You need men, you don’t need ethnic diversity. Lesbian separatism is a weird punchline, a trivia question, something from the ‘70s. Ethnic nationalism is real and has had many successful exclusionary movements execute substantial, genuine ethnic cleansing in the last century alone, if you look at tribal wars of extermination historically it’s even more common.
Women disliking men, really, is socially meaningless. What, is the kingdom of women going to enslave all men? Even legendary homosexual misogynist BAP thinks that some form of female control of men can only be achieved by way of complex psychological conditioning process called “the longhouse”, arguably a metaphor for civilization itself, not martially (obviously). Women love men and men love women, that’s biology. Patriarchy waxes and wanes as a function of technological development, primarily.
Biology has much less to say amount a society of diverse people who (at least initially) look very different getting along together forever. It doesn’t preclude it, but it doesn’t endorse it either. And the historic example suggests real, bloody conflict between ethnic groups is very much commonplace. That is why people take it more seriously, probably.
You’re making my point. The leaders of those countries are still nominally members of the state church (or indeed head of it).
Now imagine, say, the president of Germany announces he’s converting to the Anglican Church. That’s interesting. That’s unusual. That suggests a much more genuine belief than King Charles formally being an Anglican.
Every Catholic monarch of a Catholic state is Catholic by definition. If you’re the next Crown Prince of Liechtenstein, a devoutly (and officially) Catholic country ruled by a Catholic monarch, you can’t really abandon Catholicism, which both your people believe in and which forms the spiritual justification for your rule. If you’re an atheist you can break the rules but you have to keep your beliefs to yourself.
A religious Catholic by choice in a non-Catholic land is already signalling much more devotion to Rome and to the Pope than someone who doesn’t really have a choice. They are more likely to actually believe. The threat of eternal damnation carries more weight.
There are many Americans (including those of non-Mexican descent) who retire in Mexican resort towns, sure. That’s a very different visa class and lifestyle to working a regular job in Mexico.
The same is true even with less economic inequality in Europe. Spain is full of English and German retirees, but barring a few senior corporate executives at Inditex or Santander the only non-Spanish speaking English and Germans who work there are a small number of low pay service workers whose jobs are catering to their own nationality’s tourists and retirees.
I don’t think it’s very common for even the tiny minority of successful retail traders to join a professional fund, the approach to risk management alone would make that a compliance challenge at the best of times. It has happened, but far more common is what Jane Street, Two Sigma etc do (as far as I know) where they pay savants for trade ideas directly. There are quite a few basement dweller math geniuses who make a living that way.
“Trump doesn’t need Congress to pass a bill to stop bombing Iran, just like he didn’t need Congress to pass a bill to start it”
“The President launched a disastrous war that he lost, and now to save face wants to claim victory by signing a far worse version of the deal we negotiated under Obama, and which he left and rejected. The Iranians know the Democrats actually stand by their word, so when we come back to power, we’ll negotiate a better deal ourselves” is a powerful argument and certainly doesn’t make it look like like they co-own the war, which Trump would claim either way if necessary. By the way, this works even if they agree to the same deal later on - there’s no game theoretical reason for the Dems to agree.
For the Saudis the pipeline would transit only Jordan and Syria, both effective Arab client states. For the UAE and other GCC nations the pipelines would transit Saudi Arabia, which is more contentious.
There is no doubt this is a victory for Iran. No regime change, nuclear development will continue unabated and, most importantly, an aesthetic and propaganda victory for the Islamic Republic. US sanctions relief will be limited and the Iranians know it, although the wildcard there is whether the Europeans agree to some of it in a political deal.
In the long term, I think this is more mixed for Iran than many realize. The infrastructure destruction has been extensive. As oil prices come down again, a boom in oil revenue will be temporary. Iran is extraordinarily corrupt, and that includes the IRGC; those $2m shipping tolls are unlikely to fund necessary reconstruction and might not even fund weapons purchases after the relevant figures have taken their cut.
Much of Iran’s non-oil export industry, especially around chemical, medicine and some industrial manufacturing and export, has been destroyed. If oil returns to $65 a barrel it’s unclear how fast that can be rebuilt, especially if the IRGC, now firmly in charge, channels as much as possible toward rearming and the nuclear program. The civilian infrastructure destroyed is extensive, and public anger will mount further if much of it goes unfixed while the IRGC spends all it can on munitions and drones.
Eventually, as humiliating a defeat as this is for Trump (not that he cares, and not that he will pay for it) in objective terms, it might herald the end of the Islamic Republic, some years from now.
Isn’t Congress required to lift most sanctions against Iran? Most Democrats are still broadly anti-Iran and won’t want to give Trump a win, and many Republicans are hardliners, why would they vote for sanctions relief?
- Prev
- Next

Yeah. To be fair, Ulbricht did do 11 years in jail. SBF will probably do similar, his parents seem to be quite well-connected and some EA autists from Silicon Valley will probably be in the next or next-next Dem administration.
More options
Context Copy link