How to remember ANYTHING Easily 十 free eBooks!

Tolerance is All You Need 十龙大

Contents: Essays on Liberalism, China, Word of the Day, Videos, Free eBooks & How to Remember ANYTHING Easily!

Tolerance Is All You Need

Abstract: Liberalism presents itself as the champion of freedom. However, liberalism’s flaws enable exploitation, inequality, and undermine nationalism. Thereby, liberalism ultimately engenders authoritarian governance, to correct its own weaknesses and better oppose totalitarianism. This essay presents a critical examination of liberalism, arguing that professed values of individual freedom and formal equality are often compromised by its inherent flaws and failures. Analyzes liberalism's theoretical underpinnings and practice. Argues liberalism enables exploitation, perpetuates inequality, and undermines nationalism: Liberalism's emphasis on individual rights and freedoms can lead to social fragmentation and economic inequality. Challenges dominant narrative of liberalism as a universally beneficial ideology. Argues that a more authoritarian approach to governance is necessary to correct liberalism's errors and meet global challenges.

INTRODUCTION

The ideology of liberalism, with its lofty rhetoric of individual freedom, diversity, and equality, has long been touted as the pinnacle of human progress. But in its relentless pursuit of individual rights and freedoms, liberalism has created a society of atomized individuals, bereft of a sense of collective purpose or national identity. It has spawned a culture of narcissism and self-absorption, in which the pursuit of personal gain and gratification is elevated above all else. This has given rise to a system of governance that is beholden to the interests of the powerful and the wealthy, rather than the common good. In short, liberalism has become a recipe for social fragmentation, economic inequality, and national decline. It is time to strip away the illusions and confront the harsh realities of liberalism's failures.

For decades, policymakers and social engineers have worked to create a harmonious and prosperous world through liberal ideals of diversity, acceptance, and social justice. However, these efforts have only resulted in chaos, frustration, and cultures of victimhood. The pursuit of these ultra-liberal values has also led to a backlash from various groups, who feel unfairly discriminated against or ignored.

The liberal project's fundamental flaw is its failure to recognize the primacy of tribalism in human nature. This oversight leads liberals to pursue a quixotic quest for diversity, ignoring the inherent divisions that have always characterized human societies and consequent conflicts. The notion that a nation can be built by splicing together discrete and insular groups into a cohesive whole is a chimera, as people inevitably gravitate towards their own kind. By promoting diversity and inclusion as the highest values, the liberal project has created a society in which different groups are pitted against each other, competing for resources and recognition, a culture of victimhood and resentment, in which different groups feel that they are being unfairly treated or ignored and thus predate rather than produce.

THE CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM: TOLERANCE IS ALL YOU NEED

People who push the idea that we must accept others are foolish: that is an unattainable social goal and casts society into a perpetual quixotic struggle. In contrast, though our fundamental differences and justifiable fear of danger and risk make tolerance difficult, tolerance can be attained. Moreover, tolerance is all you need for a strong state. Tolerance is an attainable and desirable goal. Diversity and social justice are not. One of the problems with "celebrating diversity" and seeking to impose "acceptance" and "accommodation" is that liberals and especially their ignorant puppets learn to lie, mouth the pretty platitudes. But as soon as the virtue signaler's back is turned the dog whistles come out. Militant tolerance, not kumbaya acceptance, is what will build strong families, clans, tribes, and nations aware of, and so able to grapple with, the hard facts of life. Based on that, a well-governed State can defend itself. Its strength and prosperity enable it to avoid aggressive actions. Furthermore, such a State can take the risk of being tolerant and benevolent towards others, whether internal minorities or foreign countries.

Liberalism can really only implement tolerance, and never actually succeeds in its various utopian projects such as "nation building" whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even the USA or the search for “social justice” however defined, if defined at all. Yet, these failings are not problems unless you are a liberal or one of the liberals’ victims. Most nations are just very large tribes. Some are collections of tribes bound by a common language such as the alle-mann, or are clan societies like Scotland, Afghanistan, and China. As the USA shows, it is possible to form an effective government on the basis of mutual tolerance and respect despite deep divisions regarding race, religion, or even language. However, the USA is not a nation state, it is more like a multinational corporation than a country, and the idea of the nation for a limited secular government presiding over peoples from the entire planet is a myth. We believe in myths at our own peril. The greater the divergence between reality and the myth the greater the peril our belief therein poses.

Instead of pursuing an unattainable goal of diversity, acceptance, and accommodation, we should strive for tolerance, which is a much more realistic and attainable goal. I might not like you. I might fear or distrust you. I might even hate you. But I am not going to kill you or even attack you: That is tolerance. Tolerance is essential for building a strong society, and it is achievable only based on a realistic assessment of actual social facts. Yet based on that realistic view of human nature, social yet defensive and fearful with good cause, a well-governed nation can then afford to take the risk of being benevolent: I might well fear or distrust you, yet I can try to help you because State power will protect me from you: That is benevolence.

Liberalism's grand ambitions are reminiscent of King Canute's futile attempt to command the tides. Standing on the beach, the legendary monarch and his loyal entourage vainly tried to sweep away the ocean's relentless waves. Similarly, liberalism's proponents often find themselves struggling to hold back the powerful tides of war, currents of hate, and the flood of natural disasters that have shaped human history. Despite their best efforts, liberal ideals of peace, cooperation, and individual freedom are frequently overwhelmed by the turbulent tides of geopolitics. The pursuit of power, the clash of interests, and the primal urge for survival continue to drive nations and individuals alike, often leading to conflict and strife.

Just as the ocean's fury cannot be tamed by the whims of a king, so also the forces of war and hate cannot be wished away by the lofty rhetoric of liberal idealism. The brutal realities of international relations, marked by anarchy and self-help, continue to defy the liberal dream of a harmonious world order. Disasters, whether man-made or natural, underline the importance of national strength, resilience, and adaptability in the face of an uncertainty chaotic world.

Liberalism's failure to acknowledge and accommodate the darker aspects of human nature and the unpredictability of the world around us can lead to a dangerous disconnect between its ideals and the harsh realities of international politics.

The liberals' ugliest hypocrisy is that they (sincerely!) act tolerant toward Others, and even (foolishly or insincerely...) claim to accept and “celebrate” Others. But then, when the chips are down, when it matters most, these supposedly tolerant ever polite and very well dressed people turn their back on the weak, or even expose, exploit, and destroy them. In peace time: "The Jews are my friends!" — until they are attacked by others, and then suddenly they are not. "Some of my best friends are black." Sure they are.

"Celebrating diversity" is one more stupid liberal platitude. Life isn’t a giant party to celebrate, it’s a struggle to survive, maybe prosper. The euphemism "celebration of life", which is really a funeral, betrays a lot about contemporary liberalism. I am not glad you are dead, so I do not wish to "celebrate" at your funeral. Kindly let the grieving mourn instead of seeing death as just one more cash grab, a sick marketing opportunity. I expect liberalism will figure out a way to sell funerary parties with plenty of alcohol and food and even grim party favors: such is the promiscuity of greed.

Although liberals are polite, well-dressed, neat, clean, and tidy they are usually also tight-lipped and even often (usually?) some combination of liar, hypocrite, or coward. Liberals are not brave. Liberals are however experts at getting what the Leninists call "useful idiots" to do their dirty work and are also experts at cash grabs. So, the weapons of class war are scratch lotto gambling tickets, cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. What a party! Funny, it just so happens to make the rich richer and kill the poor. Don’t believe me? Look around. All those drug addicts? Liberalism. All those guns and mass shootings? Liberalism. Gambling addiction? Alcoholism? More liberalism. What a party! Who wants to go to the "celebration of life"? It's not an accident. “I got mine fuck him”, and making it at the expense of others are characteristic of liberalism. All that liberal freedumb just-so-happens to kill and enslave the poor. I guess we deserve it for being stupid / lazy / immoral, huh! What has liberalism done for its weakest? I mean, other than exploit us and oppress us with drugs, guns, liquor, gambling and “sin” taxes? The proliferation of drug addiction, mass shootings, and the erosion of traditional social structures can all be traced back to liberal policies that prioritize individual freedoms over collective responsibility.

How is liberalism working out back on the reservation? How is liberalism working out for black people? Or gypsies? Maybe it’s better for immigrants? It is no accident that the people ill served by liberalism wind up disproportionally in the illiberal praetorian guard, whether as Mamaluks, Cossacks, Marines, or Legionnaires.

One justification of liberalism is that it enables trade among very diverse peoples and thus is vital to capitalism. A related justification is that the prosperity attendant to most aspects of liberalism makes violent conflicts like robbery and war less likely. Liberalism done properly fosters peace through tolerance and economic interdependence: liberalism actively seeks to give the ambitious productive outlets in the marketplace for their natural will-to-power to avoid violent conflicts that would otherwise occur. But "acceptance", "diversity", "inclusion", and "accommodation" are unnecessary for that and those lofty ill-thought out goals foster rather than quell social conflict.

As a way to suspend conflict about what Connoly calls "essentially contested concepts" liberalism has much to offer. As a way to organize and direct society liberalism has serious flaws and failings: drugs, alcohol, gambling, obesity, for the easiest most evident examples.

Liberalism cannot discipline itself, which is the one reason totalitarian dictatorships ever gain traction; that and the fact a small disciplined elite political faction / party can absolutely dominate a disorganized fractured majority. The victories of liberalism are more a matter of the enemies of liberalism self-destructing in various ways than the result of liberalism’s martial virtues which are nigh non-existent.

Liberalism temporarily triumphs because it is no-cost to implement, or nearly so. Liberalism requires nearly no need for taxes or hard choices. Liberalism's strong suit is that the government does almost nothing. This means it has low taxation and the few policies of the government generally enjoy majority support. Much as various factions would prefer more largess for their particular interests the basic form remains legitimate since it tends not to crush any segment of the society. Liberalism is basically "I give up, do whatever" as governance, so it generates little resistance, even a great deal of legitimation. However, on its own terms, liberalism cannot marshal state power for any pro-active projects. Liberalism gets some things, most notably economics basically right. But liberalism is generally a lazy default position for those who can't or don't want to fight their way through to the truth and to what is just.

Liberals imagine the problems of the world will be solved with free speech and democracy. Yet, when liberals get popular illiberal leaders, also known as populists, as the consequence of democracy and free speech, they are unhappy, and label the populists demagogues. Apparently liberals believe the masses can be (easily?) misled. Well, if that's the case, why do they claim to believe in democracy? Anyway, the xenophobic forces driving Trump will be suppressed because liberals love to set up populist suckers and other useful idiots to do their dirty work, and then destroy them by encouraging their self destructive tendencies. Hey Don, wanna do another line of cocaine?

Liberalism as an economic theory can empower commercially minded people. Are poor people commercially minded? Most would love to have wealth but have no idea how to build and/or accumulate riches because most people live in the immediate moment, yolo. But yolo fails to build wealth and can lead to a broken short unhealthy life and an early funeral.

People in fact are not fundamentally liberal: at best we are live and let live: we can be and often are in practice tolerant, and sometimes should be. But fundamentally, when the chips are down, we’re all nationalists. We love our family first and foremost, then our clan, tribe, nation, race and world and in that order. If we have brains, and most of us do, we figure out we must at least tolerate people who are different. We know most people have brains because Aristotle observed “all men, by nature, desire to know.” Even natural slaves, women, and children are fundamentally curious and desire knowledge. Thus we can, and largely do, get along, with other humans, unlike polar bears.

So I don't see "diversity" as a wonderful profit opportunity the way most of its advocates do: Trusting others is dangerous and can be damaging, even deadly, if you trust the wrong person at the wrong time, as history shows. Try to learn from others’ mistakes. In contrast, tolerance is necessary for self-defense in a hostile world. Tolerance of one’s own builds a bigger and better army. Tolerance is also necessary for a market economy and wealth production. In turn, a well organized, prosperous, well armed State can take the risk of benevolence, and has no need to aggress or predate.

As a consequence of the greed and opportunism liberalism enables, liberalism is otherwise a horribly bad way to fight open, i.e. overt war. This is because victory in war requires real risks of self sacrifice such as death and maiming as well as the fact war is hardship: hunger, sleep deprivation, no bathing, getting rained on, such inclement features in every war. All of that is inconsistent with the undisciplined self-indulgence characteristic of liberalism. Finally, war requires commanding leadership and the discipline to obey, which is also the opposite of liberal freedom. The incapacity of liberalism to marshal political will and martial virtues is a feature, not a bug: mass killing is what liberals and I alike want to suppress. But the more intelligent liberals recognize liberalism needs an illiberal guardian class of militants actually able to fight, a praetorian guard, janissaries, bannermen, samurai, a marine corps, because not everyone wants to live by liberals' (often unstated) rules and beliefs. This is partly why liberals’ "nation building" projects whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else fail, only to see the liberal’s elite well equipped highly trained armies ultimately defeated by ill-armed and untrained peasant farmers. Unrealistic goals ill-executed get no results.

I argue for an authoritarian democracy with freedom of political speech and artistic expression, more or less what the USA had until around 1970. Nationalism as a rule, with internationalism as an exception built on top of that and out from it. It’s not merely your family you love also your world, just like everyone else. I'm an authoritarian democrat: I believe in democratic power ex ante, not elite legitimation ex post.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the ideology of liberalism, with its emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, has proven to be a flawed and failed experiment. Its vaunted promises of diversity, acceptance, inclusion, accommodation led to avoidable social conflict, economic inequality, and national decline. The liberal project, in its relentless pursuit of individual autonomy and global interconnectedness, has lost sight of the fundamental importance of national sovereignty, collective purpose, and social cohesion.

As we move forward in an increasingly uncertain and tumultuous world, it is imperative that we re-examine our assumptions about the nature of politics and governance. The liberal ideology, with its naive faith in the power of individual freedom and the market, is ill-equipped to address the complex challenges of the 21st century. Instead, we must consider alternative approaches, such as authoritarian democracy, that prioritize national cohesion, collective purpose, and social welfare.

Ultimately, liberal ideology is a form of cultural imperialism, an attempt to impose Western values and institutions on the rest of the world. That is a form of hubris, a belief that the West has all the answers, and that the rest of the world must conform to its standards. It is also a recipe for disaster, a guarantee of conflict and instability. Instead, we must work together to build a more just and equitable world, one that respects the differences between nations and cultures. To that topic we now turn our attention.

Totalitarianism: Iran

The discourse on governance often wrongly conflates authoritarianism with totalitarianism. Thus, in practice, authoritarianism is frequently misunderstood and misapplied, with many countries that might be well served by authoritarianism veering into totalitarianism, with its extreme control and suppression of dissent and consequent brittle rigidity due to lack of popular feedback and intelligence. Iran exemplifies this failure, where the lack of democratic feedback and free speech has led to a repressive and violent regime. Totalitarianism, with its rigidity and intolerance for opposition, often results in systemic failures due to the absence of corrective mechanisms inherent in democratic systems.

Conversely, authoritarianism, when correctly implemented, can provide stable governance without descending into the extremes of totalitarianism: a limited State, which however has final and ultimate authority in those few necessary and thus limited domains where public power serves justice better than private right. Authoritarian states can maintain order and productivity while allowing for a degree of freedom in political speech and artistic expression enabling self-reform into rule of law and democracy. This model, characteristic of the USA before 1970, balances authority with democratic principles, ensuring that governance remains responsive to the populace.

Authoritarian Democracy: A Balanced Approach

The ideal governance model is authoritarian democracy, where final authority in well delimited domains of the State is based on democratic principles and individuals enjoy freedom of speech, press, and religion, with gun control, strict drug prohibition, and proactive policing, drawing inspiration from successful examples like Singapore. By maintaining order and stability, such a system can prevent the societal fragmentation seen in liberal states.

Nationalism, as a guiding principle, emphasizes love for one's country and the importance of national sovereignty. However, this should be tempered with a pragmatic internationalism that recognizes we all live in a global community. An authoritarian democracy can strike this balance, fostering national pride while engaging constructively with the world.

Dictatorships often gain traction by presenting themselves as disciplined alternatives to the chaos of liberalism. Moreover, a small, disciplined elite can dominate a fractured liberal majority, as seen in various historical and contemporary contexts. Apparently, democracy only survives because competing fascist and mafia factions self-destruct, at least so far.

Conclusion

In conclusion, authoritarian democracy offers a viable alternative to the extremes of totalitarianism and the weaknesses of liberalism. By balancing authority with democratic principles and free speech, such a model can provide stable, responsive governance. The international community must recognize the nuances of different governance models and support a recalibrated approach that prioritizes stability, productivity, and long-term strategic interests. This balanced perspective can foster a more harmonious and prosperous global order.

Friends of China: From Totalitarianism to Authoritarian Democracy

As China continues its policies of reform and opening-up up, evolving from totalitarian dictatorship into democracy and rule of law, Chinese leaders should consider limited but authoritarian government as a way to keep growing and avoiding the excesses so evident in Russia's failed efforts at reform by revisionism and shock therapy. We in the West ought not seek to immediately impose Western-style liberal democracy on China, since we can see the results such an approach had in Russia, which were frankly disastrous for Russians and Ukrainians. Unlike the abrupt imposition of Western-style democracy, which has often proven disastrous, a more nuanced and respectful approach is necessary. Helping China transition from totalitarianism to authoritarianism, to democracy, and the rule of law requires recognizing where China is today and understanding its aspirations for the future. A longer term progressive approach is demonstrably wiser.

China’s current governance model is in theory still totalitarian but with the abolition of the 1 child policy in practice no longer so. It is however still characterized by centralized control with limited political freedoms. However, this can evolve. The first step is to support China in transforming into a well-governed authoritarian state, similar to Singapore. Such a model retains strong central leadership but allows for greater efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness to the needs of its citizens. This approach fosters stability, peace, and productivity, aligning with both China's internal goals and global expectations.

China has the real potential to evolve into a well-governed authoritarian state and a democracy governed by the rule of law. The international community, particularly those with a deep appreciation and understanding of Chinese culture, can play a crucial role in assisting China in this transformative journey. We can support China in transitioning from a fearful, rigid, and defensive totalitarian regime to a more open, peaceful, and productive society enjoying rule of law and democracy.

Economic development is a critical driver of political reform. China's remarkable progress over the past three decades is undeniable. China's economic growth over the past decades has lifted millions out of poverty and transformed China into a global economic powerhouse. This progress should not be met with unfair trade terms or condescending lectures from other nations. Instead, we should recognize and reward China's efforts, but possibly conditioning trade and mutually beneficial economic partnerships on further progress in human rights protection, rule of law, and democracy, where China has also made great strides. By doing so, we encourage further reforms and create a conducive environment for political evolution, focusing on what brings us together rather than what keeps us apart.

As China continues on to reform and open up it is growing away from and out of totalitarianism and absolutism toward authoritarianism and limited government: a well-governed authoritarian state, characterized by peace, productivity, and prosperity. To help China reform further in ways which we agree are desirable we must understand China's distinct culture and history, especially Chinese languages and ideas so we can work collaboratively with China's leaders to achieve good goals.

Key to this approach is to quit equating China to Russia. China is not a corrupt kleptocracy characterized by criminality and rampant alcoholism. China is however a state-capitalist mercantilist dictatorship pursuing an expansionist foreign policy but is nonetheless seeking further democratization and to build the rule of law because such makes the State more stable and strong: we should empower the latter to reform the former. We should not fear this process, which has greatly benefited the West. Knowledge of Chinese language, culture, ideas, and laws, linked with courage and hope, will carry the world ahead into a grand pacific century of peace and global prosperity despite the atavism so evident in Russia and the Mid East.

However, to actually help China requires a nuanced approach, rather than lecturing or unilaterally imposing unfair trade terms. China's remarkable organization, productivity, and cultural heritage warrant a more thoughtful and cooperative engagement.

As someone who deeply appreciates Chinese culture and speaks Mandarin fluently, I believe it essential to acknowledge China's strengths, like its hard-working, inventive, and sober people. True, gambling is a national vice and enables illegal money laundering, but that's a far cry from the corruption and thievery often associated with other nations.

A new cold war, if it were to occur, would be a much more challenging and complex phenomenon than the last one. China's sheer size, with a population of 1.4 billion, and its growing economic prowess, make it a formidable player on the global stage.

Rather than expecting a new cold war and planning for another US victory, a more realistic and responsible approach would acknowledges that China's growth and development over the next 10 to 20 years can and likely will lead to a more democratic and open society in China, resulting in more peaceful and cooperative relationships. That will require responsible leadership on both sides of the Pacific.

To avoid a new cold war, we should focus on helping China transform itself into a well-governed albeit authoritarian state. This requires recognizing exactly where China really is today, and showing China' leaders how China can achieve their goals while avoiding the pitfalls of ultra-nationalism and aggression. By doing so, we can garner Chinese support and outmaneuver domestic ultra-nationalists whether Chinese or Anglophone. A balanced approach, where China maintains its sovereignty while embracing gradual political reforms, can mitigate risks of ultra-nationalism.

Ultimately, our goal should be to help China grow and reform into a system that its people themselves desire and will want to preserve. Rather than trying to turn China into a carbon copy of the USA, a better model would be to see China grow into a giant Singapore or, even better, a giant Hong Kong – a beacon of peace, prosperity, free speech, and good governance.

A critical aspect of supporting China's transition is fostering mutual respect and understanding between China and the international community. This requires engaging with Chinese leaders and citizens with empathy and respect, acknowledging their achievements, and offering constructive assistance rather than imposing external solutions. Mutual understanding can be enhanced through cultural exchange, dialogue, and cooperation on shared global challenges.

China’s journey towards a more open society should be informed by historical lessons. The imposition of foreign ideologies and abrupt political changes have often led to instability and conflict. Instead, a gradual, homegrown approach to reform, one that respects China's unique characteristics and leverages its strengths, is more likely to succeed. This approach aligns with China's historical resilience and capacity for adaptation.

The Path Forward

The path to a peaceful and productive China lies in helping it transition from a totalitarian regime to a well-governed authoritarian democracy and the rule of law. This journey requires patience, respect, and a deep understanding of China’s history, culture, language, and laws. By recognizing China's current position and aspirations, promoting fair economic partnerships, and fostering mutual respect and understanding, we can support China in achieving a brighter future for its people and for the world. We can help China transform itself from fearful, rigid, defensive totalitarianism into well-governed authoritarianism increasingly governed by law and increasingly enjoying greater democracy and freedom of opinion, and freedom of expression. An authoritarian yet isolationist China would be peaceful and productive. We garner Chinese support by recognizing where they are, showing them how to get where they would like to go, and thereby outmaneuver domestic opposition, the Niall Fergusons and Steve Walts, who blindly want to throw away 30 or more years of real progress in China.

In conclusion, helping China to reform and further open up is a complex but achievable goal. It requires a respectful, helpful, optimistic, and friendly approach, grounded in mutual understanding and cooperation. By working together, we can help China grow into an ever peaceful and ever more productive and prosperous nation, contributing to global stability and well-being.

New Releases Free Previews

Word of the Day: Lunch!

- English: lunch (n)

- French: déjeuner (m)

- Spanish: almuerzo (m)

- German: Mittagessen (n)

- Estonian: lõunaeine (f)

- Russian: обед (m)

- Ukrainian: обід (m)

- Mandarin Chinese: 午餐 (wǔcān)

Sample sentence: "China ate Russia's lunch."

- French: La Chine a mangé le déjeuner de la Russie.

- Spanish: China se comió el almuerzo de Rusia.

- German: China hat Russlands Mittagessen gegessen.

- Estonian: Hiina söögis Venemaalt lõunaeine.

- Russian: Китай съел обед России.

- Ukrainian: Китай з'їв обід Росії.

- Mandarin Chinese: 中国吃掉了俄罗斯的午餐 (Zhōngguó chī diào le Éluósī de wǔcān).

Bonus word of the day!

Serendipity (n):

- A fortunate discovery, especially one that is made unexpectedly or by accident.

Example sentence: "It was pure serendipity that I found my long-lost friend at the concert, we had such a wonderful reunion."

- French: sérendipité (f)

- Spanish: serendipia (f)

- German: Serendipität (f)

- Estonian: serendipiteetiline (adj), õnnelik juhtum (m)

- Russian: серендипи́тет (m)

- Ukrainian: серендипі́тність (f)

- Mandarin Chinese: 意外的發現 (yìwàide fāxiàn), or the loanword 幸運的發現 (xìngyùn de fāxiàn).

A wonderful word to describe those happy accidents in life!

**Final line:** Life is full of serendipitous moments that can lead to wonderful surprises. (French: La vie est pleine de moments de sérendipité qui peuvent mener à de belles surprises.)

Ukraine will win.

Learn Chinese:

Memory is mental recreation of past perception

THIS WEEKS FREE EBOOKS!

Learn Chinese Characters & Vocabulary https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Chinese-Characters-Vocabulary-Cryptograms-ebook/dp/B0B3VRL5YF

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Questions-Explanatory-Answers-Quizmaster/dp/B0CG834JJ3

https://www.amazon.com/Translators-Traitors-America-International-Political-ebook/dp/B093QWJRRJ/

https://www.amazon.com/Equitable-Remedies-Subtitle-Quizmaster-Review/dp/1515132374/

https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Cryptography-Properties-International-Political/dp/1977006736

How to Remember ANYTHING So You Don’t Get Alzheimers or Dementia

SUBVERTISEMENT! REMEMBER ANYTHING! FLOG GOLF

This exercise teaches how to remember anything fairly easily and well.

Earlier I pointed out that from my perspective liberals are greedy lazy opportunists. I want to teach you how to remember things now, so you will remember them later when old.

I want you to imagine four rich starts with f rhymes with truckers. Friends. I mean four rich friends! Mr. Monopoly Banker, Snidely Whiplash, Scrooge McDuck, and J. Jonah Jameson. Banker, Snidely, Scrooge, and Jameson are playing GOLF. There are also FOUR Policemen saluting a flag with four stripes.

This is how we shall remember remember:

GREEDY OPPORTUNISTIC LIBERAL "FRIENDS" (GOLF) FATALLY FLAW YOUR FOUREIGN POLICEY.

The principles here are: acronyms for expansion, witty distortions, and sound-alikes.

In my critique of liberalism I like to point out that liberals are greedy opportunists, basically hell-bent on short-term cash-grabs with little or no (mostly no) long-term thinking. This lack of long term thinking and presence of short term wishful thinking, happy talk, and varieties of dishonesty (lies, half-truths, willful blindness) are what lead liberals to make so many mistakes that when the shooting starts they lose to illiterate rag-head hillbillies and varieties of swamp dwelling peasants.

Liberalism not only hinders effective war-fighting, it also hampers forueign policey.

Well, why are these liberals on a GOLF course? They are in fact playing MINI-golf, because their thinking is SHORT-Sighted.

The golf course just happens to be right next to a large cemetary.

The golf course has Four horsemen at the entrance. One is horse is smoking a cigarette, the other is drinking a beer, the third has machine guns strapped on, and the fourth is trying to get the others to gamble at poker. Have you ever seen gambling horses smoking drinking and playing with guns?

The principle here is a memorable scene because it is unusual.

FIRST HOLE: ONE LOTTERY TICKET

The first hole on the minigolf course has a wicket shaped in the form of a l0tt0 ticket, An emblem of shortsighted decisions based on immediate gratification rather than foresight and prudence. L0tt0 is a horrible investment, poor people often in desperation and ignorance play l0tt0 and this is the first item in my list of solid reasons I hate liberalism. L0tt0 because lotto pays zero. First item because in some computer languages the first item is 0, not 1.

Of course they play through, rich people are usually smart enough to figure out gambling is a horrible investment - and a great way to launder blood money.

SECOND HOLE: TWO BEER BOTTLES

Here lies a golf hole hazard crafted from a discarded beer bottle alongside two and a pair of drunk passed out homeless people trying to hide from the rain. So of course the golf party has the police remove them, and plays right through, though one of them gets drunk and passes out two. Some rich people wind up so bored they turn into drunks.

THIRD HOLE: DR. UGH

Happily, the third mini golf hole has a Doctor, a doctor named Ugh, and Dr. Ugh has some drugs for you. Just ask all those dead people in the graveyard who overdosed. Oh. Dr. Ugh? Seems to be out of the office. Maybe he fled the jurisdiction? Anyway it all those dead people surely can't be his fault, after all he is a doctor and they must have been lazy stupid poor people who deserve it. Anyway, this can't be the fault or problem of our rich golf players - they need to relax from all that stressful office sitting! So they play right through to the next hole

FOURTH HOLE: CIGS!!!!

Golf hole four has hole with four cigarettes in it. Once again, the golf party is far too smart for that, in fact some collect a nice dividend payout from their stock in BATCO!

FIFTH HOLE: GUNS GALORE

The next golf hole has five different types of guns: pistols, shotguns, machine guns, flare-guns, and starter guns for Races.

At the end of the golf course you see me with a whip. FLOG FLOG FLOG. I am flogging a dead horse.

Can you remember what items are at each of the holes in the golf course? In order? How many golfers finished the game? What are the golfers names? How many police were there? What does FLAG mean? What does GOLF? mean? What does FLOG mean? Why Four Policemen? What's the moral of the story?

So, dear reader, reflect upon this tale and its lessons. Understand how flawed ideologies propagate through society, impacting lives negatively. Armed with such awareness, you become better equipped to recognize and resist detrimental narratives, fostering positive change for all.

To summarize:

* FLAG: Failure Of Leadership and Governance

* GOLF: Greedy Opportunistic Liberal Fuckers

* FLOG: Failure Of Leadership and Governance

HOW TO REMEMBER A SEQUENTIAL LIST USING PATHS AND ACRONYMS

The subvertizement uses several mnemonic techniques to assist the reader in remembering sequential lists of items as representations of abstract concepts. By employing visualizations, acronyms, allegories, and repetition, the story creates a memorable framework for understanding intricate relationships between elements within a sequence. Below is an exploration of three key methods used in the story to facilitate learning and retention.

1. Acronyms and Expansions:

One effective technique employed in the story involves transforming abstract ideas into tangible forms via acronyms and subsequent expansion. For instance, GOLF represents "Greedy Opportunistic Liberal Fuckers"; FLAG embodies "Failure Of Leadership and Governance"; and FLOG signifies "Failure Of Leadership and Governance." Creating meaningful associations between letters and corresponding phrases enables easier recall and reinforces comprehension of underlying themes.

2. Sequential Storyline with Visuals:

By presenting individual components in a chronological fashion throughout the story, the author ensures that learners absorb details methodically. Moreover, associating each step with vivid imagery further strengthens the connection between abstract concept and concrete representation. For example, linking the idea of lottery tickets (symbolizing short-term cash grabs) to a physical object within the narrative allows the reader to create strong mental images anchoring the idea in their memory.

3. Repetition and Reinforcement:

Repetitive mention of crucial numbers, characters, and objects contributes significantly to encoding these elements deeply into the reader's long-term memory. Throughout the story, specific quantities like four policemen and four golfers are consistently highlighted, serving as recurring touch-points. Similarly, encounters with distinct challenges along the golf course reinforce the notion of cause-and-effect relationships inherent in political decision-making processes.

Ultimately, integrating multiple mnemonic strategies in a single narrative provides layers of redundancy essential for robust memorization. Combining acronyms, sequences, and repeated elements enhances overall cognitive engagement, leading to a higher likelihood of successful long-term retrieval. Utilizing such approaches offers valuable tools for educators seeking creative ways to impart complex ideas and promote active learning among students.

Do you want to

or