dusty frog

Telegram messenger is available for major platforms and has pretty features that could allow better FDR usability on the go. It also has desktop versions. So it may be beneficial to utilize the network content delivery features like instant notifications and pseudonym chat rooms with up to 5 000 users: https://telegram.org/blog/channels-2-0 https://telegram.org/blog/supergroups5k Somewhere has been mentioned the Telegram network files could be up to 1.5GB in size with no specified limits on quantity. That may be at least the worth considering either as content notification system, or even as a backup or mirror for FDR podcasts for instance. Although not directly related, there are chances YouTube could impose either discrete or total ban on FDR content. In that regard, there should be alternative content delivery and distribution sort of plan b.

From what I read some browser security related add-ons block WebRTC either completely or partly, due to privacy reasons. P2P video chat without anonymity would be no go for many. There are plenty of messangers allowing real-time audio and some video, multi-platform as well. Furthermore, making anonymous decentralized P2P AV chat rooms would be cool, but the problem with the idea is rather fundamental. Real-time chat room communication is easy to spot and de-anonymize by just temporarily disconnecting the suspect caller from the network.

@DustyOne Indeed, it's a pipe dream. Current two centers of collectivists power both understood the importance of democracy and ideology as the most effective tool pair to keep their power over population in a neatly masked and sort of "civilized" way. Political correctness, communism, national orthodox movement, you name it, are just fancy wrappers that might be changed on-the-fly if required any time. Your sarcasm about pretty damn good system is accepted, why would the ruling "elites" destroy their voting basis voluntarily by removing the most dependent on them out? Sure they either don't want to admit the inevitability of the global collapse they directly responsible for, or simply can't do anything to stop the train. I'd guess the first one is more probable. The competition between those centers probably forces them to maintain the permanent fear for loosing the power, thus the politics of ever expanding state facilities and collectivism as the only way to keep overall control. In fact, those centers have so much in common that I'd not want to even imagine what happens to our real last tiny hopes if and when they would merge into one world government or just agree to divide the world yet again.

Sheeple with average and below IQ simply don't care about reasoning or evidence. They have their hobbies to brag about. When state became their best provider, women don't care anymore to be feminine or mothers transferring the family values. Asking interesting or challenging questions will just turn their backs on you. They will choose convenience over honesty any day.

I don't think the democracy in its current form is a feasible or sustainable social system. Don't we see that practically everywhere? So called "modern" democracy just can't provide any required protection against manipulating sheeple's psychos. Collectivists ideas will just rule among people with relatively low IQ. Democracy just has to be radically revamped to adapt to the current world situation. Lazy and rapists should have no any rights to vote or, as the matter of fact, even be welcomed to stay in the society. As such process can't be made easily and quickly without a war, looks like the only way to go is kind of Augusto Pinochet dictatorship that would make the necessary changes and preparations at will.

Deep or on the surface. Militia as territorial defense that consists of all men capable to be effectively involved, the ordinary folks, sure. That's indeed the best for many hybrid type attacks. But those are too light and not suited for defense against heavily armed forces. For such defense there is the complimentary need for the professionally trained fist with coordination of different forces. And its not so clear as one would like to think - attack is a must - to eliminate the threat in the most efficiently way (total operational time, timing and resources/casualties). Including actions outside the border. Take or leave, aggressive people with low IQ will be around for foreseeable future.

I'm sorry too, as English isn't my native and I'm obviously late and slow in comprehension.

Indeed, the situation is awful. Abuse of natural and human resources is enormous, with staggering inefficiency. Uncontrolled mass migration and fertility rate skew for lower IQs. Add to that mess a widely accepted paradigm of forcible wealth re-distribution. Global socialism of languasites brings minds paralysis. It becomes understandable why it's so hard to survive. Competition is tough because of unprotected globalization and the overall ballast is simply unbearable. Without that hook, there shouldn't be any unsolvable challenges to have a great quality time for family and personal creativity. Moreover, after say 45+ to the end of one's life there coming another important possibility for honor & respect in society - to spend some time teaching others. Education is the key to changes, there is a screaming need for education of young and mid-aged parents and teachers. I don't see capitalism's undertaker yet. Maybe when the IQ < 110 starts to be a rarity? But yes, for now the time is running out...

Army is just that, a brutal force. It can be motivated in either direction. Do you think Muslims unleashing children without reason? Spartans threw down ill/invalid/with syndromes/ newborn babies. Unfortunately, people with IQ < 90 are still there in enormous quantities, so I wouldn't be so sure about "natural" evolution taking care of that. I'd guess people (sheeple?) with low IQ are required to stabilize the society as they are inherently dependent on a boss or a manager. Perfect disposition for the big state with fat government.

I agree. Except your belif about "getting people on the right level". In general that seems impossible to acheve. IQ is 60-80% human genes, the biology. The big problems start at mean IQ and less... Unless a way to change genes discovered. Or... you probably remember Spartans, right?...

Hmm... It looks like you are missed my demographic point here with inclination of limiting the scope to a discussion whether a some even tiny sort of governmental presence should exist in an ideal world nobody saw yet. To children protection. In the real world waiting when "little or no reason" situation suddenly escalates to "a reason to act" would mean ineffectiveness thus failure to be able to actually protect. We know there are dangers. Taking preemptive measures is essential to prevent or minimize them. That's also a reason. We know there is a danger of terror attacks. So someone has to coordinate efforts against the terror in advance. Would many of us willing to voluntarily pay for such efforts without a government or another entity collecting a tax? Would a tiny strip state Israel survive so far without its government coordinating defense forces, foreign relations and, most important, its collegiate and uniting role as a protective shell for the nation?

I don't think so. What I meant by "increasing our demands and hopes towards the state" is that as we, i.e. the entire population, have ever lowering intelligence (due to biologic differences like different groups having different fertility rate + migration & negative selection) the authoritarian state becomes the only choice to keep some sort of stability in the society. If you still do believe into one free global society (see the flashing red word "global" here?), I'll have no other choice but to disappoint you!

Well, our morals are not changing too fast but rather we are losing our morals incredibly fast. And while we are keeping a lot of aggression and gradually increasing our demands and hopes towards the state, the explosive mixture is almost ready Not very sure about your last prognosis though... as a singular global means no choice and yet total.. all-inclusive mighty state.. yet again...

Those two words just stroked me. I'd refrain to take the stance on your entire statement. Nevertheless, mother nature in human history suggests us the building global societies is possible only with use of a lot of force, blood and atrocities, and, for sure, the power of state or similar authority. Humans aren't the same, every race, ethnic group has its subtle and significant differences. That's why IMHO even in an ideal post-state world there will be several nations with their own territory and somewhat different protectionist principles.

NAP should be respected internally, with specific accent on education to train people to distinguish the NAP boundaries, until everyone is able to automatically recognize the edges of NAP applicability. That's the crucial requirement for the survival. History teaches us the lessons, does she? It's like a boxer has to have perfectly developed reflexes to choose the most appropriate strike immediately, automatically, even subconsciously. As attempts to fight with direct and indirect brutal force, coupled with sophisticated means of financial and ideological corruption from the inside will for sure be launched against such plan simultaneously. NAP isn't a religion or even the complete system of believes, it's just what it is - the principle. The important one. But not the self-sufficient. Aggressive and violent invaders, terrorists and collaborators have to be kept out of the planned society. None of NAP is applicable to those. Where do you see a self-contradiction?