135 views posted 27 Mar 2015, 06:43
Hosted for Bal.Common423▼14 comments
You don't know me. That fact doesn't really matter, does it?
If you asked the same thing of my brother, who I have spent the vast majority of my life with, would he be able to claim with any honesty that he, in fact, knows me?
If so, he is capable of more than I. I am positively sure that It is far beyond my capabilities to be certain, of mostly everything.
I have doubts, I have skeptical observations on mostly all that I witness.
I do not doubt, that when an argument ensues between two parties, that both sides have based their positions on what they believe is solid ground.
So here is my way of navigating. My personal compass.
1st- There is no difference between myself and others. (there may be differences promoted by others but there is none to me)
2nd- Precedent cited amounts to support the status quo. (We all know that idiots wrote the book, so why do we use it to validate our plight)
3rd- My position, for all time and forever, is that 'potential' reigns supreme. I have no authority when it comes to predicting the potential of anyone, so I will accept the inclusion of all, so far as that inclusion allows the same.
So I say- 'Victims', be brave, for I stand beside you. 'Oppressors' have hope, since only you can allow yourselves a second chance.
To all those who wish for advantage today, by right granted through precedent...
I feel sorry for you.
435 views posted 19 Mar 2015, 12:36
Hosted for Bal.Common423 - Lemur▼71 comments
The need to belong.
I have never understood this concept. I understand and accept It as something we all want, although for some reason I just can't relate. There is nothing wrong with inclusion, I enjoy and relate with mostly anyone, I can honestly say there is no one I hate.
Maybe that is a part of it. It has always made more sense to build my own beliefs through insight and experience, rather than accept what was acceptable when told.
These traits were present even when I was young, so said the stories. The earliest being when I was still in a crib to sleep. At night my crib was in a small room off of the hall, so when I began to climb out no one knew until morning that I was gone. After a few frantic mornings searching for me (I would fall asleep anywhere I could jam my body in) They installed a latch outside my door and locked it that night. The next morning they woke up to my door open, and me gone.
I had pushed a huge dresser across the room, climbed up the drawers, and somehow flipped the latch. Climbed back down, moved the dresser again to reach the doorknob and escaped.
Next example came in preschool, during my first week. In the gym with tons of kids I found myself a chair. Placed it against the wall, climbed on up and pulled the fire alarm. Outside with a school full of older kids around. A furious principal was going grade by grade demanding to know who did it. As soon as he addressed a class that was close to our group, every finger shot towards me, hiding in the middle. My parents were asked to find another school.
When asked why I had done it. I said that everyone was tired and needed a break.
It may seem as if these stories are just that, and nothing more. But if there's more similar to these why wouldn't I want to know.
I ask anyone to share any examples you have.
1325 views posted 18 Mar 2015, 10:15
It speaks to the stupidity of the modern era I have to begin this blog by defending against politically correct calls terms like 'retarded ' 'marginalize' [weasel word] the mentally handicapped.▼159 comments
Unfortunately, those with physically reduced mental functionality are marginalized, no matter what way you spin it. While they have accomplished many things beyond the remit society extends to them, in general the course of history will not be decided by them. Our post-modern inability to call a spade a spade is only the beginning of the intellectual morass of our times.
'Retard' is an ideal term for the self-absorbed, short-sighted, apolitical, lifestyle [weasel word] obsessed, media soaked, shallow thinking, apathetic, materialistic, conformist fools who populate and run the West today. Their limited conceptual ability, although a product of general cultural trends, similarly degrades the ambit of their consciousness.
There was a fundamental shift in culture sometime after WWII. The causes are multi-variate (I'm certain the hippies had a lot to do with it), but people were discouraged from the critical operation of their prefrontal cortex. Prefabricated world views replaced Weltanschauung, a concept only fully described by the German. It means a comprehensive world view, actively pursued, considering many disparate factors, and individuated according to the thinker. We switched trains, jumping on the ride toward Idiocracy instead. Now the internet, the so-called instrument of knowledge democratization, allows any fool can plaster his ill considered ideas to anyone who cares to listen. No one really does listen anyway. The internet is mostly an intersecting array of monologue stupidity.
Witness the fact if a blog here exceeds a thousand or so words, or lacks pictures, some retards denizens get upset.
There are roughly 3 levels of retaredness in the West.
LEVEL 1: Basic retard. Ignorant of their ignorance. When confronted with knowledge, higher culture, political debate; react adversely. 'My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge', is the motto. The best you can hope from these people are pre-packaged worldviews which could fit into, and indeed often came from, the soundbytes of the modern media. Alternatively, their 'views' are often the ones they learned in highschool, or among the more 'open minded', whatever fashionable belief currently presides over the cultural zeitgeist. The stuff of politicians wet dreams.
LEVEL 2: Dedicated retard. I have dealt with this particular specimen quite often, defining them as persons overcome by their own ideology. Social Justice Warriors, Mormons, and nearly all 'activists' fall into this category. They are naked flames running around in the petrol soaked atmosphere of Basic Retardedness. These demagogues have learned to pitch their language at just the right level to make your average retard feel smart, or worse, righteous. Their danger lies in their charisma of purpose mobilizing stupidity toward retarded goals
LEVEL 3: This one is technically the bureaucratic sub-division of the dedicated retard. Under the Webarian delusion bureaucracy can terra-form culture and society into a perfectly optimized rational utopia; politicians, policy makers, economists, and bureaucrats are specialized in over-estimation knowledge as a whole (rather than the specific narrative which overcomes the first order dedicated retard ). We can call them WEIRDos for short (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich Democrats).
Despite instances of manifest retardeness on this site, I have found here a higher concentration of people who have developed weltanschauung. The sample list below demonstrates the question of retardness is quite separate from the question of ideological affinity (unless ideology has overtaken the person, which is the person's fault, not the ideology's).
VTS72.83K , pityrules9171 , SirSeedsAlot100.82K , Monsters.Inc23.27K , AhrimanThorn28.82K , blackatk3388 Infinity.5394 5fingerdis58.01K
This is non-prejudicial list, sampling people emblematic of a number of differing views. Of course, no one ever entirely frees themselves from retardness, even, I regret to inform you, TheLemur. Perfect examples are unobtainable; classification is a matter of degree.
340 views posted 10 Mar 2015, 15:08
I have been considering of late, the specific acquisitions necessary for rebuilding the New Zealand military.▼41 comments
The government maintains our military meets 'the minimum credible deterrent' standard, but the reality is, our force's capacity for high intensity combat is probably limited to the Special Air Service NZSAS (an elite unit as good if not better than the US SEALS) and two middle aged frigates.
In a globalized world where unforseen threats emerge rapidly, spread rapidly; while conventional military capabilities take years to develop (including from an acquisitions viewpoint), knee-jerk anti-militarism is a post-modern luxury we cannot afford. Indeed, given that our security is mostly dependent on Australian security, our free loading is an egregious violation of the ANZAC spirit.
Some of you, knowing my conservative credentials, are likely to place me in the ideological ambit of the American Neo-con, that creature of perennial intervention. But as you will see, the particular form of acquisition and organization I advocate runs much closer to the Swiss model.
The main operational momentum of our current force is peace keeping, which characterizes the playboy armies of post-modern WEIRDos (Western, Education, Industrialized, Rich, Democrats). Peace keeping capacity, essentially military policing, shares little of its reality with, say, killing enemy soldiers on a mass scale (what we like to pretend our armies aren't about).
Take, for instance, the LAV (light armored vehicle) pictured above on patrol in Afghanistan. The purchase of around 100 of these babies was one of the larger acquisitions of recent years. Yet in a proper war, their value would be limited to reconnaissance. The equipment itself tells the tale of our defence policy priority.
I will briefly list significant assets of the current order of battle.
- Queen Alexandria's Mounted Rifles (LAV Battalion)
- Javelin anti-tank Missiles
- a few other infantry battalions and some light howitzers
- two frigates
- rest of fleet: humanitarian assistance, coast guard.
- Relatively advanced sea surveillance (Orions)
- A few transports
- Under 20 utility helicopters
As I see it, New Zealand's population and general diminutive size mean mass mobilization, especially in a post-modern environment, is a non-starter. Reintroducing the 'citizen soldier' model exemplified by Swiss Conscription will no longer work for two reasons. The public will not accept it, and the population is too small to support a large force anyway. So spending big on the land forces is a waste of time. Realistically, if an aggressor could land a task force on our shores, we could only mount a guerrilla defense. Our army should reflect this. There is no need for tanks or other lumbering targets. Instead, we should concentrate on building a semi-elite, resilient force with the latest and most effective hand held or highly portable light weapons.
If the army can only perform a last ditch defense due to inherent limitations, then we must turn to the concept of force multiplication for our deterrent force - the one which will actually challenge the enemy.
Let's first consider the navy. Again, New Zealand's small economy mean capitalizing on the natural defensive barrier of the Tasman sea by raising a blue water navy is a pipe dream. Ships are the most expensive assets to acquire. Rather, we should settle for a heavily armed, fast attack craft - missile boats, the smaller attack submarines, etc. These super maneuverable forces are capable of exploiting hairline cracks in blue water naval task forces.
Now so far we have probably saved money on the army, (no more armour acquisitions), and spent slightly more on renewing the navy (more smaller ships, but no replacement of the heavier frigates). This brings us to the air force, where I believe we should lay out the big defense bucks. Properly deployed New Zealand air power, replete with 4++ and 5th generation fighters, and with dedicated anti-shipping capability, could deny the crucial air dominance necessary for an enemy to land sea-borne forces in Australia or New Zealand. Around 120 such aircraft would constitute a strong deterrent, having the ability to put up a spirited defense before international help arrived.
The precedent for strong air power for Island countries was demonstrated in the Battle of Britain. Further, we spend money on assets which first and foremost promote our own, native defense, rather than the deluded foreign adventurism of neo-cons (Iraq), or the hand-wringing (but equally stupid) liberal humanitarian interventions (Serbia, Libya).
383 views posted 05 Mar 2015, 12:18
Consider our place in time:▼38 comments
We exist adjacent to each other in the time stream; the causal chains of our lives can potentially entangle.
'Well, Lemur...have you any other self-evident statements to make?'
I make such an a priori statement to set up a meta-vantage point, a place where we can step outside ourselves and consider the nature what brought us to where we are in our lives - causality.
Are we the product of events shaped by an invisible hand, or do we chart our own course?
The truth is the universe is a stochastic system - random. Our world teems with potential futures borne of complex, sometimes sentient, interaction.
I leave to several futures (not to all) my garden of forking paths
- Jorge Luis Borges
The truth of the force behind our lives, I believe, lies somewhere between chaos and control. We can enforce a limited order on the world around us, but a critical mass of future consequence stays beyond our finite grasp.
One example of this fluid future emerging from intractable randomness are those whom we date or sleep with/marry.
I somehow find
You and I collide
- Howie Day
Right now, depending on a multitude of factors, there are multiple girls I could end up with. All of those futures exist simultaneously - the garden of forking paths.
It's mind blowing when you think the smallest thing, or the absence of that thing, could set, say, Lorelei (you know she's sexy just from the name) and I on collision course. She goes to pick up a mocha, which is too hot. Preoccupied with switching her cup between her hands, she almost runs into TheLemur, who proceeds to make hay while the sun shines. If that coffee had been 5 degrees cooler, we would have merrily sailed by each other.
Of course, that's kind of how girls often view meeting boys. Things just 'happen'. Invisible forces seem to have mysteriously fomented the low probability event. In fact, we often construe low probability events as evidence of the exact thing are not - destined to happen. Chance events happen all the time. We simply respectively impute a higher meaning to ones that exert a significant effect on our lives. (Despite the fallacious nature of this thinking, I find subtly encouraging this view of events heightens female attraction).
If we parse the hypothetical interaction more closely, however, we notice an act of will comes into it - TheLemur decides its go time. Does this mean Machiavelli's 'virtu' (skill) has tamed randomness? Not really. There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for. True, TheLemur has probably improved the chances of turning an interaction toward a romantic end, but events beyond his control (.e.g., the coffee) circumscribe his willful actions. Much like a surfer on a wave, both parties move slightly within the structure of randomness according to their decision making matrix.
And recall, this is just one result of forking paths. I could have also talked about Rosie, Natalie, Danielle, Jane, Karlie, Summer. Vanessa...you get the picture.
So paradoxically the reality of low probability events mean someone out there right now is inexorably the road that will bring us together down to the tiniest detail. Yet the collective occurrence is entirely random.
275 views posted 02 Mar 2015, 23:04
Once in a while, the harsh realities of the geopolitical order make it past the Great Wall of Australia and suffuse themselves into New Zealand's political landscape.▼37 comments
Us kiwis live in a bubble. Our geographic location affords us the rare luxury of not only having our castles in the sky (the brotherhood of man, love, peace, lady gaga, whatever), but moving into them.
Now in times past, New Zealand's place in the British Empire nullified this distance and mentally placed us right next to the disposition of the mother country. But after a generation of baby boomers who have never seen anything like WWII, or who have scarcely a residual affinity for England; we began to jerk ourselves off.
Matters came to a head when one of our prime minsters banned nuclear powered ships from NZ waters in a snub to the Whitehouse. If such an action, taken at the height of the cold war, seems eminently stupid to you, you would be forgiven. I find this bamboozles even left leaning people from other Western countries - not your 'activist' type, just the relatively normal people who believe in strong social welfare etc.
There used to be a joke, 'my car is so old its insured against fire, theft, and Indian raids.' And this is how our political commentators perceive geopolitical security. They see no reason to take out a seemingly useless insurance policy.
We prate to ourselves about our 'independent foreign policy' (a euphemism for knee-jerk anti-Americanism). Consider we have no problem signing free trade deals with an oppressive regime like China, but we cannot abide a friendly port visit by another democracy. I speculate the only explanation for such contradictory behaviour is the post-modern pathology of Western self-loathing.
The reality is, of course, there is an international pecking order, and small countries either put up or shut up. We have much grander ambitions however, as we like to fancy ourselves a 'middle power', presiding over endless councils and committees at the UN. They like to call this soft power, yet I seriously doubt anything the UN does counts as any sort of power. Working toward a 'rules based' international order is rather silly when every state interprets those 'rules' according to its own whims (Russia on Ukraine, NATO on Serbia, NATO on Libya, American on Iraq in 2003, China on the Spratley Islands, Iran on its right to the atom, etc).
Let's assume for a moment we did wield genuine soft-power, hell, maybe we have a relatively effective military (presently the only real combat potential of the New Zealand Defense Force is a couple of frigates and the Special Air Service). We would still be a geopolitical pip-squeak. Such pip-squeaks should count themselves fortunate Great Powers look favourably upon them.
Lately, the Prime Minster was castigated for saying New Zealand should commit troops to Iraq as the prince of membership in the 'club' (the 5 Anglo-Saxon nations). He's been depicted as some craven lapdog of the Whitehouse. As a matter of fact, I tend to agree putting boots on the ground in some Fukkastan is a waste of time (the clue is in the name), but that's not the point. America does think its worthwhile, and if we expect their protection, we should make some sort of reciprocal effort. One of the reasons we live in peace is because other countries are willing to expend blood and treasure to keep it that way.
Here is the crux of the whole matter. Our civil culture perpetuates the myth we need no protection, and thus Kiwiland can thumb its nose at the rest of the world (the 'independent foreign policy.') But as our 2010 Defense White Paper says...
Physical isolation remains New Zealand's principal source of protection against direct military threats from another state. It also offers some protection from non-state challenges. But New Zealanders recognise that distance is not insulation, especially given globalisation and technological reach.
Our aspirations to an 'independent foreign policy' and 'masters of our own destiny' are the dreams of grander men. France, a Great Power, disengaged from NATO and effectively quitted itself to military and diplomatic independence. We are not France. Even Australia isn't France. For better or worse, our international political destiny is set. Rejection of it can only be a temporary, and pointless resistance.
185 views posted 26 Feb 2015, 08:39
New Dawn Fades
= or =
TheLemur and the FIRST GIRL
[Insert image of over-romanticized romance here]
I know what you're thinking.
This will be juicy one.
You pervert. While this blog will contain explicit depictions of things that are real, there will be no phrases like '...as the moonlight played on her delicate features, I softly grazed her neck with my lips...'; or, '...I took that sexy dame right then and there, with so much vigor she couldn't walk straight until Christmas.' (One for the girls and one for the boys respectively).
TheLemur dislikes the post-modern culture of self-broadcast, but as I turn to this event in my mind, I find it merely an aspect of universal human development. And from that perspective, I think we can have a clinical discussion divested of over-wrought nostalgia.
What I bring to mind is a memory of a memory. Around my 15th tour of the sun, to borrow the military parlance, my family had the (mis)fortune to attend a convention of sorts. Now at this shebang, there were these things called 'girls.' They were just running around free range like a bunch of young women. I had had relatively little truck with these creatures. I admired vaguely from a distance of course. Absent had been the centrality of the FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVATION. Not to worry. Evidently, the socio-biological imperative thought it was high time to set the 8-ball rolling.
THE girl. We'll call her Lena.
No, that not really her - it's Summer Glau. But she looks similar. Most of the girls I've gone out with are Glau derivations. I don't idolize her, she's just an archetype. (Occasionally I find Israeli girls persuasive, and NZ born Westernized Indian girls with the lighter skin tone. The latter I like because a 10 - 15% retention of the Indian accent makes the intonation really sexy).
I have set the stage. My big move was inviting Lena to play in this soccer game, where the silly bird immediately busted up her arm and had to go to accident and emergency.
After she returned, I can't remember much of what happened. When I was leaving camp though, she came rushing over and gave me a hug and peck on the cheek.
came washing over me
- Manic Street Preachers
As it turned out, there was nothing much on her side, so the fire eventually burned out. For a short interval though, it was Halcyon On and On. Then it upon receipt of her non-reciprocation it felt like a Fairytale Gone Bad.
First there was the one who challenged
all my dreams and all my balance
Point is, I don't really need to describe it to you. You've already been there, done that (or not, in my case). It's a universal human experience, a defining moment. Not the preeminent one, but still significant (apparently you remember your first car better than your first love - but did the scientists factor in what use you made of the backseats?). So what of this 'first love' business? Films like to imagine this person will leave an indelible mark on your life. I disagree. They are merely a catalyst for the first instance of a complex chemical reaction in which your endocrine system drenches your brain with a concoction scientists call PEA. It's all about you tripping on a native high.
The trick to effectively integrating the experience into a coherent life narrative, I believe, is conceiving of it with a mixture of cynicism and idealism. Much like how a telescope requires two lenses appropriately spaced to view a heavenly body clearly, we need these two extremes in equal measure to perceive 'love' objectively.
Cynicism is necessary to divest ourselves of the overpowering biological imperative, which is no more real in and of itself than Lucy in the sky with diamonds. The fact we feel strongly for someone in no way validates the errant notion we are 'meant to be' with anyone.
The complete cynic cannot properly make sense of what has happened to him however. At their most element level, these people are your bitter biddies (as ZombieQueen49.71K would say) and whatever the male equivalent is. They are the people who, whenever you have someone new in your life, like to regale you with stories of how malicious and unfeeling the opposite sex is. Just because they didn't get they wanted, even though they never thought about what the other person might have wanted.
At the more advanced level, they are the self-help gurus who get a kick out of didactic bromides like 'we have to learn love is a choice [and in the event they have a spiritual bent]...a sacrifice.' The turkeys of this persuasion are secretly bitter about romantic experiences they have had, and so seek to entirely de-legitimize it with a completely abstracted theory. Problem is...choice without reason is pointless. And the feeling of being 'in love' is one of the reasons we make the choice of love.
You could be my unintended choice
to live my life extended...
So we need a measured idealism, an appreciation for the experience ('in love') to which we attach a conscious meaning ('choice'). In this way we unify our planes of being, simultaneously emancipating ourselves from the excesses of the biological imperative and the nihilism of choice for choice's sake.
Everyone should be severely disappointed in 'love'. We grow from from the short sharp shock. No one can adequately resist all those chemicals coursing through the body for the first time. So the point is to ride the rollercoaster, then get off the rollercoaster. But don't pretend it doesn't exist, and in future, ride it with awareness.
This has been TheLemur and you've been a moderately good audience. See? Even sucking up is about balance.
431 views posted 23 Feb 2015, 14:04
The struggle for dominance defines the ages, and the present. Everything in this world is ultimately a question of power, whatever the order of magnitude.
Today I'd like to consider briefly the global state of play, as the world once again beats its plowshares into rocket launchers and all the other good stuff.
Tales from 8x8 Logic
Chess is a common metaphor for power politics, mostly because it epitomizes tactics and strategy common to both 'games.' But we can also think of the chessboard as a geographic space. The nature of this space informs how the opponents will direct their games to an extent. Geography is a constant in international theory (land formations are relatively unchanging). It impacts actors to varying degrees, often according to their ability to mitigate geographic advantages or disadvantages. So we're not going to become obsessive fan boys of the importance of geography; we'll think of it as one of the many factors influencing the balance of power.
I know I have a penchant for the complex, so I will endeavour to explain the following ideas simply.
Basically, there was this British dude way back before the start of WWI who was to foreign policy as James Bond is to shagging. He believed the heart of the world lay between Western Russia and Central Europe, for that was the nexus of the 'World Island' (Asia, Eurasia, Europe, and the Middle East). This World Island comprises the greater part of the planets resources, and thus whoever controls this super Island controls the world.
So now events in Ukraine take on a new light, don't they?
To cut a long story short, historical events since Mackinder coined his theory have both confirmed and disconfirmed it. One of the biggest, easiest assumptions to attack is even if we say control of Eastern Europe grants control of the 'World Island', the aspiring megalomaniac may not yet be master of Spaceship Humanity. The oceans of the world, which apart from the Caspian Sea, are ultimately one connected body of water. Exerting influence over the sea consequently gives you huge economic and military advantages.
Five Flags to Rule Them All?
Some historians argue the cardinal causal factor in the Western domination of the globe was their domination of the sea lanes, in particular those between the Old and New Worlds (The Atlantic Ocean). Today, we could also include the Pacific, Indian, and Arctic bodies of water. Of these Western sea-going nations, Britain became the most powerful. Since the UK is an island, commerce always concerned the sea, and thus successive rulers/governments prioritized the Royal Navy. England successively thwarted the Spanish Navy at the beginning of its rise to fame and fortune. The Battle of Trafalgar in 1815 defeated the last attempt by another naval block to take positive control of the seas. With oceanic superiority, Britain controlled roughly 1/4 of the globe. The land forces committed to this empire were, except in times of emergency, not much larger than the British Army prior to the 2010 defence cuts (circa 100,000 men).
As Britain's star waned, the seat of power shifted to the United States. The empire was over. But Anglo-Saxon hegemony remained constant. America carried the torch as a Super Power, and Britain was still a great power.
Is it a conceit including New Zealand, Canada, and Australia as an integral part of the Anglo-Saxon bloc? No, for the following reasons:
- Canada's landmass ensures US domination of the North American continent by proxy, as a heavy middle power in its own right.
- Australia has tremendous natural resources, is a strategically important Island continent, and is capable of projecting considerable force in its own right.
- New Zealand can produce large quantities of food, provides a friendly backyard to Aussie, and may be strategically important in the future if competition over Antarctica ramps up.
The Periphery of Power
Britain's culture and geographic disconnection from continental Europe draw it toward North America. A UK exit from the EU looks increasingly likely (the latest poll shows a majority wish to disengage). As a global financial cross roads, the UK has a more resilient economy and business friendly environment.
So it seems reasonable to consider Western Continental Europe entirely apart from Britain. And what can we make of them? Economically inefficient, mired in the problems of post-modernity (social upheaval, immigration, declining populations), and woefully lacking the cultural stamina to play 'big boy' real politic. France is the most crucial country politically in Western continental Europe, and it's a mess. Hell, if Marie Le Pencil comes to power it may even affiliate with the East. Both France and Germany failed in their bids to control the World Island (Napoleon, Hitler respectively) and currently it looks like TheKremlin3717 is now roundly trouncing them combined.
A lot of commentators like to stress how the Eurozone possesses the greatest GDP on the planet, and is therefore a force to be reckoned with. Problem is, economic power has to be honed politically and militarily. Successive crisis (Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Ukraine) prove Europe's collective ineptness and disunity. The EU is a collection of dying stars. Banding together to temporarily increase their light never addressed the real reasons behind the decline of the constituent units.
Resentful of 'Yankee imperialism,' these birds will go with the anti-West bloc from the World Island. Problem is, the water separates the two forces.
India, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia
Same principle applies. Their affinity for Russia and China (less so in India's case) is compromised by their separation.
So this is one way of considering global forces. If I am correct, this century will be defined by competition between the World Island led by China and the Anglo-Saxon/English speaking Oceanic powers. To paraphrase Samuel Huntington, it will be some of the West vs some of the rest.
Crucial security issues will include:
- control of Eastern Europe
- The ability of the Middle Kingdom (China) to challenge US naval supremacy in the Pacific.
- Russian control of the Arctic.
- The alliances of Asian Pacific states (Japan, South Korea, Indonesia).
- The ability of Canada, the US, UK, and the ANZAC powers to coordinate foreign policy.
795 views posted 13 Feb 2015, 21:00
A public service broadcast by the LBC (Lemurized Broadcasting Corporation) for those of you who need something a little fancy for today (or tomorrow, depending on your timezone) to go with that round sliver representing 3 months pay in your pocket. I kept it simple but poignant, so this will work on idiots and intellectuals and everything in between. You're bloody welcome.▼34 comments
My love its time
we dance this rhyme
in whatever strife
this metal, gliding
around your finger
like a feather
will bind two
352 views posted 10 Feb 2015, 06:08
February 10, 2018▼19 comments
Apple consolidated its dominance in the virtual technologies market today, releasing the iLove app to Apple devices around the world. Users must additionally purchase the 'bio-hardware' for the app, which comes in the shape of a small pill, not unlike over the counter pain medication. When ingested, the patented chemical formula travels to the brain, attaching itself to the cortical structures that handle sexual activity and sensory processing. Once bonded, the iLove app can lock on to the neuro-chemical link.
Next, an ultra-long distance Bluetooth connection between devices can be activated, thus allowing for virtual copulation over enormous distances. Dubbed the iShag by technophile pundits, the software will revolutionize one of the most fundamental human activities.
The iLove technology comes with a free U2 album, The Nectar of the Apple. Bono stated the files can be played through the iLove app as a background aesthetic.