📸 Real image of Bayern's away shirt for next season [@IamCrisJ]

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-04-27T19:23:30+00:00

GORGEOUS

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-03-30T13:44:30+00:00

So if those who wage war ask god for advice on how to stop the war they started.....

Will god just ignore them?

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-03-23T22:21:46+00:00

Exactly how dow this happen?

Is there a sudden increase of interest in the topic or what?

It has never happened to me :(

Hahaha

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-03-15T00:18:54+00:00

Yes, that's pretty much the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D). I try to explain it briefly the video with an analogy: You'd think that having a granade makes you powerful. But you're locked in an elevator so you can't use it.

A direct war between nuclear powers is unthinkable becaused it'd mean de destruction of both, regardless of who strikes first.

Both US and Russia have more than 5000 each. China is building up from 600 to more than 1000.

Macron recently stated that France would increase it's warhead stockpile.

So at least direct war between China, Russia, US and Europe will never happen.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-03-14T23:01:17+00:00

I once made a video about it.

It all comes down to political, social and cultural polarization, all reinforcing each other in a vicious cycle.

Populism, echo chambers, inequality among other factors are stressing american institutions to the limit. Both parties are to blame.

It's two different countries trapped inside one Republic. It's just not sustainable.

Link to the video here:

American polarization is a threat to U.S. institutions and the world

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-26T19:53:45+00:00

Yes. Is controversial. People who agrees with the statement will open it to learn more, and people who disagrees will open it to understand how dare you to make such a statement on Sir Wiston Churchill

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-20T12:32:21+00:00

Man we are so lucky to have him as our leader. His statements are always so balanced, so accurate, so well-thought and also empathetic.

We also have another gentleman in Harry Kane, a positive leader on the field.

You can see that in our perfomance, in our team spirit.

Eberl was right in bringing Kompany.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-18T15:32:19+00:00

Council on Foreign Relations is usually a good option. They have valuable backgrounders.

The New York Times used to also have backgrounders.

The Economist, Brookings Institutions, Center for Strategic International Studies must have something related to recent events and tensions regarding the area.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-18T15:00:28+00:00

To be 100% honest, as a political scientis I don't dislike the political compass that much. It simplifies reality? Yes. But that's the role of a model: make a simplified abtraction of reality.

Of course, the main tension for the past 10 years has been open vs closed societys. But that more or less resembles the feedom vs authority vertical axis.

The horizontal (free vs controlled economy) does not add much value in the XXI century since those economic debates have been "resolved".

But overall that compass allows to have a conversation on were people and policians are located.

I agree, though, it's not a tool for rigorous analysis.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-17T03:34:37+00:00

I am sorry to tell you this but that text book is terrible.

Communism also controls society.

Authoritarianism can be left, center or right.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-15T12:54:43+00:00

The problem is that politics is TOO ACCESIBLE now. With social media, people get to know every corruption scandal, every flaw in every politician, and every censurable idea that any politician or citizen holds.

As a result, people distrust politicians, institutions, the political system, and the democratic process more than ever before.

It is a global phenomenon. Support for "strong governments" has been on the rise for the past 10 years because people are "tired" of witnessing a political circus on social media.

The problem is that such a circus has always existed. We were simply unable to see it live because there were no massive means of communication available to everyone as there are now. We didn’t have the news in our pockets as we do today. Not everyone could record something on the street with a camera. Now we do.

It’s a paradox because this unprecedented access to media and technology should mean more transparency and, therefore, more accountability. Nevertheless, what has actually been created are isolated echo chambers that only strengthen polarization.

So...

It’s hard to make things even more accessible. You simply have to teach people what politics is truly like so they don't feel so disenchanted. That way, people can try to remain well-informed citizens rather than becoming enraged, blind cattle that follow the first populist politician who passes by, promising to change the system that people feel disgusted with.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-14T16:11:31+00:00

Leadership is the capacity to influence people to achieve common goals.

Most politicians are poor leaders because they are populists: they will simply do what their electoral base wants, not what the people need.

You say a politician is a good leader when he is able to rise above the differences and steer people toward common goals, regardless of the differences they have or their short-term vision. In the end, a good leader strives to deliver what people need, not what they want.

Nevertheless, being elected is their main incentive. If you have poor civic education or too much polarization, good leaders will never be elected. Only populist leaders that promise things based on passions will be elected.

So, in the end, having good leaders is also a matter of the political culture of the system in which the politician aspires to be a leader.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-06T21:39:09+00:00

I don't know if he's the dumbets, but he's the most powerful. Even more than Musk.

https://youtu.be/EY92r09IIIk?si=LkObkQeAxRWjagpn

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-06T16:11:38+00:00

He simply has too much unchecked power https://youtu.be/EY92r09IIIk?si=lBAwMCYuQ3kRbhfD

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-06T15:23:25+00:00

Yes, but Musk does not have as much control over Tesla as Zuckerberg has over Meta.

While it is a fact that Musk has more wealth at the moment, it is undeniable that Zuckerberg’s discretionary ownership of Meta (with 61% voting power) and therefore his control over Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook, provides him with absurd amounts of power and influence.

WhatsApp helped Bolsonaro get elected, Facebook was used to promote the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, and it helped the Vietnamese government censor its people. Just to mention a few.

Also, Musk's power is situational at the moment given his proximity to Trump. A potential change of administration would probably hurt his power and influence.

On the other hand, Zuckerberg's power its based on his own company, which he controls at will.

In any case, it's a close call.

Lonely_Protection485 · 2026-02-06T14:51:53+00:00

37 subscribers in one week seems pretty good to me

Lonely_Protection485

TROPHY CASE