While the article is provoking and even inspiring, it seems to want to address too many problems all at once, without the potential of being able to coordinate between them.
Nuclear war? What for? Even a few dirty bombs or even a "limited nuclear event" might do the trick after people believed that two large drones (planes with no windows) and an office fire brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7. The source of these is the same and the same sources designed and tested the lethal injections in secret labs worldwide in the last few decades. Of course, they have a few more tricks up their sleeves, like famine, catastrophic weather, or an alien attack. The worst thing that can happen is WW3 on TV. The Russians, the Chinese, the US, and the Ukranians are all in it. After all, Eurasia and Oceania must be in constant war in order to maintain a "state of emergency."
As I look around the war table smart weapons and deluded war fighters combine with political hacks and war hugging constituencies. Risks taken may not have any Fail Safe. Global Tyranny is not going to back away. If 50 megatons are necessary for Peace and Prosperity in a world of two billions or less the bombs will be used.
Something like a new Magna Carta shall restrain a greatly weakened former West. Oligarchs will like cockroaches survive.
When I notice that all the myriad public servants are extending the statutory holiday three day weekend to a week long, I am glad to pay them to do less.
The article bothers the hell out of me, because it doesn't assign a direction to itself, at least as a point of reference.
The author keeps telling the reader who is going to do what without realizing who is in power in those situations... That means that he is either a shill or it reflects poorly on his intellect...
The most embarrassing part of it is that apparently, neatl 13k people visited the enthusiastic, creative, but helter-skelter blabber...
My observation is quills for hire write for the paymaster and within well lit margins. Mises Institute hires very academic people.
Birsen Filip holds a PhD in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. She has published numerous articles and chapters on a range of topics, including political philosophy, geo-politics, and the history of economic thought, with a focus on the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics. She is the author of the upcoming book The Early History of Economics in the United States: The Influence of the German Historical School of Economics on Teaching and Theory (Routledge, 2022). She is also the author of The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).
Thank you for the details. Here are my impressions:
If this is a ghostwriter, it must be a woman or a gay male; a creative mind, but with logic that remains compartmentalized. If it is indeed the woman, she is exhibiting strong narcissistic traits that turn me off...
I surely wouldn't pay a penny for her rambling around as a pseudo-intellectual...
Other than that, even the greatest minds (which this one is certainly not) have to prove themselves on a daily basis... I don't give a flying f* how famous or respected someone is, until they prove themselves. :)
Journalism for hire rarely rises to high thought. Frequently the ideology first, the slant the audience likes, and then stating the point if any last. A world of writing much and quickly and maybe an audience of 1st year college reading level.
Yup; I've always wondered how journalists can write so much and still stay within the boundaries of reason.
Now that I've been writing something nearly every day on my Substack, I keep noticing that my writing is anything but well-polished; it's full of typos (I manage to correct most of them within 24 hours) and sometimes the sequential order of various statements is a bit messed up (I leave those alone, because it would be unfair to change the text after people started thinking about it, and I haven't had any complaints yet).
It looks like journalism has to stick with nothing higher than what used to be college freshman level and now becoming "doctoral" level (well, the latter is still prone to be a bit presumtuous).
My problem is that selecting an audience is becoming nearly impossible. As a result, I keep my blogs brief and open-ended. Being a bit entertaining, inspiring, and informative can still be achieved to a certain extent.
While the article is provoking and even inspiring, it seems to want to address too many problems all at once, without the potential of being able to coordinate between them.
Nuclear war? What for? Even a few dirty bombs or even a "limited nuclear event" might do the trick after people believed that two large drones (planes with no windows) and an office fire brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7. The source of these is the same and the same sources designed and tested the lethal injections in secret labs worldwide in the last few decades. Of course, they have a few more tricks up their sleeves, like famine, catastrophic weather, or an alien attack. The worst thing that can happen is WW3 on TV. The Russians, the Chinese, the US, and the Ukranians are all in it. After all, Eurasia and Oceania must be in constant war in order to maintain a "state of emergency."
As I look around the war table smart weapons and deluded war fighters combine with political hacks and war hugging constituencies. Risks taken may not have any Fail Safe. Global Tyranny is not going to back away. If 50 megatons are necessary for Peace and Prosperity in a world of two billions or less the bombs will be used.
Something like a new Magna Carta shall restrain a greatly weakened former West. Oligarchs will like cockroaches survive.
The pawn broker gets to keep your gold watch.
We all knew this, but it was previously wrapped up in gobbledygook.
When I notice that all the myriad public servants are extending the statutory holiday three day weekend to a week long, I am glad to pay them to do less.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/great-reset-turning-back-clock-civilization
The article bothers the hell out of me, because it doesn't assign a direction to itself, at least as a point of reference.
The author keeps telling the reader who is going to do what without realizing who is in power in those situations... That means that he is either a shill or it reflects poorly on his intellect...
The most embarrassing part of it is that apparently, neatl 13k people visited the enthusiastic, creative, but helter-skelter blabber...
My observation is quills for hire write for the paymaster and within well lit margins. Mises Institute hires very academic people.
Birsen Filip holds a PhD in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. She has published numerous articles and chapters on a range of topics, including political philosophy, geo-politics, and the history of economic thought, with a focus on the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics. She is the author of the upcoming book The Early History of Economics in the United States: The Influence of the German Historical School of Economics on Teaching and Theory (Routledge, 2022). She is also the author of The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).
Thank you for the details. Here are my impressions:
If this is a ghostwriter, it must be a woman or a gay male; a creative mind, but with logic that remains compartmentalized. If it is indeed the woman, she is exhibiting strong narcissistic traits that turn me off...
I surely wouldn't pay a penny for her rambling around as a pseudo-intellectual...
Other than that, even the greatest minds (which this one is certainly not) have to prove themselves on a daily basis... I don't give a flying f* how famous or respected someone is, until they prove themselves. :)
Journalism for hire rarely rises to high thought. Frequently the ideology first, the slant the audience likes, and then stating the point if any last. A world of writing much and quickly and maybe an audience of 1st year college reading level.
Yup; I've always wondered how journalists can write so much and still stay within the boundaries of reason.
Now that I've been writing something nearly every day on my Substack, I keep noticing that my writing is anything but well-polished; it's full of typos (I manage to correct most of them within 24 hours) and sometimes the sequential order of various statements is a bit messed up (I leave those alone, because it would be unfair to change the text after people started thinking about it, and I haven't had any complaints yet).
It looks like journalism has to stick with nothing higher than what used to be college freshman level and now becoming "doctoral" level (well, the latter is still prone to be a bit presumtuous).
My problem is that selecting an audience is becoming nearly impossible. As a result, I keep my blogs brief and open-ended. Being a bit entertaining, inspiring, and informative can still be achieved to a certain extent.
Well I am a low level then.
Mind you I have not read to the end as us dimwits have to cook dinner.
It's always more productive to express complex ideas in simple ways. :)