"I can't believe you have an unelected bureaucrat clearing out our unelected bureaucrats!"
I strongly suspect that if you eat enough wonderbread you will become immortal and ageless, like wonderbread.
What I'm imagining at the moment is that we're heading towards a multifaceted civilizational existential crisis where we have no choice but to restructure many things. At that point we won't have a choice to keep doing things the way we have. There's going to be global consequences on every continent to the population collapse, to the state collapse, and to the culture collapse, and part of that is going to be a new way of looking at the world that supports new structures.
People think that developing nations will be the saviors, but those nations are only growing because of overwhelming support of the developed world, and as that developed world collapses, there won't be resources to continue pouring into the developing world, which will mean those developing countries will be facing a more acute crisis with nobody around to save them. We won't have the resources in our communities either, so that's another non-starter.
China faces a similar collapse to developed nations, India is continuing to grow but has big problems people already are starting to realize they don't want to import. Africa is almost exclusively reliant on western capital but also competence, so once the western competency crisis hits hard, there won't be anyone or anything to send over there to bootstrap their economies and it'll be a huge crisis on the continent.
I'm using the language of doomerism, but I'm not a doomer and my ideas aren't doomer ideas. When the western roman empire fell, many of the people who were in Rome for the wealth left, and it set the stage for the Europe which eventually became the center of the world for a surprising amount of time. In the same way, the collapse that's inevitably coming due to demographic and economic shifts will represent the fall of an empire, but a chance to rebuild something without the same contradictions, just as Europe stopped having the systemic contradictions of the western Roman empire.
From this perspective, why will the institutions change? Because only people who are willing to build something will arrive in the future at all. Many bloodlines will be cut off entirely (Something like half of women will never have kids, and over half of men will never have kids, which is crazy -- not even not replacement rate, none!), most institutions which survived off of state largesse and existential inertia will find they can't rely on either anymore. Of those who do have kids, many of those kids are raised as non-people who only know how to tap a tablet. They won't be raised with wisdom, they won't be raised to have skills, it's assumed that our current monster state bureaucracy will figure things out with raw manpower, but that's not going to be practical. Only things which are brought into the future with intentionality will exist, and so I'm imagining an outsized role for example for a reformed church that sees the world through a new set of eyes, much like the church that brought Europe into its golden age.
Working on my next book which will incorporate and embody may of these ideas in much deeper depth than this post.
People think that developing nations will be the saviors, but those nations are only growing because of overwhelming support of the developed world, and as that developed world collapses, there won't be resources to continue pouring into the developing world, which will mean those developing countries will be facing a more acute crisis with nobody around to save them. We won't have the resources in our communities either, so that's another non-starter.
China faces a similar collapse to developed nations, India is continuing to grow but has big problems people already are starting to realize they don't want to import. Africa is almost exclusively reliant on western capital but also competence, so once the western competency crisis hits hard, there won't be anyone or anything to send over there to bootstrap their economies and it'll be a huge crisis on the continent.
I'm using the language of doomerism, but I'm not a doomer and my ideas aren't doomer ideas. When the western roman empire fell, many of the people who were in Rome for the wealth left, and it set the stage for the Europe which eventually became the center of the world for a surprising amount of time. In the same way, the collapse that's inevitably coming due to demographic and economic shifts will represent the fall of an empire, but a chance to rebuild something without the same contradictions, just as Europe stopped having the systemic contradictions of the western Roman empire.
From this perspective, why will the institutions change? Because only people who are willing to build something will arrive in the future at all. Many bloodlines will be cut off entirely (Something like half of women will never have kids, and over half of men will never have kids, which is crazy -- not even not replacement rate, none!), most institutions which survived off of state largesse and existential inertia will find they can't rely on either anymore. Of those who do have kids, many of those kids are raised as non-people who only know how to tap a tablet. They won't be raised with wisdom, they won't be raised to have skills, it's assumed that our current monster state bureaucracy will figure things out with raw manpower, but that's not going to be practical. Only things which are brought into the future with intentionality will exist, and so I'm imagining an outsized role for example for a reformed church that sees the world through a new set of eyes, much like the church that brought Europe into its golden age.
Working on my next book which will incorporate and embody may of these ideas in much deeper depth than this post.
I spent tonight thinking about what schools in the next level of civilization might look like.
Education is an important part of the world, and education shapes the citizenry. Most people of any political affiliation agree with that point, and so the structure of education is important.
Modernist education is largely based on the Prussian model. This model first and foremost wanted to create good soldiers to shove into the meat grinder because Prussia had the worst location on the map and had to contend with being land locked in the middle of the continent, and so they had to produce lots of the best soldiers they could. Later on, it was adopted by other countries and modified to produce the largest number of excellent factory workers. That’s why everything is based on schedules, and rote memorization, and standardized tests, and there’s a bell to take a break and a bell to stop your break and a bell to eat lunch and a bell to stop eating lunch and a bell to arrive and a bell to go home.
Postmodernist education is still based on modernist thought, so most schools are still largely modernist in nature, with some really pushing the envelope to eliminate things identified and deconstructed about the Prussian model. Unfortunately, in some cases, this is undeniably bad – we are producing graduates who can’t read, can’t write, can’t do math, can’t argue, can’t live without the government supporting them. It’s the worst of all possible worlds.
I think it’s safe to assume that a future society will want to achieve a number of goals. It will want to produce graduates of virtue who will be fit to become voters in the meritocratic democracy (an idea in a future society that only the worthy will get the vote). It will want to produce human beings who will contribute to culture and civilization as a whole. It will want to produce workers who can work in the jobs and produce what’s needed.
In my view, a post-metamodernist superposition embracing education will be actually really difficult on students, and people who aren’t taking it seriously will fail. The postmodern idea that if you don’t let people fail if they’re failures is stupid because it makes the fundamental mistake “the map is not the territory”. Postmodernists will bring up statistics showing that people who flunk out of school make less money and go to jail more, but when they push failures through the school system all that happens is now high school students make less money and go to jail more too – it’s self-evident, people who don’t make the grade don’t make the grade. Whether you want to blame society, their innate attributes such as intelligence, or their personal failings such as a lack of self-control, people who can’t do a thing can’t do the thing, that’s axiomatic, and lying and saying they can doesn’t mean they can, it means you lied about it and so we can’t trust you to say something that is true.
We’re going to start with a classical aristocratic education, the sort of education an aristocratic family would put their children through to prepare for leadership. Exposure to art, music, literature, philosophy, logic (including mathematics and geometry), from a very early age. In keeping with the idea that multiple things have to happen at once, I don’t think we necessarily need homework as a bygone conclusion, but that just means the school days are very dense, and when you’re at school you’re engaged all day long. To break up the day, there will be the other parts of aristocratic education such as horseback riding and physical combat training. An important chunk of the philosophy will be focused on moral teaching. Not necessarily telling students what is right and what is wrong, but helping to build the foundation to think at higher levels of ego development such that they can comprehend and complete moral analysis through the lens of their cultural framework.
Another part of the education won’t be just being exposed to art, music, literature, philosophy, and logic, but engaging in the creation of the same. The expectation is to be able to somewhat contribute to society by the end of a high school education, that’s why it’s called “high school” – it’s a high end school that goes above and beyond to prepare you for life. The point won’t be to create a piece of garbage 500 word composition which tries to pad out the words as much as possible, people would be focusing on creating creative and interesting works that contribute to societal discourse (as much as an 18 year old really can).
The final part that would fill out the school year would be classes that look at general job skills. This isn’t actually to prepare people for jobs, the understanding in culture ought to be that jobs will train you on the job. Instead, it’s to help people understand the fundamental basis of all the things people around them have to do to keep the world running, everything from welding and machining to woodworking to carpentry and cement work to banking and computer programming and lawmaking. Not a lot of each, but exposure so individuals everywhere know that work consists of things across the board.
I can imagine such a school system would not be a raw institution, it would routinely have parents volunteering from the community to help out if they’re not working to ensure a high number of adults per child in class. This would fit with the idea that the community is something separate from the state, and that they are involved in raising their own kids directly.
One thing I think would be mandatory would be for at least one person at home and one person at school to take a pledge to take responsibility for the success of the student, and for the student to pledge their dedication to success to the teacher and the parent. If that student doesn’t meet their potential, the school and the person at home (probably a parent) will have to publicly take responsibility for the failure which will be a deeply disgraceful situation neither the sponsoring teacher nor the sponsoring parent will want. Poor students will be encouraged to drop out to spare the teachers and the parents the disgrace. I suppose this wouldn’t be mandatory, but in a society that has re-embraced meaning as something that exists even if in superposition, honor would have to be one of those values, and it would be an expectation that parents or students honorably accept the shame of their failing children. The teacher wouldn't want to falsely fail students typically, because they'd have to go in front of everyone and say "I failed Bob as his teacher". The parents claiming their child was unfairly failed would have to face the teacher who would also be shamed. In both cases, the child would have to publicly apologize to the parent and the teacher for the shame of their failure. If a student seems on track to fail, a quiet conversation between the teacher, student, and parents might have to occur. A student could even go back to school afterwards, it would just be understood that their sponsors may face further shame if they continue to not meet the mark. On the other hand, if the student gave it their all and didn’t fail because they were being dishonorable but just because they didn’t meet the mark, they can hold their head high and say “Thank you for your efforts, my skill was simply not enough to pass.”
An opposing potentiality is that teachers pass students who are not meeting the mark. I think we can utilize honor here too. When a student clearly fails, the sponsoring teacher can say while apologizing, “I’m sorry, I did my very best but I failed Bob as his teacher. However, it is my opinion that Bob did not enter this class capable to pass it, and last year his sponsor was Mr. X” which would be quite scandalous towards Mr. X, who would suddenly have to defend their honor. Of course, the principal would get to see all this and can make decisions as head teacher about what to do with these teachers who are publicly disgraced. Part of the purpose of future I’m envisioning is that the principal is ultimately the one to choose how to manage their school, and in some cases that could mean re-training their teachers, in other cases it could mean reaching out to parents to recommend retraining for them. I will mention here, fitting with post-metamodernist superposition, that “disgrace” in this case isn’t something as powerful as shame in premodern societies, it’s just intended to be a bit of a sting to ensure everyone involved has to feel responsibility for their charges, whether parent, teacher, or themselves.
One important thing about the above schooling is it isn’t a bare minimum required to function in society, it’s intended to produce graduates who are really exceptional people. Such people might not get the vote right away in a meritocratic democracy, but they would be well situated to do so. They might not be directly sent into good jobs, but they’d be well rounded enough to engage in them or end up in management of them. They might not write the great American novel right away, but they would have the skill set required to do so and contribute to the culture at some point in their lives, probably once they’ve gotten some life experience and engaged in culture and society at a deeper level than a teenager. In other words, most jobs should not at all require a full school graduate.
On the topic of success or failure, I don’t think something as modernist as standardized testing makes sense, but I think a bar can be set for each grade in terms of what good looks like regardless of the specifics within the group of teachers working at the school, and maybe a principal’s association to make sure different schools are roughly putting out the same calibre of graduates. There is probably a way to put students into situations that test their competency in each situation, perhaps routine assessment by a group of teachers who are acting like a phd board? I don’t know, that’s a detail I suspect the schools would have to work out. I expect that a student who is exceptional in all areas but one may be told “Ok, you’re moving forward, but be aware of this weakness and work on it next year because even with all your strengths we won’t move you forward next year with this weakness remaining”, but part of the point of being non-bureaucratic is to give individuals the power to choose for themselves knowing there may be consequences later.
More on the topic of success or failure, you could have a lot more flexibility within the year, within reason. An excellent student may find they reach the minimum level of competence in a grade quickly, while a struggling student could take additional time to reach the same level. I expect the would be some maximum time you can spend at a level, probably something like 2 years, and I’d also expect your sponsoring teacher would let you know when you’re ready, or if you’re not ready with in 2 years you’d have a choice to drop out or to try anyway knowing you’re not likely to pass.
That being said, if every year of school is difficult and substantial, each year of school should be something of a measure of a man if employers are looking for such a thing. Someone who dropped out in Grade 2 is probably going to struggle in most things, someone who made it to grade 11 is probably going to be pretty competent at most things, and each step along the way would represent a more and more comprehensive education along the way.
That isn’t to say that further education doesn’t exist, but it would likely be significantly reduced from today, because today higher education is used as a gauge because high school is considered useless and meaningless. People get hired as managers who got arts degrees because that’s all companies can do, but if even a grade 10 education suggests a highly competent individual for a supervisory position, then they can use that as their measure instead and leave higher education to highly specialized education for specific fields such as science and engineering.
Another thing to consider would be how schools would be funded. There are obvious problems with state funding of schools, so we have a few options here. One would be to have the schools be funded by the church who would pay for it from tithing and donations. Another would be to have the community band together to pay for schooling. In a future with significantly less bureaucracy, the cost of a school might not be so bad, especially if parents are volunteering to reduce the paid head count required. In my vision, even the principal serves the role of “head teacher” more than chief administrator. There are administrative parts to the job, but with less bureaucracy in general, they could focus on trying to ensure their school was being the best taught including by teaching the teachers. It could end up being that multiple sources of funding end up the case, perhaps with some donations from the local church if that’s possible, some from local businesses or philanthropists, some from parents of students or alumni.
A question may come up of students who aren’t good at everything but want to learn a specific thing, I think that doesn’t really fit with the purpose of the school as a public service, so I’d propose that students who want to study but don’t want to become well-rounded could leave the graduation track and their parents can pay for courses a la carte. That way the graduation rolls aren’t cluttered by people who can’t do it, students who want to learn can still learn (and can still claim to be a grade 12 philosopher) but can’t claim to be anything other than a grade 10 student otherwise for example, and the school gets a form of funding from people who aren’t going to graduate.
Education is an important part of the world, and education shapes the citizenry. Most people of any political affiliation agree with that point, and so the structure of education is important.
Modernist education is largely based on the Prussian model. This model first and foremost wanted to create good soldiers to shove into the meat grinder because Prussia had the worst location on the map and had to contend with being land locked in the middle of the continent, and so they had to produce lots of the best soldiers they could. Later on, it was adopted by other countries and modified to produce the largest number of excellent factory workers. That’s why everything is based on schedules, and rote memorization, and standardized tests, and there’s a bell to take a break and a bell to stop your break and a bell to eat lunch and a bell to stop eating lunch and a bell to arrive and a bell to go home.
Postmodernist education is still based on modernist thought, so most schools are still largely modernist in nature, with some really pushing the envelope to eliminate things identified and deconstructed about the Prussian model. Unfortunately, in some cases, this is undeniably bad – we are producing graduates who can’t read, can’t write, can’t do math, can’t argue, can’t live without the government supporting them. It’s the worst of all possible worlds.
I think it’s safe to assume that a future society will want to achieve a number of goals. It will want to produce graduates of virtue who will be fit to become voters in the meritocratic democracy (an idea in a future society that only the worthy will get the vote). It will want to produce human beings who will contribute to culture and civilization as a whole. It will want to produce workers who can work in the jobs and produce what’s needed.
In my view, a post-metamodernist superposition embracing education will be actually really difficult on students, and people who aren’t taking it seriously will fail. The postmodern idea that if you don’t let people fail if they’re failures is stupid because it makes the fundamental mistake “the map is not the territory”. Postmodernists will bring up statistics showing that people who flunk out of school make less money and go to jail more, but when they push failures through the school system all that happens is now high school students make less money and go to jail more too – it’s self-evident, people who don’t make the grade don’t make the grade. Whether you want to blame society, their innate attributes such as intelligence, or their personal failings such as a lack of self-control, people who can’t do a thing can’t do the thing, that’s axiomatic, and lying and saying they can doesn’t mean they can, it means you lied about it and so we can’t trust you to say something that is true.
We’re going to start with a classical aristocratic education, the sort of education an aristocratic family would put their children through to prepare for leadership. Exposure to art, music, literature, philosophy, logic (including mathematics and geometry), from a very early age. In keeping with the idea that multiple things have to happen at once, I don’t think we necessarily need homework as a bygone conclusion, but that just means the school days are very dense, and when you’re at school you’re engaged all day long. To break up the day, there will be the other parts of aristocratic education such as horseback riding and physical combat training. An important chunk of the philosophy will be focused on moral teaching. Not necessarily telling students what is right and what is wrong, but helping to build the foundation to think at higher levels of ego development such that they can comprehend and complete moral analysis through the lens of their cultural framework.
Another part of the education won’t be just being exposed to art, music, literature, philosophy, and logic, but engaging in the creation of the same. The expectation is to be able to somewhat contribute to society by the end of a high school education, that’s why it’s called “high school” – it’s a high end school that goes above and beyond to prepare you for life. The point won’t be to create a piece of garbage 500 word composition which tries to pad out the words as much as possible, people would be focusing on creating creative and interesting works that contribute to societal discourse (as much as an 18 year old really can).
The final part that would fill out the school year would be classes that look at general job skills. This isn’t actually to prepare people for jobs, the understanding in culture ought to be that jobs will train you on the job. Instead, it’s to help people understand the fundamental basis of all the things people around them have to do to keep the world running, everything from welding and machining to woodworking to carpentry and cement work to banking and computer programming and lawmaking. Not a lot of each, but exposure so individuals everywhere know that work consists of things across the board.
I can imagine such a school system would not be a raw institution, it would routinely have parents volunteering from the community to help out if they’re not working to ensure a high number of adults per child in class. This would fit with the idea that the community is something separate from the state, and that they are involved in raising their own kids directly.
One thing I think would be mandatory would be for at least one person at home and one person at school to take a pledge to take responsibility for the success of the student, and for the student to pledge their dedication to success to the teacher and the parent. If that student doesn’t meet their potential, the school and the person at home (probably a parent) will have to publicly take responsibility for the failure which will be a deeply disgraceful situation neither the sponsoring teacher nor the sponsoring parent will want. Poor students will be encouraged to drop out to spare the teachers and the parents the disgrace. I suppose this wouldn’t be mandatory, but in a society that has re-embraced meaning as something that exists even if in superposition, honor would have to be one of those values, and it would be an expectation that parents or students honorably accept the shame of their failing children. The teacher wouldn't want to falsely fail students typically, because they'd have to go in front of everyone and say "I failed Bob as his teacher". The parents claiming their child was unfairly failed would have to face the teacher who would also be shamed. In both cases, the child would have to publicly apologize to the parent and the teacher for the shame of their failure. If a student seems on track to fail, a quiet conversation between the teacher, student, and parents might have to occur. A student could even go back to school afterwards, it would just be understood that their sponsors may face further shame if they continue to not meet the mark. On the other hand, if the student gave it their all and didn’t fail because they were being dishonorable but just because they didn’t meet the mark, they can hold their head high and say “Thank you for your efforts, my skill was simply not enough to pass.”
An opposing potentiality is that teachers pass students who are not meeting the mark. I think we can utilize honor here too. When a student clearly fails, the sponsoring teacher can say while apologizing, “I’m sorry, I did my very best but I failed Bob as his teacher. However, it is my opinion that Bob did not enter this class capable to pass it, and last year his sponsor was Mr. X” which would be quite scandalous towards Mr. X, who would suddenly have to defend their honor. Of course, the principal would get to see all this and can make decisions as head teacher about what to do with these teachers who are publicly disgraced. Part of the purpose of future I’m envisioning is that the principal is ultimately the one to choose how to manage their school, and in some cases that could mean re-training their teachers, in other cases it could mean reaching out to parents to recommend retraining for them. I will mention here, fitting with post-metamodernist superposition, that “disgrace” in this case isn’t something as powerful as shame in premodern societies, it’s just intended to be a bit of a sting to ensure everyone involved has to feel responsibility for their charges, whether parent, teacher, or themselves.
One important thing about the above schooling is it isn’t a bare minimum required to function in society, it’s intended to produce graduates who are really exceptional people. Such people might not get the vote right away in a meritocratic democracy, but they would be well situated to do so. They might not be directly sent into good jobs, but they’d be well rounded enough to engage in them or end up in management of them. They might not write the great American novel right away, but they would have the skill set required to do so and contribute to the culture at some point in their lives, probably once they’ve gotten some life experience and engaged in culture and society at a deeper level than a teenager. In other words, most jobs should not at all require a full school graduate.
On the topic of success or failure, I don’t think something as modernist as standardized testing makes sense, but I think a bar can be set for each grade in terms of what good looks like regardless of the specifics within the group of teachers working at the school, and maybe a principal’s association to make sure different schools are roughly putting out the same calibre of graduates. There is probably a way to put students into situations that test their competency in each situation, perhaps routine assessment by a group of teachers who are acting like a phd board? I don’t know, that’s a detail I suspect the schools would have to work out. I expect that a student who is exceptional in all areas but one may be told “Ok, you’re moving forward, but be aware of this weakness and work on it next year because even with all your strengths we won’t move you forward next year with this weakness remaining”, but part of the point of being non-bureaucratic is to give individuals the power to choose for themselves knowing there may be consequences later.
More on the topic of success or failure, you could have a lot more flexibility within the year, within reason. An excellent student may find they reach the minimum level of competence in a grade quickly, while a struggling student could take additional time to reach the same level. I expect the would be some maximum time you can spend at a level, probably something like 2 years, and I’d also expect your sponsoring teacher would let you know when you’re ready, or if you’re not ready with in 2 years you’d have a choice to drop out or to try anyway knowing you’re not likely to pass.
That being said, if every year of school is difficult and substantial, each year of school should be something of a measure of a man if employers are looking for such a thing. Someone who dropped out in Grade 2 is probably going to struggle in most things, someone who made it to grade 11 is probably going to be pretty competent at most things, and each step along the way would represent a more and more comprehensive education along the way.
That isn’t to say that further education doesn’t exist, but it would likely be significantly reduced from today, because today higher education is used as a gauge because high school is considered useless and meaningless. People get hired as managers who got arts degrees because that’s all companies can do, but if even a grade 10 education suggests a highly competent individual for a supervisory position, then they can use that as their measure instead and leave higher education to highly specialized education for specific fields such as science and engineering.
Another thing to consider would be how schools would be funded. There are obvious problems with state funding of schools, so we have a few options here. One would be to have the schools be funded by the church who would pay for it from tithing and donations. Another would be to have the community band together to pay for schooling. In a future with significantly less bureaucracy, the cost of a school might not be so bad, especially if parents are volunteering to reduce the paid head count required. In my vision, even the principal serves the role of “head teacher” more than chief administrator. There are administrative parts to the job, but with less bureaucracy in general, they could focus on trying to ensure their school was being the best taught including by teaching the teachers. It could end up being that multiple sources of funding end up the case, perhaps with some donations from the local church if that’s possible, some from local businesses or philanthropists, some from parents of students or alumni.
A question may come up of students who aren’t good at everything but want to learn a specific thing, I think that doesn’t really fit with the purpose of the school as a public service, so I’d propose that students who want to study but don’t want to become well-rounded could leave the graduation track and their parents can pay for courses a la carte. That way the graduation rolls aren’t cluttered by people who can’t do it, students who want to learn can still learn (and can still claim to be a grade 12 philosopher) but can’t claim to be anything other than a grade 10 student otherwise for example, and the school gets a form of funding from people who aren’t going to graduate.
Reminds me of when Cheney et Al were defending torture. It's like "are you hearing yourself? Nobody wants this but you!"
I've been talking a lot about this lately, but you can look at this through a superpositional lens and it makes way more sense.
It isn't two sides, it's many factions who have come under two banners, and each faction is further made up of people who have their own agendas.
I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for elon's heel face turn is the political machine was already lining up to fuck him, and he just fucked it faster. Be honest -- If he kept on being a good Democrat donor like he was in 2020, how much longer until they just swatted him like a bug anyway?
It isn't two sides, it's many factions who have come under two banners, and each faction is further made up of people who have their own agendas.
I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for elon's heel face turn is the political machine was already lining up to fuck him, and he just fucked it faster. Be honest -- If he kept on being a good Democrat donor like he was in 2020, how much longer until they just swatted him like a bug anyway?
If you told me in 2008 that I'd be cheering for a Republican president flexing executive power, I would have said what are you doing in my house get out or I'm calling the cops. But here we are.
Oh no. Maybe everyone should put tariffs on China, then they'll put tariffs on all kinds of fossil fuels. How about Australian coal?
The surprise twist is that his election this time is already helping fix my homeland of soviet canuckistan, though it's scaring the pants off of most Canadians in the meantime.
Trudeau might want to pretend Canada has a perfectly secure border, but people who don't live in his ivory tower know full well that a lot of the gangs and guns come from the US. How did they get here? Very easily it turns out. A lot of people go "only 47lbs of fentanyl were seized!", yeah, the rest made it through.
Florida wins the Stanley cup... Embarrassing for all the states that get snow such as Canada.
I always get a kick out of it when they seamlessly switch from "Trump is a 1945 nazi" to "desu desu to the juice" mid-speech.
And isn't the consensus on the ground that bad 1945 man Trump was instrumental in establishing a currently active cease-fire?
And isn't the consensus on the ground that bad 1945 man Trump was instrumental in establishing a currently active cease-fire?
Issue 1 of the original FBXL Magazine we tried to test this, and I discovered that I can't concentrate on programming when I've been drinking. Instead of programming I kept on playing multiplayer games of diablo 2 instead.
https://fbxl.net/issue1/pui.html
Pretty sure it was 2001-2002.
https://fbxl.net/issue1/pui.html
Pretty sure it was 2001-2002.
I hate to say it, but I think that Donald Trump has proven that you don't need another extra dollar! You just need to let the people who are already in place do their jobs.
In a recent essay, I wrote the following words:
"Institutions would integrate superpositional thinking I think in part by being less bureaucratic. Instead of delegating everything to rules and regulations, give people doing the work some flexibility to try to do the right thing. They can turn out to be wrong, but local decision making is likely going to be more beneficial than universal decision making."
So this article aligns deeply with that, and I like how it's constructed.
Modernism (which still permeates much of what we have left in our world) thinks it can find the perfect objective standards for anything and everything. Postmodernism (which eats away at our civilization) tries to tear down things by proving they are imperfect, and it is typically pointed at things the current bureaucratic powers want gone, not things such as bureaucracy itself. Postmodernism tears down culture which can tell people they're wrong without a rule to tell them so, and it makes everything relative so nobody's really to blame for anything ever so of course postmodern bureaucracy doesn't want to hold anyone responsible for their mistakes (and that doesn't mean firing everyone at the first sign of trouble)
A new way of thinking needs to happen that allows for the fact that things aren't always the same and leaders need responsibility and power to go with their title so they can wisely execute their function as leaders.
"Institutions would integrate superpositional thinking I think in part by being less bureaucratic. Instead of delegating everything to rules and regulations, give people doing the work some flexibility to try to do the right thing. They can turn out to be wrong, but local decision making is likely going to be more beneficial than universal decision making."
So this article aligns deeply with that, and I like how it's constructed.
Modernism (which still permeates much of what we have left in our world) thinks it can find the perfect objective standards for anything and everything. Postmodernism (which eats away at our civilization) tries to tear down things by proving they are imperfect, and it is typically pointed at things the current bureaucratic powers want gone, not things such as bureaucracy itself. Postmodernism tears down culture which can tell people they're wrong without a rule to tell them so, and it makes everything relative so nobody's really to blame for anything ever so of course postmodern bureaucracy doesn't want to hold anyone responsible for their mistakes (and that doesn't mean firing everyone at the first sign of trouble)
A new way of thinking needs to happen that allows for the fact that things aren't always the same and leaders need responsibility and power to go with their title so they can wisely execute their function as leaders.