YubNub Social YubNub Social
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Day mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Jobs Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Jobs

Comedy Corner
Comedy Corner
29 w ·Youtube Funny Stuff

YouTube
My wife Audrey and I talk about my new Amazon Prime Christmas Special & cookies on KTLA Morning Show
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
29 w

??? Lidia Thorpe who thinks that she's 'Black / Aborigine' is creating more division!!
Favicon 
api.bitchute.com

??? Lidia Thorpe who thinks that she's 'Black / Aborigine' is creating more division!!

Thorpe is a EWABO-entitled white pretend aboriginal bitch opinionator. She is RACIST. She's NOT EVEN BLACK!!! She MUST BE KICKED OUT OF THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE ASAP!!! She is saying ridiculous things & as mentioned creating more division. We are ALL Australian so why divide along ANY lines. She is clearly unfit for parliament, clearly being manipulated & should be expelled. Her saying "white privileged" is racism. What is coming from her mouth is racism. She would not even know a think about Aboriginal culture. Put her in the bush and she wouldn't survive for a couple of days!!!! BTW WHATS A 'CONVICTED RACIST'?? ????
Like
Comment
Share
The Lighter Side
The Lighter Side
29 w

A new study found this flirting strategy to be the most effective, regardless of your looks
Favicon 
www.upworthy.com

A new study found this flirting strategy to be the most effective, regardless of your looks

In the 1988 Disney classic “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” the titular character is in an unlikely relationship with his voluptuous wife Jessica. Roger is a frantic, anxious rabbit with a penchant for mischief, while Jessica is a quintessential ’40s bombshell who stands about a foot and a half taller and isn’t “bad,” just “drawn that way.”When private investigator Eddie Valiant asked Jessica what she sees in “that guy?” she replies, “He makes me laugh.” This type of couple may seem like something we only see in the movies, but don’t underestimate the power of humor when it comes to attractiveness. A new study published in Evolutionary Psychology found that being humorous is the most effective way to flirt for both men and women.“People think that humour, or being able to make another person laugh, is most effective for men who are looking for a long-term relationship. It’s least effective for women who are looking for a one-night stand. But laughing or giggling at the other person's jokes is an effective flirtation tactic for both sexes,” says Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, a professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology's (NTNU) Department of Psychology.“It is not only effective to be funny, but for women, it is very important that you show your potential partner that you think they are funny,” Rebecca Burch, a co-author from SUNY Oswego in New York, added.Unfortunately, this study was only conducted on heterosexual couples.For men, showing off their sense of humor was found to be the most effective way to flirt whether they were looking for a short-term or a long-term relationship. For women, being funny was the most effective tactic when looking for a long-term relationship. For people looking for a short-term fling, appearing available was the most effective tactic.According to the study, humor is effective regardless of one's attractiveness. “Individual differences in age, religiosity, extroversion, personal attractiveness and preferences for short-term sexual relationships had little or no effect on how effective respondents considered the various flirting tactics to be,” says study co-author Prof. Mons Bendixen.If you see someone you like but don’t think you’re good-looking enough for them, give it a shot. You may still have a chance if you can make ’em laugh.The most effective tactics for those looking for a long-term relationship:For women:1. Makes him laugh2. Shows interest in conversations3. Spends time with him4. Engages in deep conversations5. Kisses on mouthFor men:1. Makes her laugh2. Spends time with her3. Shows interest in conversations4. Engages in deep conversations5. SmilesThe study is proof that looks aren’t everything and shows that having a good sense of humor isn’t just about making someone laugh. A great sense of humor is evidence that someone is intelligent, wise, perceptive, confident, can see things from new perspectives and has good intuition. It also helps people quickly build bonds and share experiences, which is a great way to get close to someone in a fast and fun way.So why wouldn’t Jessica be with Roger? The guy is hilarious.This story originally appeared two years ago.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
29 w

How Pam Bondi Can Atone for the Framing of George Zimmerman
Favicon 
spectator.org

How Pam Bondi Can Atone for the Framing of George Zimmerman

I am sure Trump’s attorney general pick Pam Bondi has many a career highlight, but one of them was not her role in the framing of George Zimmerman for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. I use the word “framing” with precision. I know the case as well as anyone other than Zimmerman and his attorneys. I wrote the definitive book on the subject, If I Had a Son, and consulted extensively with Joel Gilbert on his brilliantly researched film and companion book, The Trayvon Hoax. Over the years, I have become good friends with George and see him often. I have witnessed up close the toll the injustice he suffered has taken on his life. There is no doubt that Zimmerman, 28 years old at the time, shot and killed the 17-year-old Martin. But there is also no doubt that Zimmerman was framed for Martin’s murder. He should never have been arrested, and should never have had to stand trial. He was saved from a life in prison by a six-woman jury too naive to anticipate the public shaming that awaited them when they voted to acquit.  Within weeks of the Feb. 26, 2012, shooting it was clear to anyone paying attention — shout out here to Sundance and the “Treepers” at the Conservative Tree House — that Zimmerman was the victim of a vicious, unprovoked assault by an aspiring MMA fighter nearly half-a-foot taller. Had Zimmerman not shot Martin he very likely would have been beaten to death. On March 23, 2012, then-President Barack Obama yielded to the pressure from a leftist mob hopped up on four weeks of disinformation and addressed the shooting. By this time, the White House had access to all of the information the Sanford Police Department did. The courageous step for Obama would have been to defend the Sanford Police and to demand an end to the media lynching of Zimmerman — a Hispanic Obama supporter and civil rights activist.  As an African-American, Obama had more latitude to speak out than a white politician would have. He chose not to. Concluded Obama after some meaningless temporizing: “But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon — If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” The State of Florida’s Republican leadership showed no more courage than Obama. After consulting with then-Attorney General Bondi, Gov. Rick Scott appointed Angela Corey as special prosecutor and washed his hands of the mess on his doorstep.  A week after Obama threw in with Martin’s family, Bondi did as well. She called his negligent parents “amazing people” and described the family attorneys as “friends of mine.” Ever judicious, Bondi added, “You never want to make an arrest too soon. We need justice, but you never want to make an arrest without having all the answers.” That said, she too backed away from the case — well, almost backed away. Those “friends of mine,” most notably Martin attorney Benjamin Crump, were in the process of making Bondi’s life more difficult. Crump was badgering “Diamond,” the girl who was on the phone with Martin in the moments before his death, to tell the state attorneys a story Crump had concocted. ABC’s Matt Gutman might as well have been Crump’s press agent,  headlining his article, “Trayvon Martin’s Last Phone Call Triggers Demand for Arrest Right Now.” On April 2, 2012, State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda showed up in Miami expecting to depose Martin’s girlfriend, but the 16-year-old Diamond refused to perjure herself. The girl de la Rionda met instead was the 19-year-old, mentally challenged, morbidly obese Rachel Jeantel. Crump and Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, insisted that Jeantel was Martin’s girlfriend, the “phone witness” who would testify that it was Zimmerman who provoked Martin. This interview led promptly to Zimmerman’s arrest. Fearful of backlash from the Left, the state attorneys allowed the charade to proceed. For months, they did their best to hide Jeantel not only from the public but also from Zimmerman’s attorneys. Sensing something amiss, the defense attorneys asked to depose Crump. After a judge ruled against them, they appealed. In April 2013, Bondi put her thumb on the scale of justice and left fingerprints. She wrote a 41-page document arguing against the defense team’s request. Their request was denied. The case proceeded to trial. In June 2013, Jeantel took the stand and tried to relate the story that Crump had fed her. For those who cared to see, her testimony confirmed what a sham the whole proceeding had been, but few bothered looking. The media had convinced them to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears. When Zimmerman was acquitted in July, the left erupted in outrage. Said Crump, “Trayvon Martin will forever remain in the annals of history next to Medgar Evers and Emmett Till, as symbols for the fight for equal justice for all.” Al Sharpton called the verdict an “atrocity.” In sympathy, three Marxist females coined the phrase “black lives matter.” The useful idiots in the entertainment world joined the mindless rush to pile on. In Ireland, Bruce Springsteen sang a song in Trayvon’s honor. Justin Timberlake dedicated a song to Trayvon in Yankee Stadium. Stevie Wonder promised to boycott Florida unless the state repealed its Stand Your Ground law, which had nothing to do with the trial. Beyoncé sang “I will always love you” to Trayvon in Nashville then joined billionaire multimedia mogul Jay-Z for a vigil in New York.  Although legally and rightfully cleared of a crime, Zimmerman has ever since been forced to live in the shadows. In 2015, he survived an assassination attempt by inches. In 2018, Jay-Z inserted a fatwa of sorts into a rap song, “I got your president tweeting / I won’t even met with him / Y’all killed X and let Zimmerman live / Streets is done.” For George, death threats are still routine. He cannot use his own name to apply to school or look for a job. Cowed into silence, the establishment right has done nothing to set the record straight. Angela Corey called Zimmerman a “murderer” after he was acquitted. If Bondi said anything about the verdict, I have not seen it.  As Bondi proceeds to confirmation, the Democrats will leave this story alone. A verdict prompted by the most flagrant judicial fraud in anyone’s memory led directly to the formation of BLM. Twelve years of leftist history would have to be rewritten if the truth were known. The burden to reveal the truth falls to Pam Bondi. As a first step to atonement, she can apologize to George Zimmerman. As a second step, once confirmed as attorney general, she can address a federal case that remains unaddressed, let alone unresolved — the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt. If she promises to do both, she’s got my vote. Jack Cashill’s latest book, Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6 is available in all formats. READ MORE: Don’t Mistake the Gaetz Nomination for a Misstep What Trump’s Cabinet Picks All Have in Common: They Don’t Give a ____ What Was the Matt Gaetz Attorney General Pick Really About? Draining the D.C. Swamp Picks Up Steam The post How Pam Bondi Can Atone for the Framing of George Zimmerman appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
29 w

Kursk Is Not Worth a Nuclear War
Favicon 
spectator.org

Kursk Is Not Worth a Nuclear War

European governments, which just some years ago sneered at Donald Trump for insisting that they penny up on their NATO defense spending obligations, are now advising their citizens to stock up on bottled water, canned food, and flashlight batteries, locate their nearest bomb shelter, and otherwise prepare for a Russian missile barrage. The Danish government assures its people that they only need to remain sheltered for two days if Copenhagen gets hit by a small nuke while Sweden shelves the fight on climate change to take down offshore windmill farms that may interfere with radar interception of inbound missiles. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last Friday that the world is headed for “global conflict” and a member of NATO’s military committee has advised European businesses to prepare for a “wartime scenario.” The Paris newspaper Le Monde reported on Monday that French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are meeting to discuss sending troops to Ukraine following statements by French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, on the BBC that “the West cannot place red lines in its support for Ukraine. Every square kilometer gained by Russia in Ukraine brings the Russian army one square kilometer closer to Europe.” The Europeans are starting to panic over a possible collapse of Ukraine’s front lines following consistent Russian gains along the central front in Donbas in recent weeks. But it was lame-duck President Joe Biden’s stumbling decision to allow Ukraine to fire American ATACM missiles into Russia in support of Ukrainian forces clinging onto a pocket of the Russian border territory in Kursk that got the nuclear scare going. (READ MORE: Is Biden Trying to Start World War III Before Trump Takes Office?) As predicted some months back by The American Spectator, Ukraine’s increasingly precarious battlefield position would necessitate intensified strikes against Russian rear areas and logistics to blunt Russian advances. British defense chief, Admiral Tony Radakin, said then that it would become a “feature” of the war. (READ MORE: Russia Is Pounding Eastern Ukraine’s Industrial Heartland) Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s expansion of ground operations into Russia last August with the invasion of Kursk now means that tactical strikes against Russian command centers, airfields, ammunition depots, and logistical facilities (like those hit over recent days by ATACMS and British Storm Shadows) are now hitting inside Russia to protect Ukraine’s best NATO equipped units from possible destruction. Ukraine has been hitting targets deep inside Russia with its own swarm of domestically produced drones for some time. But bigger payloads armed with cluster and bunker-busting munitions are now required to disrupt a force of over 50,000 Russians and North Koreans gathering to annihilate some 20,000 Ukrainians resisting in Kursk. (READ MORE: North Korea Is in the Fight) Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that Ukraine cannot operate Storm Shadows or ATACMS without U.S. and British “guidance and navigational support.” His assertion seems confirmed by a conversation between German air force officials that was intercepted and leaked to the media last March in which they mention that British service personnel are in Ukraine fitting Storm Shadow systems onto Ukraine’s inherited fleet of Russian-built Su-24 bombers. Russia responded to the Western missile strikes last week with a newly developed 3,000-mile range Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) carrying multiple warheads that flattened an industrial complex in the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro. It came with a warning from Putin: “An attack from a non-nuclear state if backed by a nuclear power will be treated as a joint assault on Russia.” NATO and Ukrainian defense officials are meeting to discuss protection against Russia’s new Oreshnik IRBM that travels at ultrasonic Mach 10 speeds and which Putin has ordered to be “mass produced.” The Patriot, National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAM), and other Western air defense systems supplied to Ukraine can’t intercept it and Zelensky now wants American high-altitude THAAD anti-ballistic missiles. The Biden administration has asked Congress for an additional $24 billion in assistance for Ukraine and there is even talk of sending tactical nukes. International relations professor, Maurice Pearton, who taught classes when I attended the University of London had a theory on the dynamics of client-state relations that is highly relevant to the current situation: “While it’s generally thought that the providing state controls the client state, the exact opposite situation often develops in which the client state manipulates its patron.” Zelensky’s invasion of Kursk has pulled the U.S. and Europe into an ever-closer confrontation with Russia, over the objections of his top military commanders. “Perhaps our leaders have some big secret plan, otherwise I don’t understand why our best brigades are in Kursk region, while our ‘defense’ in Ukraine is falling apart,” said Gen. Dymitro Marchenko, former commander of Ukraine’s 28th mechanized brigade, who recently resigned from the army over differences with Zelensky. Former armed forces chief, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhny, recently dispatched as ambassador to London, also objected to the Kursk operation according to Politico and various Ukrainian media outlets, as did the commander of a unit deployed in the region, Gen. Emil Ishkulov, who has also been dismissed. Zelensky needs a reality check; the Europeans seemingly do as well. NATO should be telling Zelensky in no uncertain terms, and publicly if necessary, to pull out of Kursk. It can offer to cover the withdrawal so that what remains of the 47th Mechanized Brigade and other crack units can be more usefully deployed for a dynamic defense of Donbas and other key points of Ukraine’s interior as suggested by the generals Zelensky fired. Key parts of eastern Ukraine are salvageable. The strategic ridge fortress of Chasiv Yar, blocking a direct Russian advance on the industrial center of Kramatorsk, is holding out. The latest Russian flanking maneuver to penetrate its defenses across a dividing canal has collapsed in recent days. Western personnel may be required to operate the more complex weapons systems needed to save what’s left of Ukraine and this can be done through military services companies, an option discussed by Macron and Starmer, according to Le Monde. But it should be made crystal clear that the U.S. is not going to risk a nuclear war over Kursk. And, if the Europeans want to keep feeding Zelensky’s vain obsession of somehow trading some bombed-out square kilometers of trench lines in Kursk — if that much remains of his foothold by the time peace negotiations get started — for Crimea, they can do so on their own cognizance. It’s the Europeans who fueled Putin’s war machine by making their economies dependent on his gas, while President Donald Trump was advising against it. They could hardly come up with artillery shells for Ukraine when U.S. military aid funding was stuck in Congress. If they now choose to let Zelensky lead them by the nose into a reenactment of the Charge of the Light Brigade, while terrifying their populations with the nuclear specter, the U.S. should opt out. Washington can stress to Paris and London that NATO’s Article 5 is triggered to defend members from attack but not to attack Russia. The gallant Ukrainian army has a critical role to play in the future defense of Europe as outlined in Zelensky’s “victory plan,” but not if it gets destroyed in Kursk. Negotiating an acceptable deal with Putin is best accomplished from defensible positions, not from surrounded bunkers on an empty plain. READ MORE from Martin Arostegui: North Korea Is in the Fight Swallowing Eastern Ukraine Piecemeal Has Latin America Become a Base for Iran’s Terrorism? The post Kursk Is Not Worth a Nuclear War appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
29 w

Confronting Decadence and Decline
Favicon 
spectator.org

Confronting Decadence and Decline

I Bird droppings have never had particularly good press, ever since poor Tobit of the tribe of Nephtali, worn out after a long day of grave-digging, nodded off and “as he was sleeping, hot dung out of a swallow’s nest fell upon his eyes, and he was made blind.” Tobit’s hollow eyes were healed by a plaster of fish gall, but the high levels of uric acid present in avian excreta continue to pose problems for the rest of us, giving rise to entire industries devoted to mitigating the damage inflicted on building exteriors, bronze monuments, and vehicle surfaces by roosting pigeons and passing gulls. Parks and recreation officials wage an unending and largely futile war against the geese who befoul fields with their tubular green droppings, produced at the rate of one pound avoirdupois per day, while public health officials fret about the presence of Escherichia coli, Histoplasma capsulatum, Campylobacter jejuni, Cryptosporidium baileyi, and Giardia intestinalis, among other pathogens and parasites, in the fetid accumulations of bird droppings piling up all around us in cities and suburbs. In Japan, bird droppings have a rather better reputation, even imparting a bit of luck when deposited on one’s person, owing to the pure coincidence that the Japanese word for faeces, fun, sounds like the word for good luck, un, so that the phrase fun ga tsuku, or “You’ve been pooped on” closely resembles the more felicitous phrase un ga tsuku, or “You’ve had good luck.” Some of the finest Japanese haiku concern, of all things, bird excrement: The sticky droppings of a kite fall right on an iris petal (Buson) On the sprout of a reed, the old s—t of a wild goose — a fond memory (Kyōtai) Even the bird that s—ts on the camellia blossoms takes a rest on its journey (Sentoku) An evening shower — I can read the stupas covered in bird s—t (Onitsura) The bush warbler taking a s—t on the dead branch of a plum tree (Onitsura) A single cry — the little cuckoo feeds on the droppings of a bush warbler (Baijun) The bush warbler — s—ting on a rice cake from the top of a chestnut tree (Bashō) Vanishingly few Westerners, one suspects, have given much consideration to the matter of bush warbler droppings, but as the poet and essayist Masaoka Shiki observed in his 1900 essay “Haiku on S—t,” published in the influential literary magazine Hototogisu (“Lesser Cuckoo”), “[S]—t from bush warblers is said to refine the skin and it is used in rice bran sponges — so, of course, it does not evoke a feeling of filthiness.” Japanese bush warbler droppings, along with those emanating from the  cloacae of nightingales, have from time immemorial been used as whitening ingredients in uguisu no fun, literally “nightingale faeces” but better known as the “geisha facial,” and are also employed as kimono stain-removers, leading Shiki to conclude, seemingly counterintuitively to our benighted eyes, that “by nature, bird s—t is not such a filthy thing.” Bird feces of course has more than merely cosmetic applications. The Japanese farmer and philosopher Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008), a noble practitioner of no-till and pesticide-free farming methods, determined that foods “grown in soil balanced by the action of worms, microorganisms, and decomposing animal manure are the cleanest and most wholesome of all,” and so relied mainly on the judicious administration of straw, clover, and chicken manure to produce his abundant fields. Yet the greatest bird poop enthusiast in Japanese history was neither a poet nor an organic farmer, but a Tokugawa-era philosopher and politician by the name of Kumazawa Banzan (1619–1691). II The son of a masterless samurai (rōnin), Banzan had a peripatetic youth, born in Kyoto Inari (now Kyoto’s Shimogyō-ku ward), sent to serve as a page in the Okayama Domain, and living for a while with his grandfather in Kirihara (now Ōmihachiman) before returning to Okayama. Bold and noble ideas were always working in his mind, like yeast, and he fell at an early age under the spell of the Japanese Neo-Confucian school of thought known as Yōmeigaku, or Yangmingism, which stressed the unity of inner knowledge and action. As the school’s Ming-era Chinese founder Wang Yangming had argued, “[N]owadays, many people treat knowledge and actions as two distinct things. They think the need to know first, only then can they do something in this area. This lead them to do nothing, as well as to know nothing.” Banzan was determined to be a man of action as well as learning. While heading an artillery unit, he spent his spare time organizing what he called a Hanazono-kai (花園会), or “Flower Garden Association,” where the common people might be educated, something of a novelty at the time. He also studied hydrology and engineering, and after Okayama Domain’s Bizen Plains were devastated by floods after the typhoon of 1654, the Neo-Confucianist scholar strove to improve the canals, dams, and ponds of the region as part of his program of “Making Mountains Luxuriant and Rivers Run Deep.” Banzan’s greatest cause célèbre was the reforestation of the “bald mountains” that enclasped the rural flatlands of Okayama, mountains which had been stripped bare by the needs of Japan’s growing cities, resulting in landslides and clogged rivers and unsightly vistas. Cedars and cypresses were to be planted to prevent further erosion, but first he ordered that: Depending on the extent of the valleys and peaks, 30, 50, 100, or even 200 koku of millet should be sown, and then on top of that, dry grass and reeds should be spread. Various birds would come to feed on the millet. Bird droppings would soon mix in with the soil so that trees planted would grow well there. The dried grass covering the millet would make it difficult for birds to get, forcing them to stay longer. Moreover, the millet would not be washed away by rain, and should grow well in the mountain soil. If done in this way, in only thirty years mountains would be covered with various trees. With luxuriant growth of mountain forests, nearby villages would not lack firewood. When this approach becomes well established and widespread, mountains will be lush and firewood in lasting abundance. Until such luxuriant growth is realized, pinewood cut from mountains and chaff from rice fields should suffice for fuel. Pines are not beneficial for mountain soil or arable rice land. But even in rocky, poor ground where grasses and trees do not grow, pine trees will. If we simply focus on what benefits us now, we will be ignoring the harm that comes in later years. In his 1687 treatise Daigaku Wakumon, or Responding to the Great Learning, Banzan summarized his program: “Water, plants, seeds and nutrients all fall and flow from the high places to the low places, and especially the high places become poor, but sometimes, with the help of birds, we can make it all flow from the low places to the high places.” Thus did rootedness defy the laws of entropy and Newtonian physics. As the anonymous Tokyo-based blogger and traditional architecture enthusiast Wrath of Gnon put it, “Isn’t that a nice image of localism/cyclical economy/ecology/holistic thinking, all rolled into one?” It certainly is, but Banzan was never afforded the respect he so richly deserved from the shogunate. His advocacy on behalf of small-scale farmers, his education reforms, and his support for promotion based on merit instead of heredity did not appeal to the feudal daimyō lords. His imaginative public works projects, expected to bear fruit years and even decades down the road, did not impress the corrupt, myopic Edo bureaucracy. Ever the Confucian, Banzan railed against the issue of “soft evil” (jūaku, 柔悪), which prevailed when “the cycle of sophistication reached an extreme,” and was to be contrasted with the “hard evil” (gōaku 剛悪) of war, internecine strife, tyrannical oppression, and the like. Decadence had set in, to the detriment of the common weal. The shogunate’s coffers were empty, the people suffered from disasters natural and man-made, agricultural yields were down, and dedicated servants of the people (like Kumazawa Banzan) were incarcerated and sent into internal exile. “In the present,” he wearily concluded, “people are numerous, but there are no good men.” III Another free-thinking samurai, the Buddhist monk Suzuki Shōsan (1579–1655), would have agreed on that point at least with his Neo-Confucian near contemporary. The founder of his own school of Zen Buddhism, which he called Niō Zen or Guardian King Zen, Shōsan likewise stressed the importance of combining inner enlightenment with good works. Regardless of whether you are busy “tilling fields, or selling wares, or even confronting an enemy in the heat of battle,” he maintained, “direct enlightenment will occur at key moments of one’s day to day life.” Yet the Zen monk would be just as disappointed by Tokugawa decadence as the Yangmingist Confucian civil servant. Shōsan was even stronger in his condemnation of Tokugawa Japan than Banzan, complaining that “Buddhism is in full decline, the direction has gone wrong, and nobody’s really alive. Everyone’s dead.” His solution was to “dispose myself so as to conquer all things with a buoyant spirit, twenty-four hours a day,” with the aid of the “unshakable energy of the Guardian Kings or of Fudo,” those benevolent deities that can drive away evil spirits. His advice for his contemporaries was deceptively straightforward: “You have to make sure you get out of the starving ghosts and beasts, and at least become a human being.” In an era of spiritual crisis, this was perhaps easier said than done. For the Neo-Confucian Kumazawa Banzan, the decadence and decline of his society was the result of incompetent and venal governance, and could be addressed technocratically. For the Zen Buddhist Shōsan Suzuki, the parlous state of Tokugawa-era Japan was the consequence of a spiritual crisis. They were both correct. Nations falter and fail for a variety of reasons, some them politico-economic, some of them psycho-socio-culturo-spiritual. Richard Edwin Smith, in his magisterial treatise The Failure of the Roman Republic (1955), demonstrated how the breakdown of Roman republican society in the 1st century BC was a consequence of failed provincial and foreign policies, the high-handedness of elites and magistrates, and in-fighting between the Equites and the Senate. Yet it was also a profoundly spiritual crisis: Instead of the self-restraint of earlier times, we find an an almost total lack of restraint on the part of most men and women in the attainment of their wishes and a reluctance or refusal to submit to the discipline of society; selfishness and individuality are the dominant traits of this period, combined with a growing lack of moral self-control, the result of the loosening grip of Roman religion and the Roman code of morals. Society, as Smith concluded, is a: sensitive organism; remove or destroy the unifying element, and it breaks into a thousand pieces; men still live together, but the cement which bound them into one is gone…once the faith is shaken and destroyed, it cannot be replaced to order; it can only be won again by suffering and experience. For a time things can seem to be well, until the last of the spiritual capital is spent; but when the final cheque has been drawn, society is bankrupt, and the consequence must ensue; before the society can come together once again, fresh capital must be created. Fortunately for the Romans, this did eventually come to pass, when the “Roman spirit, conservative, instinctive, emerged from the carnage of the civil wars to regain itself, and though it could not exorcise the past, it tried to link itself to the further past to create a better future.” I pray we have the capacity to do the same, as we confront our own era of decadence and decline. IV Republican Rome, the Tokugawa Shogunate — polities separated by the long, rolling waves of Time from each other and from our own world, but which demonstrate the eternal truth that society is a sensitive organism, and one prone to desensitization. Shōsan Suzuki looked around and saw a civilization in which “nobody’s really alive,” and “everybody’s dead.” Kumazawa Banzan perceived a land in the grips of “soft evil,” stifling everyone and everything. And their words of warning still ring true today, for has there ever been a world more beset by soft evil than our own? Soft evil is everywhere around us. We find it in our relationship to the natural world, a topic near and dear to Banzan. Soft evil is when we saturate the soil beneath us with toxic endocrine disruptors. Soft evil is when the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases fund experiments in which scientists graft the scalps of electively aborted fetuses onto newly “humanized” rodents; in which beagle puppies have their heads locked inside cages filled with diseased sandflies; in which baby monkeys are systematically and callously subjected to abuse at the NIH laboratory in Poolesville, Maryland. There is a soft evil at work when green energy boondoggles wreak havoc on avian, chiropteran, and cetacean populations; a soft evil at work in our treatment of livestock in concentrated animal feeding operations; and, yes, a soft evil at work when an innocent eastern gray squirrel is euthanized by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to no rational purpose whatsoever. “It can truly be said,” wrote Schopenhauer, that “Men are the devils of the earth, and the animals are the tormented souls,” and when that proves to be the case, as it is so often, you can be certain that soft evil is abroad in the world. And then there is the soft evil we perpetrate against each other: the aesthetic soft evil of brutalism and other forms of soulless modern architecture that spoil our built environment; the soft evil of plainly idiotic COVID-era vaccine and mask mandates, and school and church closures, the effects of which will be felt for years to come; the soft evil of urban anarcho-tyranny; the soft evil of social contagions that are in direct contravention of basic human societal and biological norms. It is this all-pervasive soft evil that has produced, to quote the traditionalist commentator Wrath of Gnon once more, “a medical system that doesn’t heal, an agricultural system that doesn’t nourish, a defense system that doesn’t bring peace, a financial system that multiplies debt, a homeownership system that can’t house. Our modern world is truly the greatest of evil spectacles.” It doesn’t have to be this way, and there is now an unprecedented opportunity to roll much of this back, to make our nation healthy again, to make our public buildings beautiful again (like anyone of any aesthetic sensibilities, I am eagerly looking forward to the passage of the Beautifying Federal Civil Architecture Act, S. 1943, and the issuance of related executive orders), and to make sure that the Freudian Todestrieb (death drive) of civilizational self-hatred and self-immolation is firmly repudiated.  We should look to luminaries like Kumazawa Banzan, who struggled against the odds to forge a society operating in tune with the natural world, in which rootedness might prevail against erosion — both literally and figuratively. The playwright Plautus understood that pulchrum ornatum turpes mores pejus cœno collinunt — “bad conduct soils the finest ornament more than filth,” a phrase that might have come from the brush of the Neo-Confucian Banzan, and, as we have seen, there is nothing filthy about a life lived in accordance with the exigencies of Nature, nothing retrograde about a life lived in accordance with the conservative, instinctive values that heretofore sustained us. In spite of all of the obstacles thrown in his path, Banzan still hoped that with “good administration” there would be a return to what he called the “clear and bright, Vital Stuff of cyclical spring” and an end to the soft evil that so tormented him. He never abandoned his faith in the possibilities of benevolent governance, and neither should we.  READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: Chinese Dissidents Seek to Undermine the Regime With Egg Fried Rice Recipes War and Punishment: Saltykov-Shchedrin’s Foolsburg The Vatican–China Pact Has Proved to Be a Catastrophe The post Confronting Decadence and Decline appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
29 w

James Burnham: the Sage of Kent, Connecticut
Favicon 
spectator.org

James Burnham: the Sage of Kent, Connecticut

James Burnham: An Intellectual Biography By David T. Byrne (Northern Illinois University Press, 256 pages, $33.95) “Only by renouncing all ideology can we begin to see the world and man.” So wrote James Burnham in a 1963 edition of The Machiavellians (originally published in 1943), a book that is central to Burnham’s political philosophy that had evolved from its Marxist beginnings in the early 1930s to its conservative ending as a Senior Editor of National Review in the late 1970s. Burnham’s political philosophy is the subject of a new book by scholar David T. Byrne titled James Burnham: An Intellectual Biography. Byrne, who earned a doctorate in history from Claremont Graduate University and who previously wrote an intellectual biography of Ronald Reagan, claims that there were two James Burnhams: “One an embryonic neocon, and the other a paleoconservative paragon.” But, as the quote at the beginning of this review indicates, Burnham transcended ideologies after his initial seven-year flirtation with Marxism (of the Trotskyite variety). As Burnham wrote in a preface to the 1960 edition of The Managerial Revolution (originally published in 1941), in the 1930s, he had accepted the “empty ideological mumbo jumbo” of Marxist thought until he “tried to relate the [Marxist] formulas to reality.” During much of the 1930s, he was the leading American spokesman for Soviet exile Leon Trotsky, but he came to view Marxism as a religion instead of a rational political philosophy. The signing of the Nazi–Soviet pact in August 1939 coupled with Burnham’s increasing doubts about the coherence of Marxist thought when subjected to empirical evidence, led him to shed his Marxist identity and intellectual colleagues. As Byrne notes, Burnham’s break with Marxism occurred as he began writing for Partisan Review, an influential liberal (mostly non-communist) journal of opinion. And as war clouds gathered, Burnham turned his attention to ideas about power and geopolitics. During the war, Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution and The Machiavellians. He envisioned World War II resulting in a postwar clash of “super-states,” each led by a “managerial” elite whose primary goals were to maintain and, where practical, expand their power and influence. Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal America were all ruled by “an elite privileged class that would use the state to advance its social, economic, and political interests.” Byrne explains that Burnham used the socio-political ideas of the Italian political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli and a group of Machiavelli’s intellectual disciples, including Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, Robert Michels, and Georges Sorel, to formulate his own “science of politics” that ruthlessly examined the rhetoric and actions of the “ruling class” in all major powers. Burnham’s science of politics pierced the veil of “formal” political rhetoric to show the “real” meaning of such rhetoric when viewed in the context of history and actual events. Political elites, he wrote, cared primarily about their own power and privileges. Politics for Burnham — domestic and international — was about the struggle for power among elites. Byrne writes that Burnham tried “to scientifically study how rulers obtain, use, and lose power.” Human liberty and freedom, Burnham wrote, can only thrive when there is a meaningful opposition to those who wield state power. True democracy was impossible. Human nature is flawed to such an extent that ambition must be countered by ambition. During the war, Burnham worked as an analyst for the Office of Strategic Services, and after the war, he consulted for the newly established Central Intelligence Agency. The postwar world presented Burnham with the opportunity to use the science of power derived from the Machiavellians combined with geopolitical insights he learned from thinkers like Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman. The clash of super-states that he predicted in The Managerial Revolution grew from the ashes of the Second World War. As Byrne notes, the “themes of power and struggle were central in Burnham’s next three books: The Struggle for the World (1947). The Coming Defeat of Communism (1950), and Containment or Liberation? (1953).” With this Cold War trilogy and his work for the CIA and Congress for Cultural Freedom, Burnham became a “cold warrior.” Byrne analyzes each book of Burnham’s Cold War trilogy. Together, these books urged U.S. policymakers to strengthen “containment” while moving to the offensive with a policy Burnham called “Liberation.” Burnham’s trilogy, Byrne notes, was highly influential both in Washington and in intellectual circles. The Struggle for the World likely influenced the Truman Doctrine. The Coming Defeat of Communism was the basis for the drafting and adoption of NSC-68, the classified strategy document that guided American Cold War policy for decades. Containment or Liberation? influenced the Eisenhower administration’s rhetoric (if not their actions) and became what historian George Nash called the conservative movement’s “theoretical formulation for victory in the Cold War.” Burnham later abandoned the anti-communist Left when they refused to acknowledge the danger posed by communist infiltration of our government and society. Burnham applauded Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to reveal domestic communists within the government, even if he didn’t always agree with McCarthy’s methods. He later wrote (with his wife’s help) The Web of Subversion (1954), which provided what Byrne calls a “litany of examples” that detailed the nature and extent of communist infiltration of the government, including at the highest levels in the FDR and Truman administrations. With George Kennan and Walter Lippmann, Burnham became one of the most influential Cold War strategists of the late 1940s to the early 1950s. Burnham and Kennan worked together early in the Truman administration to conduct “political-subversive” warfare against the Soviet empire. Containment or Liberation? was a respectful but withering attack on Kennan’s containment strategy set forth in “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” which appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1947. Burnham argued that containment was too passive, too defensive, and would result in a Soviet victory unless the Soviet empire changed or collapsed. Kennan thought that Soviet systemic problems would lead to the gradual “breakup or mellowing” of Soviet power. Burnham thought that the U.S. should seek to exploit Soviet vulnerabilities to bring about that change or collapse. To this day, scholars debate which one was right. Byrne is among those (this writer included) who believe that Pres. Ronald Reagan shifted U.S. strategy from Kennan’s containment to Burnham’s liberation during the 1980s and thereby brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Byrne shows how Reagan’s policies echoed the proposals that Burnham wrote about in his Cold War trilogy and in numerous columns at National Review. Reagan conducted economic, political, geopolitical, and subversive warfare against the Soviet empire that left it, as Reagan predicted, on the “ash heap of history.” Burnham, however, doubted that the U.S. and the West would achieve victory in the Cold War. In 1955, he was recruited by William F. Buckley Jr. to become a senior editor at National Review, where for the next 23 years he traveled several days per week from his home in Kent, Connecticut, to New York City to write one of the most important and incisive columns on international affairs. Each Burnham column manifested the Machiavellian realism that defined the essence of his intellectual work. Burnham, in those columns, was skeptical that U.S. and Western leaders would do what was necessary to achieve victory over Soviet communism. In 1964, he wrote his last major book Suicide of the West, which was a devastating dissection of modern liberalism that he characterized as the “ideology of Western suicide.” Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, Burnham focused his columns on the war in Vietnam, advising the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations to wage war to achieve victory or get out. They did neither, and the war was lost in part, wrote Burnham, because U.S. policy was confined in the “strategic prison” of containment. In the book’s epilogue, Byrne attempts to explain Burnham’s continuing relevance to today’s world. He notes that both neoconservatives and paleoconservatives claim Burnham as one of their own. The neocons claim that Burnham was an interventionist, while the paleocons view him as a realist. In truth, Burnham doesn’t wholly fit in with either group. But neither, contrary to Byrne’s argument, are there two Burnhams. Instead, as John Patrick Diggins, Samuel Francis, and Daniel Kelly have explained, Burnham’s positions on issues evolved based on empirical evidence. He was a Machiavellian realist who would likely see a Trumpian America First policy as a good fit for the second decade of the 21st century. He would recognize and seek to oppose the influence of the “deep state.” He would understand and appreciate the limits of American power. And he would surely grasp the challenge posed by the Chinese communist empire. Oh, how we could use the sage of Kent, Connecticut, in today’s crisis-ridden world. READ MORE from Francis Sempa: International Affairs Professor Says Biden ‘Checked’ China: What World Does He Live In? Rejuvenating the Monroe Doctrine Is Biden Trying to Start World War III Before Trump Takes Office? The post James Burnham: the Sage of Kent, Connecticut appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
29 w

Chuck Schumer Is Dead Wrong on AI
Favicon 
spectator.org

Chuck Schumer Is Dead Wrong on AI

As Congress finishes its work for the 2024 calendar year, outgoing U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is racing to regulate algorithmic artificial intelligence (AI). Republicans are understandably wary. As House Speaker Mike Johnson put it, “We want to resist overregulating” because “the innovation aspect of AI is very important.” Artificial intelligence, especially AI-based pricing systems, benefits American families in many ways. It is making it easier for everyone in the economy — both consumers and businesses — to get better pricing deals. Services like Hotwire and Carvana help consumers get better car prices, while software like Atomize and RealPage help businesses ensure they aren’t pricing their hotel rooms, apartments, and other products and services too high or low. (READ MORE: Saving Us From Scheming Landlords? Biden DOJ Sues Real Estate Tech Company RealPage) However, the efficiency and cost-savings generated by innovations like algorithmic artificial intelligence do not seem to matter to politicians who need a boogeyman. For months, the Democratic Party has blamed algorithmic AI for the price inflation that Congress and the White House’s runaway tax-and-spend agenda (coupled with the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies) have caused. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris instigated much of the Democratic Party’s current ire over the tech. In the weeks leading up to the presidential election, they continually made AI a scapegoat, labeling algorithmic AI software “price-fixing software.” However, the artificial intelligence software only reflects marketplace realities. It’s not the tech’s fault that they have made inflation out of control. Nevertheless, their activism against this tech propels Democrats in Congress into action. The Biden Department of Justice has only made this issue more front and center in Democratic lawmakers’ eyes. In August, it filed a suit against algorithmic pricing software that property managers use to help them determine the monthly rent sweet spot for their properties. In late October, it also filed an amicus brief in a federal appeals court against hotels that use AI-driven algorithms. A district judge originally threw out the case, correctly noting that the algorithms don’t set prices. They just provide recommendations, which the hotels sometimes ignore. Nevertheless, the court’s findings are not stopping Democrats in the executive and legislative branches from demonizing and scapegoating artificial intelligence. If Schumer ultimately gets his wish and regulates this technology, there’s a lot more at stake than whether businesses and consumers will be able to continue leveraging AI to get good pricing deals. While serving as chair of the Federal Trade Commission during the Trump administration, Joseph Simons said the theory DOJ is using in its recent cases on algorithms “would raise considerable obstacles for the commercial use of algorithms, proprietary data, and artificial intelligence, resulting in significant harm to innovation and efficient operation of markets.” (READ MORE: Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses?) That would be troubling because artificial intelligence is already improving Americans’ lives in many tangible ways, both in the private and public sectors. Last year, researchers at Stanford University created an AI tool that helped transportation authorities more efficiently apply congestion pricing to busy highways. By raising tolls as “demand” for the road increases, this new algorithm could eliminate stop-and-go traffic jams and help get people to work on time. Worker productivity goes up, carbon emissions go down — a win-win. In October, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that its new AI tools halted or recovered over $4 billion in improper or fraudulent payments, up from just $652.7 million in the previous fiscal year. The Department of Veterans Affairs uses an AI-driven tool called Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health (REACH VET) to identify veterans who are at risk of committing suicide. Since its introduction in 2017, the system has flagged around 6,700 veterans per month, potentially saving thousands of lives. But like all AI tools, REACH VET’s effectiveness depends on how good the inputs are. A report published in March found that the program ignored risk factors that largely apply to female veterans such as sexual assault or endometriosis. The VA is adjusting the algorithm accordingly. Policymakers should let this be a lesson about the artificial intelligence industry more broadly — when programmers aren’t worried about running afoul of byzantine regulations, they can constantly tinker with their models, achieving better outcomes for everyone. How much better? Well, PricewaterhouseCoopers International Ltd. (PwC) projects that the tech will contribute over $15 trillion to the global economy by 2030, while Goldman Sachs expects it to boost U.S. productivity by roughly 1.5 percent annually starting in 2027. If the U.S. doesn’t capitalize on this pivotal moment in time, it will be left behind and will be forced to watch the economies of adversarial countries like China (which is already projected to reap 42 percent of the $15 trillion in global economic benefits from AI) gain a significant leg up. If policymakers are worried that artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment, they shouldn’t be. These algorithmic tools aren’t going to take jobs. Instead, they’ll make employees more productive by giving them a personal assistant who can automate tasks that once ate up hours of their day. They might be doing different work, but they won’t be doing no work. This is nothing new. The same process played out during previous waves of automation. Sometimes, efficiency-boosting technology actually creates more jobs. As Oren Cass pointed out in his book The Once and Future Worker, the invention of the ATM lowered banks’ cost of doing business and freed up employees to focus on higher-ROI tasks, enabling the banks to open more branches and hire more people. If the benefits of AI are incalculable, then so are the costs of creating a hostile regulatory environment around it. We might never know we’re paying these costs because the AI tools that might have improved our lives will never be invented. Or perhaps we’ll be painfully aware of what we missed out on when we watch foreign adversaries assume global leadership after winning the AI race. When the American people stand to gain or lose so much, it becomes their government’s duty to encourage innovation, not stifle it. Mark Anthony is a tech analyst and former Silicon Valley executive with Forrester Research, Inc. He is now the host of the nationally syndicated program, The Patriot and The Preacher Show.  READ MORE: Saving Us From Scheming Landlords? Biden DOJ Sues Real Estate Tech Company RealPage Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses? Making Friends: AI and Companionship AI Chatbots Lean to the Left. That’s a Problem for Elections. The post Chuck Schumer Is Dead Wrong on AI appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
Like
Comment
Share
Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
29 w

2025 Sick New World Festival Canceled
Favicon 
rockintown.com

2025 Sick New World Festival Canceled

Organizers announced the cancelation in a statement on social media: “It is with great disappointment that we announce that Sick New World will no longer take place in Las Vegas on April 12, 2025.” Apparently, the fees for Metallica and Linkin Park (said to be in the $5 million range) did not match the projected revenue from ticket sales. “Tickets purchased directly from Font Gate Tickets will be automatically refunded to the original method of payment in as little as 30 days.” ### The post 2025 Sick New World Festival Canceled appeared first on RockinTown.
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
29 w

Trump May be Oreshniked on Ukraine Even Before He Gets to China
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

Trump May be Oreshniked on Ukraine Even Before He Gets to China

by Pepe Escobar, The Unz Review: With Oreshnik now entering the picture, everywhere the Hegemon will try to harass China they will also have to face Russia. When it comes to state of the art Russian weaponry, what the inestimable Ray McGovern defines as the MICIMATT – the whole Hegemonic complex – seems to dwell in perpetual […]
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 1835 out of 56666
  • 1831
  • 1832
  • 1833
  • 1834
  • 1835
  • 1836
  • 1837
  • 1838
  • 1839
  • 1840
  • 1841
  • 1842
  • 1843
  • 1844
  • 1845
  • 1846
  • 1847
  • 1848
  • 1849
  • 1850

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund