Reflectii

Anyone who grew up in my generation of 1980s kids remembers G.I. Joe action figures — those green-uniformed plastic soldiers you could use to stage battles in the sandbox in your backyard or, for that matter, your bedroom. In those days, when imagery of bombed-out homes, bloodied civilians, and police violence wasn’t accessible on TV screens or in video games like Call of Duty, war in children’s play took place only between soldiers. No civilians were caught up in it as “collateral damage.”

It is an American trait to root for the underdog in any contest that pits David vs. Goliath. Therefore, it is understandable that most Americans (except for extreme MAGA types) are thrilled that Ukrainian forces have pushed the brutal, but hapless, Russian military away from Ukraine’s two largest cities and are gamely taking the fight to a force multiple times as big and strong (on paper).

As should be clear by now, Francis Fukuyama’s declaration in The End of History: The Last Man (1992) that we had arrived at “the end of history” did not mean that classical liberalism, or laissez-faire economics, had emerged victorious over communism and fascism, or that the final ideological hegemony signaled the end of socialism. In fact, for Fukuyama, the terminus of history was always democratic socialism or social democracy. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted in Democracy: The God That Failed, “the Last Man” standing was not a capitalist homo economicus but rather a “homo socio-democraticus” (222). The end of history, with all its Hegelian pretenses, did not entail the defeat of socialism-communism but rather of classical liberalism. Evidently, the big state and big capital were supposed to have reached an inevitable and final détente. The Great Reset is the consummation of this final détente.

There is a replacement of civilization and the media is not even covering it.

“By 2050, 50 percent of the French population will be mixed.” — Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Radio Classique, May 17, 2021.

“The mayor of Grenoble adopts the arguments and rhetorical formulas of the Muslim Brotherhood: talking about freedom to impose sexism”. — Céline Pina, Le Figaro, May 4, 2022.

Abstract: Bioscience and biotechnology advances offer extraordinary promise, but they are also accompanied by emerging biological risks—specifically the potential for catastrophic accidents or deliberate misuse by malicious actors seeking to cause harm. These risks include the possibility that non-state actors could exploit the legitimate global bioscience research and development enterprise to gain the knowledge and materials to develop and disseminate a biological weapon. We must take action to safeguard the life sciences to prevent biotechnology catastrophe, in addition to bolstering law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to more effectively anticipate and prevent bioterrorism and other biological threats.

Abstract: Driven by digital technologies and commercial processes, the field of biology has fundamentally evolved, with widespread implications for war and peace. Biology’s trajectory resembles the advancement of computer software and hardware during the 20th century, making the tools to manipulate life open and accessible. Today, it is easy to read (DNA sequencing), write (DNA synthesizing), alter (gene editing), and share (via the internet) genetic code. Addressing biosecurity requires expertise in computer science, data analysis, and artificial intelligence. Bioterrorism with known agents remains a concern, but the greater threat will be novel risks from trained insiders, unethical tinkerers, and state-sponsored proxies.

În urmă cu doar câteva luni, Polonia era (alături de Ungaria) în plină dispută cu Comisia Europeană și cu principalele capitale europene, privind aspecte care țineau de construcția democratică internă. Astăzi, Varșovia a devenit centrul de greutate al NATO în confruntarea cu Rusia lui Vladimir Putin.

The actions of the authorities in developed countries, essentially an extension of the Keynesian economic policy discourse, have brought the economies into disrepute. These actions consist of immense stimulus and virtually unfunded government indexation of voter income in the face of expected impoverishment amid COVID, lockdowns, and other global problems.

Peace and conflict need to be considered in the climate change agenda.

The Paris Agreement was nothing less than a landmark agreement. Legally binding, adopted by 196 parties to the convention, it has inspired hope and ambition to get to net-zero emissions and limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement does not, however, mention conflict or fragility, neither peace nor security, even once – neither did the Kyoto Protocol before it, nor does the Sendai Framework directly address any of these issues either.