>>12038
Yes. There are Masonic temples everywhere here. Fun fact a lot of the Enlightenment era revolutions had major backing/formation in the Masonic lodges. The entire modern ideal of democracy and brotherhood and Western liberalism was largely derived from these groups or people like the Rosicrucians etc. The American Revolution in particular had a major Masonic influence. There are Masonic lodges everywhere here especially near institutions of learning. I think every town I've been in I've known where the nearest lodge was.

>>12049
That was my funniest point to make to troll people, particularly when I was going on about CIA/NSA stuff or government corruption and people talking about "wild conspiracy theories" I simply posed as the opposite insisting that Freemasonry is made up and doesn't exist. Although to be fair I've only known iirc three Masons, one of whom is an uncle.

>>12041
Honestly this is the biggest thing to me that's a huge turnoff. I think a ton of cops are involved in such things. These are American cops, so anything associated with American cops I look upon with great disdain or hate even, as the way our police act is in its own right justification for a violent overthrow of the government late 18th century style.

>>12036
It largely is. The way one can think about Masonry is quite similar to like an early version of the *chans. By and large it was a place for men to get together and act like fools and tell baudy jokes and swap stories, sometimes having female entertainment etc. Quite a few lodges functioned as large philosophical clubs, however unlike the *chans they actually did and still do lots of IRL charity work, as opposed to ramming themselves with dragon dildos like imageboarders do. And then there is a small, much, much smaller cadre of politically active Masons who tended to get that whole conspiracy theory thing so well known about in much the similar manner as /b/ and /i/ boards got the public aware of and brought so much notoriety upon the *chans, to the point where a lot of people just associated imageboards with raids.

Another thing is some of these groups could function quite well as revolutionary hotbeds and intelligence networks, which reputedly included some famous spies and occultists, hence a part of why certain men of high position either looked more favorably or way more disfavorably upon the lodges. I think that at least some reforms had always been a certain motive to these brotherhoods which is part of why the monarchies of Europe and the Catholic Church feared and hated secret societies.

>>12037
Yeah my understanding is Masons particularly hate these social climbers who join for no other reason than personal advancement and using the brotherhood to their own ends. This is greatly frowned upon. They are not going to get you a job and stuff your wallet with cash just for taking an interest in joining. Most of the social networking happens as a result of longstanding membership that frankly can more easily come from joining a fraternity or relying on college friends. Will your college friends give you a job and stuff cash into your wallet? Well, your odds are probably better there.

>>12070

>Economy about which I talking about is not something that far byound

Tell me, where do you see the ability to make enough of everything for billions of people and give it all away for nothing? You move the goalposts from how you say that the 1st world can only do it because they exploit everybody else, but somehow it's just around the corner that everybody can do it without exploiting anybody? Make up your mind.

>Maybe eleminate all taxes and go back to absolute no any kind of social servises

Unironically sounds great. You don't touch my stuff and I don't touch yours. If you don't understand why someone might desire liberty more than comfort then there is no point trying to explain freedom to you because the concept will just be alien. But let's have you imagine that you roll into a town and start redistributing the goods so everybody gets their 'free stuff'. What if the residents tell you to leave and not come back? What happens to the enemies of socialism in this supposed 'transitional period'? The fact you keep dancing around it makes me think your answer is gulag.

>I not saying about "happy utopia to whole world" I trying to describe current trends and evolution of economics in 1st world countries.

You're talking about how nobody will have to do any work and everthing will be free and how no country will be 'exploited' and that this can't happen in a single state because that doesn't work. If that's not describing some kind of world utopia, I don't know what is.

>>12074

>just around the corner

Yes, in matter of recent centuries in current tecnological advantage - maybe 200, maybe 400 years, I will not play a gypsy and try to predict certain dates.

>and give it all away for nothing?

To some degree. There was already experements recently in some european states. With current economy level... how much Finland tested thier "base income"? 800 euros or something?

>because the concept will just be alien

I sometimes want become survialist in post-apocalypse but I like to place such things just in video games where they belong nowdays.

>The fact you keep dancing around it makes me think your answer is gulag.

How much anarhists for example get on modern european elections? Which general trends in enconomy modern 1st world people is most popular in recent half centuary?
Of cource there always political opposition, current agruings between "right" and "left" but I will not say that general trends shifted that much from their original path. And I don't see many people in EUROPEAN UNION GULAGS.

>You're talking about how nobody will have to do any work and everthing will be free and how no country will be 'exploited' and that this can't happen in a single state because that doesn't work. If that's not describing some kind of world utopia, I don't know what is.

I don't said any of this, you described in this post "commuism utopia" which of cource if happen, will become possible after hundreds of years from now, but it make me wonder if you even reading mine posts.
I said directly that this transitial system started to happen in dedicated states basing on their ability to exploit other states. This states have opportunity to give all of it's citizens "amount of capital (not neccecery in actual money)" to make certain level of life quality avalible without any work. Further evolving of this system depend on increacing this amount of capital. - So this is basicly opposite of what you described in this sentence.

>>11642
since b) contains an absolute statement

>Only the written form is failproof, exact and to the point.

i cannot agree to it, but it contains some other true sub-statements.
same goes for a).

since you formulated it as a binary true/false question, i would answer "neither".
would the question only contain the first statements

> a) Communicating in written form is flawed.
> b) Communicating face to face is flawed.

i would answer "both are true".

in general, i would share the hypothesis of >>11651

i agree with most (all?) posters here stating, that written communication is better for fact based communication, e.g. math thesis, while verbal communication is better suited for emotional communication.

i would want to add another questions: what about forms of communications outside the written/verbal spectrum? (like music, paintings... or "art" in general. you know, the kind of stuff people create because they lack the words to convey what they feel.)

would you agree that those things try to break the bounds of established language to add further things the mind can think about to it?

I read in a book dedicated on the subject released in the 70s that American
administration had realized even in Korea war times that nuclear option was a
very problematic one in terms of politics.

No one wants to be the first that presses the button.

Although it depends of the level of mania of the leader and its "Führerprinzip" power I guess

For now it's OK enough.

Nuclear weapons have incredible destruction power.

/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

The Iraq issue was kind of laughable if it wasn't for all the dead.

Iran is another issue.

P.S. All glory to Stuxnet

>reventative action against Iraq

That was always a complete and total lie from beginning to end. US spent more time harping on chemical weapons anyway, since we at least knew for a fact this wasn't imaginary (because we sided with Iraq while they were using those chemical weapons on Iranians in the 80s).

I personally think that what's going to happen is the same kind of stupidity as you see today with kids larping as fascists, Nazis, and Soviets, because they are stupid ignorant children who have no idea the risks their ancestors took in stopping these things from hurting us all.

I think that the US in particular has been shifting towards a way more cavalier attitude towards nuclear weapons, particularly with our idiotic leadership. Latest example is Trump, who's been obsessed with our nuclear stockpile and basically has only been curbed by the actual adults and old guard preventing him from doing anything too stupid. Putin likewise is part of that old guard who realizes nuclear weapons are not a toy. I think with the loss of people like Putin and various US officials we're going to wind up with a generation of people who think nuclear weapons are no big deal to use in a war. I think this is even more likely because a lot of these pathetic little shits have never known real war or hardship in their lives so they see war in general as a "fun" thing to do. Everybody thought WWII wouldn't happen because of how horrible WWI was, and people thought WWI wasn't going to be that bad either, yet every generation has the same dumb cunts who get this idea in their heads of "honor" or "glory" being found in war, and the same impulse or a similar impulse (since none of these people are anywhere near praising something even reminiscent of virtue, let alone concept such as "honor") is going to get these idiots saying well it won't be such a bad thing. Already I know our military has been toying with the idea of secretly using "small" tactical nuclear warheads as bunker busters or for taking out strategic points like airports, and only has not done so or at least not done so openly (there are rumors we nuked an airbase in Iraq in the 00s that I find credible) because of fear of nuclear response.

The only thing stopping US from doing it is our general political/governmental/military/bureaucratic infrastructure has not collapsed to Belarusian standards at least not yet despite how hard certain people mainly Trump, Kushner, and Giuliani et al have been trying to completely destroy all our vital institutions.

My one consolation is knowing that should it happen, the major urban centers will be vaporized and the survivors in the Midwest will suffer horribly, since it will likely be people from those regions and the deep south most loudly demanding a nuclear response regardless of the scenario.