2 articles i found interesting...
the first (part of the second)
My problem first the concept of "united" nations. the name itself implies the idea to unite nations as one. meaning that gloverance of the 2nd article, unlike for wmds, moved to the individual primarly through the W.H.O. as ideal vector of fear to short circuit independent thinking.
How i understand multipolarity :
first based on borders. something that by definition the euO and unO hates. concept of borders, primes all things to me.
As it allows each state to do their own things, but more than state as the entity above all, but as the people inside this state find ways to live among themselves in way reflecting themselves.
as nations, have borders, they have neighbors. once neighbors are recognized inside their own borders, i.e. outside of one rule. it's not you, it's the other.
and what i want to remove : the concept of "shared influence" or this infamous "table place" or "shaping".
this is the concept, "shaping" i am horrified by.
i believe it's individuals in nations, as nation being the collective expression of their national governance. naverance, that shape their own future.
as such, we can see the emergence of different paths.
meaning that multipolarism doesn't lead to a "mono global state", but to each nations moving along their own paths.
then those nations not being isolated on their own planet, watch, trade, visit, discover, are being visited by others PEOPLE.
and as such evolve.
there the point : multilateralism to me, allows the evolution, or hard conservatism for nations and so the peoples inside them.
back to the second linking the first :
wmds a good exemple, no state allows individuals to have wmds. sound logical. as such wmds dialogue of gloverance a) vs gloverance b)
gloverance a) impact only states. gloverance b) W.H.O. global taxation for the unO (like the euO project, just 1% ^^). impact only the individuals, as the "state collective of gloverance" feed over the former nations.
a big problem, the american culture of anti statism, the notion that the "savior state" not something shared by many outside the wicked demoNcrats and their friends of the majority uniparty... "congress for my estate".
gloverance, as such seek to suppress for exemple A1, or A2, as barrier to it's expansion over it. or suppress pla as again another form of resistance to it (in this case domination by pla against all).
back to 1
the concept of "darwinian" totally in line with herr docktors lebenraum (not only space for their estate, rapecattle, houseslaves etc) is strong and alive...
and the warping of the idea of "equality" as in the "commune of the marxist origin", not the way to understand equality, before the law, or in the case of nation of their border value.
back to bouthan, there is no chance for bouthan to survive a full scale pla assault, 0. minutes.
applying borders as the central value of the system of nations and people behaviors, allows the existence of a peacefull even unarmed bouthan, as the idea to overcome, by deceit, covert or over it's border become nationally illegal.
behind the mindset of co-existence even with what appears "weaker" as it's core of the darwinian ideology.
as such co-existence by siding (by borders as delimitations) implies effectively a form of "neutrality" toward the behaviors of others inside their borders.
remove as such the ideals of supremacism "mah values, system, doctrine, or in the case of german "people" (ubermenschen)" are removed.
optic of "hedging", meaning that exposure, in term of risks, and opportunities (different same idea) becomes relevant again.
meaning that the fucking marxists of hell seeking a one world gov for standard oil to rule, is not what i like (or GAVI fundations today).
"It is simply wrong to imagine that multipolarity will produce a calm balance between peers"
absolute bullshit. why?
there is no reason for india to be at war with brazil or brazil with venezuela.
"A world with several centers of power generates rivalry, negotiation, and pressure."
why? if, important power centers, small or big, respect the borders of others.
if you want like the GCC... each their country.
maybe what's problematic and that german struggle with "sphere", for them the extractive and or occupational lebensraum of the herr doktor.
i consider it's not a state, a state can't have possessions in another, contrary to INDIVIDUALS.
maybe the big issue there...
in simple term it's an opposition to "the realities of strength"
no, entering a world of respect of others, their surface, as such their borders and the way of those living upon it.
it's an approach fundamentally against the ideal of expansionism, through the "table consensus" or "individual warfare through state capture".
the second article, a nice idea, but the problem, i would even end the unO and create a global governance organization for independent nations.
GGOFIN, and in this framework the question asked there, become interesting.
again, extreme for eretz, the use of wmds, the threshold is naturally way way way lower than for PLA and it's countless legions and giga surface allowing a retreat 10x the size of this mini country. or the case of russia, why lose millions men, when a few wmds well targeted at major cities will end any potential opponent quest to rape and loot plunder and occupy SHMR, in a few minutes, for ever.
the problem of the 2nd article, beyond the respectable posture of prc, no first use, limited set, just for once as it's enough, needs first the passage of the respected of the borders ideals... co-existence by siding, once that is normative, the issues of wmds, the complete erase of any power center of the other, become way less relevant or necessary.
again why kill all dod personals i hate so much, when a few nukes, end the conflict. some can absorb coutnless "Infantry loss" others a lot strikes... yes in a differnet world, but still existing... nuking the forest of wyoming... gl... hf... and alaska... find them... 1 cabin (and if the guy went trapping, possible that even with large wmds, there is no blast effect where he is) (what happen to my cabin area'?? coming back)
recaped multipolarism, require first the recognition and so settlment of borders. to then allow the co-existence among neighbors, and from the surfacing of each, the other neighbor of one... allow then the "concept" at least as i prefer it, of "multi polarism". meaning a state, over it's border, by its people.
i think it's calmer, and better allows hedging, aka the great escape or exile from the madness of one, to the welcoming cleaner and greener pasture... some refuse, to welcome others, excellent choice, their land, their border, their current ways.
again the concept at least as i understood it : constellations of nations.
with your travel chopsticks you will have prep for it food in many places... (almost), in other bring your fork... or clean your hands.
problem, i think many "thinker" of the state, hate the power of markets, markets individuals, behind... what i mean, markets allow exchange, of the people participatng in them. the great evolutive force, peacefull, at least can be, among mankind. and markets can destroy states, which state hate... the european winter debt crisis... you spend too much little bro... time to pay back, credit line cut... you can't tax and believe to inflate your way away from market vigilance, you funny.
and there the concept of the borders (siding) and co-existence, allows to send to the abyss individal nations, and not be cornered in some fucking "uni or monoplan" level. no. you fucked, you pay. some will say but you can't take the loss, wrong, and worst this loss you will pay 100x more.
the hedging. as true liberty which teh mono statists, what ever their cloaking want to destroy... you don't have the fiscal base to finish your pyramid... and even if you had, you are now ruined for it. too bad. there will the proverbial "bag hodlers", bad luck, no need to infringe on the border of egypt as those said bag holders deserve to lose it all. but egypt will struggle for generations to find new suckers.
this is the war imho.
you saw the recovery of the previous pitfall, that was for some "haha, he got neutralized in vietnam" no... bag holders, sukaz, gone. finally (or they can keep their bags for generations while the pyramid stand).
"Economies seek anchors."
problem of the concept of the understanding of the word "economics" in academia : it's a virtual representation of an aggregate of individual behaviors averaged. nothing to do with reality. it's a theory, made normative to foster keynesianism, aka the supremacy of the state, and as such the reproductive (as matting) income of it's participants over the real markets.
anyway...
i like my post, even if it's a little confuse and sadly relegate for now the current chinese proposal...
as i think, first to teach them respect, i mean the outside world... it's not easy, we saw japan recently... meaning even in asia^^.
frankly not a bad reply to the german doktor who believe all below him are made to be his goyim... really how the proeminent german (none jewish) think. 100%. their side, the best for all. in a sense those "top dogs" of some countries believe their social standing, has to be accepted by others in other state.
back to the grand daddies of cleopatra, going to ROME, you are nothing shiter, just another state official, wait in line. "how dare you" fuck you, back in line or you get on the crosses you saw coming, clear?
there the annihilation of the mind warfare of the others. your gig over your land. that's it.
anyway, myself there i got sucked in the trap, a trap this article, ressources my time energy, captured, are justifier of the income of those pushing those articles. there is 0 win for me, and their, like margarita can feed her 4 kids through it, 0.00000000000001% or less even of her income... but... existing.
how can you imagine any other way to live with germans that by siding and co-existence? they are geneationally among the most horrible and evil people ever.
good exemple : glovernance with them. impossible, they are always fucking supremacists, "uberallesers", their participation to any table for them, theirs and specifically their lebensraum estate. they see their ways as transmankind so supreme they are, the perfection defining.
rather, once they accept, i think divided, not possible to keep them as one state, borders, and so the other, the side, maybe they can only feed over their serfs below the herr doktors and their fraulein, the problem, their greed, they want more more more, like cherge. some individuals, can't co-exist with others... as side are seen by them as "challenge" that their "perfection" will overcome as the destiny of their supremacism , or perfection.
personally i can't live in the mononationalism of the uno, and prefer as such the constant warfare to wmds use to annihilate it, maybe for some, the concept of "you dare to not be under and as my lebensraum provider (space, energy, submission) is as insupportable...
i can get it. normal for the clients of epstein to rape groomed children with impunity, how they see and experience life. i oppose... doesn't matter... as jeff prathers want his pensions above all.
i mean the trap of idealism too... practical : co-existence by siding, an ideal.
maybe if japan recognized finally the daoyu island there, there could be a second practicant... of the scale able to kill all germans, in a few days, the doktors, but as they are master in "egyptianism" they will again as always lead all germans to defend them while they rape their daughters... a classical german beast, generational.