On 08/31/2016 11:43 PM, Steve Kinney wrote: > On 08/31/2016 11:47 PM, Александр wrote: >> this has already been discussed dozens of times (on the thread >> about "offtopic" posts) -> Zen is NOT talking to himself. There are >> thousands of people here on the list. Only~15 of them participate >> most of the discussions. The rest - read and/or answer privately. > >> By the way, if you are so A-political dude, you could always >> filter these/all of Zen's letters. > > Technologists are likely to assume that political problems are > products of stupidity, and that putting their own kind of intelligence > in the driver's seat would automatically create optimum solutions to > all those problems.
Well, I do assert that stupidity is the key problem. But in my humble opinion, the only viable solution is absolute individual autonomy. > Maybe so, but only if that intelligence is given relevant and accurate > data to work from: Context is everything, and in a world dominated > by indoctrinated ideologies nothing is more subversive than the facts. It's all bullshit. > The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay: Fuck them all. > http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignm > ent/ > > =or= > > https://tinyurl.com/zbig180 > > Wherein Brzezinski says: > > "While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s > economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly > endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint > tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. > Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some > state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would > spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably > be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to > fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially > threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and > then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least > predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. > Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer > run it could be China. > > "Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more > traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown > comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of > this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied > with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental > challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and > effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And > that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that > recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework. > > ... and that's a paradigm shift, coming as it does from the man who > created Al Qaida and laid the foundation for today's business as usual > methods for regime change a.k.a. NeoColonial conquest. > > We now return to our regularly scheduled Cypherpunks, a world of pure > imagination where smart people like us would rise to the top of the > social hierarchy on merit alone and fix the world, if only those > damned [scapegoat name here] would get the hell out of our way. > > :o) > > > > >