ending their period of freedom with despotism, Putin is seen as reigning in the corruption of the oligarchs, restoring stability and a small measure of popular prosperity. Perhaps this will change now as his economy staggers and he contemplates martial law.
Time will tell. But unless the troubles ahead for Russia shuffle its domestic politics, the constituency for Navalny and the Russian Liberals is more in Western dreams than Russian polls. A successor to Putin, in sum, could end up being more nationalistic and more aggressive.
https://twitter.com/Plato4Now/status/1499469119825002501
No matter what they wish, I got the feelings that very few are gonna be truly happy when the war in Ukraine finally halts.
Too little attention to ongoing reality, too much emotion and wishful-thinking.
Yes, the Western World outside Ukraine is not literally fighting a war-for-the-pleasure-of-carnage, but they are already getting drunk on the imaginary booze branded as 'Russian Blood' or 'Russian Suffering'.
Unfortunately, that is brewed from nameless Ukrainian material.
Too little attention to ongoing reality, too much emotion and wishful-thinking.
Yes, the Western World outside Ukraine is not literally fighting a war-for-the-pleasure-of-carnage, but they are already getting drunk on the imaginary booze branded as 'Russian Blood' or 'Russian Suffering'.
Unfortunately, that is brewed from nameless Ukrainian material.
>>中文世界反复出現的觀點
我现在根本不看品葱之外中文世界的观点，所以没法衡量自己是否违反这条。我还有一个在品葱不受待见的观点是像Aidar battalion, Azov battalion这些被多个人权组织记录残害平民行为的团体在乌克兰能有相当的势力，是乌克兰“俄性未除”的明证。品葱一些人对他们的辩护是“你怎么能光说他们，不说俄罗斯新纳粹和亲俄民兵的暴行”，其实承认了两边的民团性质类似。其中之一幸运地站在了正确的一边，所以即使在欧美的舆论场内也受到了保护。“俄性未除”是贯穿整个乌克兰方方面面的问题，这个现实是两场民主革命不足以改变、国内外配合的正面宣传不足以遮掩的。
马克思主义者的历史解释让我警惕的一点是他们往往通过把某事物放到历史背景中来“重塑”对该事物的价值判断。背景化的理解有时揭示关于价值的真相，有时恐怕根本与它无涉。比如《浮士德》是不是好书和它是否“资产阶级上升期精神的反映”有什么关系呢？进步派意在揭示某个风俗、制度、政策黑暗落后的历史渊源的考古学也与此类似。
>>马克思主义者的历史解释让我警惕的一点是他们往往通过把某事物放到历史背景中来“重塑”对该事物的价值判断。背景化的理解有时揭示关于价值的真相，有时恐怕根本与它无涉。比如《浮士德》的是不是好书和它是否是“资产阶级上升期精神的反映”有什么关系呢？进步派意在揭示某个风俗、制度、政策黑暗落后的历史渊源的考古学也与此类似。
Welcome to Project 1619, the 'most progressive'! Let's replace HISstory with OURstory!
------------------------------------
Ironically, if we follow this sort of 'remake-story' logic, then inevitably in the end, the story will never count, it is the men who make it count.
The progressive have No real faith in any Truth, their only interest is to have lies piling up and up, yet such labor does seem to need real man-hours from those incapable of dealing with real problems and providing real results. Those who make that free lunch possible will have to make the next simple decision: to live with them or not.
How hard will that be?
加拿大特鲁多又开始整活了
>>加拿大特鲁多又开始整活了
新福利清单看着就像由一整個社会出演安乐死的大型现场真人秀。代价自然是某些无言者身上的重担。
这下又会有人跳出来高唱「生于忧患，死于安乐」了吧？但讽刺的是，那些自誉「生于忧患」之人，不就一门心思盯着安乐，才能坚持下来吗？
所有看着美国、加拿大在自由之家年度报告——或者根据其他什么观念构想的歧视链上——颇高的排位，觉得两国一切安好的人，都是在西方内部问题上的岁静派。不幸的岁静派会看着他们视域边缘的小问题越来越大，直到变成吞噬他们整个存在的危机。幸运的岁静派之幸运，在于他警觉的同胞们愿意付出巨大的代价为他排除问题。
泽连斯基现在做的是他的本行：在镜头前演他不是的人。这次他演的是西方民主的希望。过去二十年里败坏了西方民主治理的庸碌之辈们正在这个kabuki theater里为他喝彩。
Steve Sailer @Steve_Sailer
A big problem with American intellectual discourse is the broad assumption that what you see in the world everyday with your own eyes is WRONG because it reflects stereotypes and tropes, that true intellectuals never let street-level reality intrude on their intellectualizing.
https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1506742011021316098
A big problem with American intellectual discourse is the broad assumption that what you see in the world everyday with your own eyes is WRONG because it reflects stereotypes and tropes, that true intellectuals never let street-level reality intrude on their intellectualizing.
https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1506742011021316098
我以前不知道小布什为了给伊战找理由，想过这个诡计：
“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”
而同一个想法在克林顿—奥尔布赖特政府就有过，转述者是Hugh Shelton将军：
Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger’s table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day.
During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection.
At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”
The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can ...” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.
“You can?” was the excited reply.
“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that....”
“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”
Shelton将军认为无谓地牺牲美国人来伤害敌人在道德上说不过去。显然当时白宫里有些人不同意这个道德观。今天白宫里有些人也不同意。
“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”
而同一个想法在克林顿—奥尔布赖特政府就有过，转述者是Hugh Shelton将军：
Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger’s table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day.
During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection.
At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”
The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can ...” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.
“You can?” was the excited reply.
“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that....”
“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”
Shelton将军认为无谓地牺牲美国人来伤害敌人在道德上说不过去。显然当时白宫里有些人不同意这个道德观。今天白宫里有些人也不同意。
>>时势造英雄 政客的本质并不会改变 总要有英雄人物来做榜样
他配得上英雄的称号，是由于他没有逃跑，担当了战时领袖的角色。然而角色不能改变他的底色：一个典型的乌克兰腐败政客。他是寡头Igor Kolomoisky的傀儡，本人也设立了离岸公司处理黑钱。有些人愿意出于各种目的称颂他的角色而淡忘他的底色，有些人不愿意。
美国政界、军界、文化界、新闻界的干涉狂们把他发明成模范民主领袖，是为了给他们的反俄冒进主张提供能量。他们想要的头一件事就是让北约冒着核战的风险修理俄国，退而求其次，也要把乌克兰变成八十年代的阿富汗，用一场越暴烈越好、越持久越好的冲突给俄罗斯放血，哪怕以本国平民的负担为代价。任何觉得这两个目标不可取的人都无需欣赏这出演员和观众相互利用的戏剧。
>>A big problem with American intellectual discourse is the broad assumption that what you see in the world everyday with your own eyes is WRONG because it reflects stereotypes and tropes, that true intellectuals never let street-level reality intrude on their intellectualizing.
"Are you a biologist?"
"I'm not a biologist."
近期的两次发生在不同场合的关于“什么是女人”的对话，认为凭借常识无法判定男女的进步派都说判断的权力应该交给生物学家。这个思路指向削减大众的日常话语权，将其转交给知识精英。
然而，获得权力的并不是随便什么知识精英。进步派不尊重反对他们的科学家，那些认为武毒源于实验室或者lockdown并非良策的科学家已经于现世预尝了在进步派乌托邦里做异议分子的滋味。将被赋予权力的是被进步主义驯化的科学家—祭司团体，一群以渊博的学识论证人类有31个genders的文化卫道士。《自然》杂志的编辑和撰稿人是即将步入历史前台的科学家—祭司团体的雏形。
拜登千错万错，只要他愿意承担共和党和外交当权派“软弱！”的指责，不让美国被拉进又一场无谓的战争，他这四年就不算完全失败，他也因此值得相当的尊敬。
以不正当的手段——比如贿选——操控政治的巨富，我们管他们叫寡头/oligarch. 俄国有寡头，乌克兰也有。美国有多少寡头？像Zuckerberg这样的人，要横行无忌到什么程度，公众才会把他们认作寡头，而不仅仅是成功企业家？
Special Counsel Finds Mark Zuckerberg’s Election Money Violated Wisconsin Bribery Laws
How Dem officials, the media and Big Tech worked in concert to bury the Hunter Biden story
Special Counsel Finds Mark Zuckerberg’s Election Money Violated Wisconsin Bribery Laws
How Dem officials, the media and Big Tech worked in concert to bury the Hunter Biden story
>>高油价作为美国人生活的新常态，并非历史事件强加的不幸后果，乃是进步派和全球化精英合谋的政策选择。为了快速步入绿色能源新世界，他们愿意牺牲几代美国人的利益。
拜登承认了利用危机推行绿色能源就是他们的阳谋：
“It’s a catalyst — a catalyst that will drive the investments we need to double-down on our clean energy goals and accelerate progress toward our net-zero emissions future. That’s what the second part of this initiative is all about.”
在不同的声音下不顾一切的冷嘲热讽是全世界脑残的共同点
粉红俄粉在国内支持乌克兰的人下面留1450和来电了 50万
sjw左人在各路右翼人士下面留斯基讽川meme和通俄 讽刺他们弱智
俄粉说乌克兰有纳粹该杀
进步人士觉得右翼通俄该骂
都认为自己是绝对正确的
连行为都是如出一致的脑残
粉红俄粉在国内支持乌克兰的人下面留1450和来电了 50万
sjw左人在各路右翼人士下面留斯基讽川meme和通俄 讽刺他们弱智
俄粉说乌克兰有纳粹该杀
进步人士觉得右翼通俄该骂
都认为自己是绝对正确的
连行为都是如出一致的脑残
>>拜登承认了利用危机推行绿色能源就是他们的阳谋：
美联储不得不加息抽水的时候，还要大干快上努力建设未来的水灵灵乌托邦。
经济火药桶的引信越烧越短，但是「真进步」们还要架起火堆。
水火二重天，其中的酸爽，品茗旁观者不能尽赏。
War criminals:
#政治不正确
#政治不正确
>>War criminals:#政治不正确
乔治·奥威尔在「为何写作」（Why I Write）中指出了一个作者的四种理由：Ego, Historical Responsibility/Truth, Aesthetic, Politics
从这一帖的内容来看，你比较偏向Truth。
我虽然标榜Truth，但实际更倾向于Aesthetic
>>拜登承认了利用危机推行绿色能源就是他们的阳谋：
我認為不是陽謀。事實上為了不顯示自己無能，而被迫承認是陽謀。
Kyle Kashuv @KyleKashuv
This, unironically, is where we are headed:
https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1507727067542040576
This, unironically, is where we are headed:
https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1507727067542040576
>>Kyle Kashuv @KyleKashuvThis, unironically, is wher...Hate speech is not allowed, hating Russia is OK.
>>Kyle Kashuv @KyleKashuvThis, unironically, is where we are headed:
将来大概真的有那么一天，要是不能自建暗网并自行维持的话，就只能玩儿 double speech。得有hacker的本事，大概才真正有 give a free speech 的可能性。
那些表面上宣称「隐私」、「加密」、「安全」的网络服务，都和google的「do no evil」意义差不多。
只能说，幸好迄今为止，我从来不曾像真正的hacker们那么天真。
哪一个国家发生regime change，最有可能给西方乃至世界带来利好？不是俄罗斯，也不是中国，而是美国。容许内政滑向精英集团操控的anarcho-tyranny却妄想把民主推广到全球的两党联合政权应该被推翻。一个政客能否进入新政权，在当前时局之下，首先取决于这个简单的问题：从该政客的言论和行为看，他是否认为守护美国的南部边境比帮助乌克兰守护边境更重要。
几年前川普说出这些话时，媒体说“全世界都在嘲笑川普”。现在谁都看得出川普是对的，“全世界”是错的。川普活在现实里，嘲笑他的旧贵族们活在生锈的梦里：
Trump and Stoltenberg get into tense exchange at NATO summit
Germany Reacts to Trump's UNGA Speech
Trump and Stoltenberg get into tense exchange at NATO summit
Germany Reacts to Trump's UNGA Speech
Daniel Vaughan @dvaughanCI
This seems to be the logic of the moment:
Step 1. Putin is removed
Step 2. A power vacuum forms in a nuclear armed state. Succession plans are unknown.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Russia is a successful, western leaning state.
https://twitter.com/dvaughanCI/status/1507871452648857602
Daniel Vaughan @dvaughanCI
Pushing regime change in the middle of upheaval in global markets is a recipe for disaster. We’re legit staring down the barrel of famine, recession, & inflation; not counting global supply chain issues. Anyone claiming they know how this turns out is lying.
https://twitter.com/dvaughanCI/status/1507872586977398785
Yoram Hazony @yhazony
I remember this strategy from Libya, Iraq, and Tahrir Square in Egypt.
https://twitter.com/yhazony/status/1508113709071228936
This seems to be the logic of the moment:
Step 1. Putin is removed
Step 2. A power vacuum forms in a nuclear armed state. Succession plans are unknown.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Russia is a successful, western leaning state.
https://twitter.com/dvaughanCI/status/1507871452648857602
Daniel Vaughan @dvaughanCI
Pushing regime change in the middle of upheaval in global markets is a recipe for disaster. We’re legit staring down the barrel of famine, recession, & inflation; not counting global supply chain issues. Anyone claiming they know how this turns out is lying.
https://twitter.com/dvaughanCI/status/1507872586977398785
Yoram Hazony @yhazony
I remember this strategy from Libya, Iraq, and Tahrir Square in Egypt.
https://twitter.com/yhazony/status/1508113709071228936
有钱的左人是小资cosplay
没钱的左人是流氓无产者
没钱的左人是流氓无产者
他们是真的分不清什么是中国人 川粉 右翼 和魔怔人 在他们脑海里直接全部变成了费拉黄右 天天盯着中国人骂 以此证明自己更进步民智一些
>>肯定会有 不明白那种人干嘛要在意 看到会直接绕开
那这种人难道不是费拉黄右吗？我并不想用标签去定义人，但难道事实并非如此吗？
如何才能做到绕开，我觉得这个是我比较需要请教的问题。
--------------------------------------------------------
比如这种情况：“最近在推特YouTube上很多川普粉丝和DS阴谋论信者也是持这种贬乌观点”。
>>肯定会有 不明白那种人干嘛要在意 看到都会直接绕开 难不成还想去试着理解吗
因为不去理解，才会认为简中川粉是费拉黄右啊。
InteractivePolls @IAPolls2022
NEW: @SaintLeoPolls
2022 FLORIDA GOVERNOR POLL:
Ron DeSantis (R): 49% (+16)
Charlie Crist (D): 33%
Ron DeSantis (R): 51% (+24)
Nikki Fried (D): 27%
Ron DeSantis (R): 49% (+19)
Annette Taddeo (D): 30%
February 28-March 12 / 500 RV
https://polls.saintleo.edu/poll-reports/
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1508849180105715720
NEW: @SaintLeoPolls
2022 FLORIDA GOVERNOR POLL:
Ron DeSantis (R): 49% (+16)
Charlie Crist (D): 33%
Ron DeSantis (R): 51% (+24)
Nikki Fried (D): 27%
Ron DeSantis (R): 49% (+19)
Annette Taddeo (D): 30%
February 28-March 12 / 500 RV
https://polls.saintleo.edu/poll-reports/
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1508849180105715720
>>不去看 那种内容着实太离谱
我并没有追踪品鉴它们言论的恶趣味，但它们的所作所为是试图把所到之地都变成旱厕，而它们的生命力又是如此旺盛。
所以我应该它们出现在哪里我就离开哪里吗？比如不再关注#乌克兰#话题以及四项里占了两项（川粉右翼）的人。
>>事实是如此 但不是所有人
那么你会谴责对BLM运动的“污名”以及大翻译运动对墙内言论的“片面”选取吗？
这篇批评基辅方面“藏兵于民”式打法的文章在华邮读者里引起了公愤：
Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv’s defense tactics add to the danger.
不论伦理问题怎么权衡，报道就内容而言是开战以来我读到的最诚实的文字之一。
Twitter上有人传的图：
Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv’s defense tactics add to the danger.
不论伦理问题怎么权衡，报道就内容而言是开战以来我读到的最诚实的文字之一。
Twitter上有人传的图：
Peter Thiel两年前Uncommon Knowledge访问里的一段，论欧洲的三种未来：
Peter Robinson: Visions of the future. During a trip to Europe last year, you realized that, at least in Western Europe, there are really only three visions of the future on offer. Vision one, accommodation more or less, in one way or another, with Sharia. Explain.
Peter Thiel: Well, I would say that, I think in politics or culture for the future to have power over the present, let me start with the general point, it has to be different from the present. The future has power because it's a time that will look different from the present and so it can't just be an endless Groundhog Day. If it's just always the same, it's just always repetition, then the future does not have any appeal and that's not part of a political agenda. And so if we look at Europe and we say, well, how will Europe be different from the way it is today in the future? I think there's sort of three pictures of a very different future, and sort of behind door number one is Islamic Sharia law, and if you're a woman, you'll be wearing a burka. So that's a very different picture of the future, it's very concrete. Behind door number two is the Chinese communist AI, and it's the big eye of Sauron that will be watching you at all times and all places. That's door number two for the future. And door number three is the green movement, and you'll be puttering around in an E scooter and you'll be separating out your garbage in a recycling can. And then I think the challenge is that there are no other doors. Those are the three options. And this is a, even though I'm not a crazy environmentalist, this would be my sort of argument for why the green stuff has so much traction in Europe. If those are the only three options, you know, I'll go with Greta.
Peter Robinson: Visions of the future. During a trip to Europe last year, you realized that, at least in Western Europe, there are really only three visions of the future on offer. Vision one, accommodation more or less, in one way or another, with Sharia. Explain.
Peter Thiel: Well, I would say that, I think in politics or culture for the future to have power over the present, let me start with the general point, it has to be different from the present. The future has power because it's a time that will look different from the present and so it can't just be an endless Groundhog Day. If it's just always the same, it's just always repetition, then the future does not have any appeal and that's not part of a political agenda. And so if we look at Europe and we say, well, how will Europe be different from the way it is today in the future? I think there's sort of three pictures of a very different future, and sort of behind door number one is Islamic Sharia law, and if you're a woman, you'll be wearing a burka. So that's a very different picture of the future, it's very concrete. Behind door number two is the Chinese communist AI, and it's the big eye of Sauron that will be watching you at all times and all places. That's door number two for the future. And door number three is the green movement, and you'll be puttering around in an E scooter and you'll be separating out your garbage in a recycling can. And then I think the challenge is that there are no other doors. Those are the three options. And this is a, even though I'm not a crazy environmentalist, this would be my sort of argument for why the green stuff has so much traction in Europe. If those are the only three options, you know, I'll go with Greta.
Ryan James Girdusky @RyanGirdusky
(Quinnipiac poll) Do you approve/disapprove of Biden?
Overall: 36/55
GOP: 4/92
Dem: 79/13
Indie: 32/56
Men: 30/60
Women: 41/49
Whites w/ college: 50/43
Whites w/o college: 26/68
White men: 28/66
White women: 37/55
White: 33/60
Black: 63/22
Hispanics: 32/54
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1509251374306975756
Ryan James Girdusky @RyanGirdusky
Top issue by voters:
Overall: Inflation (30%), Ukraine (14%), Immigration (9%)
GOP: Inflation (39%), Immigration (19%), Ukraine (13%)
Dem: Ukraine (16%), Inflation (15%), Election laws (13%)
Indie: Inflation (37%), Ukraine (13%), Immigration (8%)
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1509252061929644039
(Quinnipiac poll) Do you approve/disapprove of Biden?
Overall: 36/55
GOP: 4/92
Dem: 79/13
Indie: 32/56
Men: 30/60
Women: 41/49
Whites w/ college: 50/43
Whites w/o college: 26/68
White men: 28/66
White women: 37/55
White: 33/60
Black: 63/22
Hispanics: 32/54
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1509251374306975756
Ryan James Girdusky @RyanGirdusky
Top issue by voters:
Overall: Inflation (30%), Ukraine (14%), Immigration (9%)
GOP: Inflation (39%), Immigration (19%), Ukraine (13%)
Dem: Ukraine (16%), Inflation (15%), Election laws (13%)
Indie: Inflation (37%), Ukraine (13%), Immigration (8%)
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1509252061929644039