Kevin Czarzasty

@star_excelsior @RealAirPower1 I would also party attribute this to more rapid technical inovation in the navy. Us navy's aim9s evolved faster then the usaf's, and usn also adopted pulse doppler radars on thier phantoms starting with j model.

@RealAirPower1 Poor training was more of an issue than the lack of a gun itself. Navy Phantom pilots would go on to outperform AF Phantom pilots even after the AF got the version with a gun.

When you look at the face of an F-4E, you are looking at the face of both failure and success. The sleek, heavy nose represents a hard lesson learned in the heat of combat. As you know, early Phantoms were designed for a push-button war where missiles did all the work from a distance. Designers thought the age of the dogfight was over, so they left the gun out. But as they say, plans rarely survive contact with the enemy. Pilots soon found themselves trapped in close-range scraps with AAMs that refused to track, leaving them with the perfect shot but no way to take it. 1/2

@NikTek No smashmouth or Shrek lines? Smh. youtu.be/wZTUXoL5byo?si…

Shrek mod has been added to Resident Evil 9 and its hilarious.

DIFFERENT WARS, SAME PROPAGANDA

Maduro’s capture illustrates what I believe is one of the biggest problems in politics: people frequently treat principles as costumes—worn when convenient, discarded when costly. Over nearly two decades working in and around politics, I’ve watched the same pattern play out again and again—and today’s events in Venezuela put it on display in neon. The US military carried out strikes in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, flying them to New York in what the administration is framing as a kind of “law enforcement” operation.  Look, there are plenty of people who never even pretend to have a core set of principles they cling to. They’re utilitarians and technocrats—ruled by polling, vibes, ambition, and career incentives. Fine. At least they’re honest about being wind vanes. But most people do claim to stand for a consistent set of ideas—constitutional restraint, limited government, “America First,” non-intervention, rule of law, due process, sovereignty, you name it. The problem is that they’re often inconsistent, especially when the outcome is emotionally satisfying. Today proved that again. People who claim to champion the Constitution suddenly ignore its restraints on executive power and, when pressed, point to court precedent, congressional statutes, and past presidential deviations as if those things are the Constitution. “But… the Barbary pirates!” “But George H.W. Bush removed Noriega in Panama!” “But the courts said XYZ!” “But Congress passed some statute in 199-whatever!” So I’ve asked a simple question, repeatedly, across social media threads today: Where, exactly, is the constitutional provision authorizing the president to invade another country and depose its leader? The replies come back empty, no constitutional provision cited. They can't, because it doesn't exist. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. No "targeted strikes" or anything of the like are separately authorized for the president to execute at his whim. That’s the whole point of written limits: the text is supposed to bind you. Instead, we get arguments that past presidents did it, and some lawyers said it was okay. This is tantamount to saying “Billy did it, so I thought it was okay for me to do it.” That’s playground logic, not constitutional rigor. And that’s my point: there is no rigor. There’s only precedent—meaning, prior lawlessness used to justify the next round of lawlessness. The administration itself appears to be leaning on the idea that indictments and “national interests” somehow transform regime change into a lawful “arrest mission.” Trump was elected in part because people were exhausted by foreign meddling. He was praised (by some of these same voices!) for resisting the interventionist itch. And now he’s kicking up dirt in Venezuela. “But Venezuelans are happy!” the commenters have repeatedly said. “They’re in the streets celebrating!” Yes. Sometimes they are. That’s not a serious argument. That’s the-ends-justify-the-means dressed up as compassion—again, playground-level reasoning. Guess what: Iraqis filled the streets when Saddam was deposed. “Baghdad Celebrates Saddam’s Fall,” read a headline in Voice of America, for an article describing dancing and cheering as thousands poured into the streets.  Then Iraq spiraled into insurgency, sectarian civil war, mass death, displacement, and the conditions that helped give rise to ISIS. Libyans filled the streets when Gaddafi fell. So then we got an article titled “Libyans celebrate Gaddafi’s death” in Al Jazeera, describing jubilant crowds and the “end of tyranny.”  Then Libya fractured into militias and rival governments, becoming a prolonged civil conflict and a humanitarian disaster. I could go on. You get the pattern. Here’s the deeper point that people keep refusing to learn: if your principles only apply when they’re easy, you don’t have principles… you have preferences. And preferences make terrible guardrails for state power. Every time you cheer an exception, you’re not just celebrating a moment… you’re authoring a precedent. You're excusing the next guy, in any political party, and for any reason, to do it too. If you’re applauding unilateral regime change today because the target is a villain, you’re also applauding unilateral regime change tomorrow when the target is someone you don’t want touched. Power doesn’t care about your intentions (or your preferences). It cares about the permission slip we seemingly always give it. To be clear: Maduro is no hero. He’s a tyrant who has presided over ruin and repression. But the question isn’t whether Maduro is bad (he obviously is). The question is whether we are governed by law or by appetite. Because “he’s bad” is not a constitutional argument, nor is "Venezuelans are happy and freer." It’s the (fake) argument every president uses when he wants to do something he has already decided to do. And this is why presidents since Washington have gotten away with exceeding constitutional limits: because the public trains them to. They learn that violating restraints can spark national pride, satisfy a thirst for vengeance, and earn adoration from people who swear they oppose unchecked power—right up until it produces an outcome they like. You want a country of laws? Then act like law matters when it’s inconvenient. Stop treating the Constitution as a decoration. Stop citing precedent as if it were permission. Stop excusing today’s overreach because you hate today’s target. Because the bill always comes due, and the payment is usually made by people who never voted for the war, never authorized the mission, and never wanted their country turned into the kind of thing it once claimed to oppose. So yes, we can answer James Madison’s question: “Will it be sufficient… to trust to these parchment barriers (i.e., the Constitution) against the encroaching spirit of power?” Obviously not. Parchment only restrains power when the people treat it as a leash—not a suggestion. When half the country cheers the leash getting snapped because their guy did it to their enemy, the paper might as well not exist. And that's the cycle we've long been in. Yes, Venezuela may be a little freer, for now. But listen to the triumphalism in Trump's announcement. In the same breath as announcing Maduro’s capture, he talked about sending in “our very large United States oil companies,” and about the U.S. “running” Venezuela's government “until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” This is the raw material of unintended consequences: blowback, corruption, and the kind of protracted entanglement that turns “just this once” into the next twenty years. Count me out. I've seen this story before, and I don't like how it ends.

Libertarians/Anarchists/Voluntaryists all share the fundamental principles that every decent human being does. - Self-Ownership - Nobody has a legitimate claim over me or my body. - Property Rights - Nobody has a legitimate claim over anything I produce as a result of my labor and/or intellect. - NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) - simply means it is immoral/illegal to use preemptive violence, force, coercion, or theft against others. Self-Defense is perfectly legitimate. Most people adhere to these principles in their personal lives, and when interacting with others economically. However, most have also been indoctrinated to believe that certain rituals and labels give some human beings an escape clause from those principles. I may not be able to convince you that Government is illegitimate, but that undeniable fact will be common knowledge at some point, and people will look back at these times in the same manner they do regarding the old form of slavery. All you have to do is stop believing in having Rulers, but it is much harder to do than to say for those who are unwilling to have their foundations rocked. Libertarians are not outdated or irrelevant. They are just far ahead of everyone else, in terms of knowing what it means to be free human beings, and freedom begins as a state of mind. Copernicus, Galilei, and others throughout history were in the same position of being far more knowledgeable than most, and willing to speak the truth, even when it meant severe retribution. They were treated as heretics in their time, but what they gave us can never be denied, and has helped humanity immensely.

Canada liberal government has 3 bills that when passed will be their most destructive bills ever put into law Free speech will be ended, Canadians will be thrown in prison for social media posts, warrantless searches of phones, pre-crime punishments and even open your mail Bill C-2 - empowers government employees, not police, to open your mail, search your phone or computer — all without a warrant. Bill C-8 - gives cabinet ministers the power to kick Canadians off the internet, impose fines, and demand data — no judge, no police review. Bill C-9 - removes legal safeguards around free speech. Justice Centre expands “hate” prosecutions. Online Harms Act - brings pre-crime punishment: house arrest, ankle bracelets, curfews for people who haven’t committed a crime. Because they might. “If the Online Harms Act is brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive non-criminal speech with penalties up to $50,000” (This is a bill that insiders say is about to be revived and passed with the 3 above) “Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes bills C2, C8, and C9 in their current form. C2 is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant. It criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than $10,000. And it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous.” “You're gonna see a Digital Safety Commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respective of the internet and internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wearing an ankle bracelet and respect a curfew, et cetera. Giving the federal government, giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security.”

I just don't believe in Canada anymore. I don't believe it's a real country. It's more like a post national globalist district. A resource/labor colony for oligarchical interests. I don't believe that we're citizens. We are more akin to debt ridden, indentured servants to the corporation that our once prosperous country has become. I don't believe in our politicians they all seem like political constructs, sloppily regurgitating scripted rhetoric. I don't believe in our westminister parliamentary system. It's all merely a performative charade to provide the peasentry with the illusion of participatory governance. I don't believe in Canada. In fact, I can't fathom how anyone still can.

@philthatremains x.com/ChiefNiftyswel…

the left will show you the pic on the left. but won’t show you how they got the results they did. but when you read the specifics you realize that it it intended to produce a result. when you poll the left, you get the results in post i quoted. it’s the same reason they always say, “since 1975.” because if they go bad just a few more years they have to address the thousands, yes thousands, of bombings done by leftist terrorist organizations like the weather underground.

I remember in my government funded Civics class where we had a discussion where we argued no politician has an obligation to do what they promise and no consequences if they don't do what they promise or do something else. A vote is not a legally binding contract. Teacher: "In a system of representative democracy, all citizens with the capacity to do so vote in elections for political representatives who function as their agents in terms of expressing and establishing their political preferences." Student: "Normally when we talk about agents acting on behalf of principals, we have to envision a contractual relationship between agent and principal giving rise to personal obligations and rights. Failure to provide due performance in terms of these obligations allows the aggrieved party to seek legal remedies, such as a demand for due performance or a claim for damages. If political representatives are agents acting on behalf of voters, is it possible for voters to claim legal remedies such as these when their political representatives do not fulfill their obligations to them?" Teacher: "It would be very difficult to establish the terms of such a contract" Student: "Is there a contract?" Teacher: "No." Student: "Then are political representatives really agents of voters?" Teacher: "Not in a legal sense." Student: "In the fairy godmother sense then?" ---- Actually, we didn't have that conversation precisely because the school was government funded.

Because homogonous populations are more likely to maintain a cohesive culture and build social structures that resist the centralization of state power Particular peoples with deeply ingrained customs and religions are less likely to bend to the state's commands when they conflict with those beliefs They are also more likely to be rooted in communities with the social and economic capital to be self-reliant and are therefore more difficult to control through soft power Kulaks are a problem for totalitarian regimes so the elites import a foreign class that is generally poor, dependent, and too diverse to resist the government They gain their loyalty by promising to strip the kulaks of their wealth and distribute it to the new client class It eliminates the middle-class as a barrier to their power and wins them reliable voter base of slave labor that will ensure they remain in charge "democratically"

You and the government are the biggest threat to Canadians.

Hotter take. All taxes should be 0%. The government doesn't need your tax money because they just print money out of thin air anyway. The taxes are there to keep you in subservient and impoverished.

Things that are fundamental in a free society: -Property rights -Free speech -Right to self defense -Right to bear arms Things Canadians don't have: -Property rights -Free speech -Right to self defence -Right to bear arms We're not citizens. We're subjects of the crown!

A clearer picture is starting to emerge of how Western governments will likely deal with artificial superintelligence. They will monitor and track everything you do online and link it to your digital identity. If you want to run AI inference for too long, they will get suspicious and suspect you of wielding superintelligence for nefarious means. Meanwhile, they will control the GPU clusters through multinational agreements. This is not a world in which the people will have any real democratic rights, because the people will have no power. Digital ID is yet another step towards complete and utrery slavery.

“They want a job like every other Canadian.” But they are not Canadian, Doug, they are visa expired Indians who refuse to go home and are applying political pressure from the Sikh/Indian community to let them stay.

How is it possible that so many see the Freedom Convoy as the opposite of what it truly was? I’ve lost count of how many people have told me they were on the verge of ending their lives until the Convoy arrived in Ottawa. It gave them hope. It gave them strength. It reminded them they weren’t alone. Who created such despair in the first place? Every level of government in this country. Through fear, division, and relentless control, they pushed people to the edge. The Freedom Convoy pulled them back. I met a man who told me about a six-year-old girl he knew, six years old, struggling with suicidal thoughts. My own daughter was six at the time. That shattered me. We now live in a country where the immune system of the federal government is attacking the antibodies trying to imprison the two most influential, working-class citizens of my lifetime, not because they did wrong, but because they stood up to the cancer spreading through Ottawa. Without the bravery and clarity of those two leaders, thousands more would have taken their lives. We’d still be suffocating under endless mandates, sleepwalking toward breadlines, stripped of dignity, voice, and choice. We owe them a national debt of gratitude. Because they stood, we found our voice. Because they said “No more”, to the cancer that wants to metastasize! @ChrisBarber1975 @WoodReporting @ikwilson @echipiuk

In Canada, a guy who smoked some weed & then stabbed two women in their head & neck staying at his Airbnb gets no jail time, or a guy gets caught trying to pay for sex with a 15 year old but is spared jail to help with his immigration to Canada but Tamara & Chris are looking at 7 to 8 years on a mischief charge that has been going on in the courts for years now. Something is very wrong in Canada.

@Skylieden @NoLeaksPls I guess people will have to post manuals from simulators. Because it's the only way to have a sanitized information that comes from the very documents people are finding online that gajin refuses to use. Of course gajin will refuse simulator manuals because it's just a game.

@NoLeaksPls Players - *provided documents that aren’t classified and meets criteria* Gaijin - “inadequate, not going to even bother looking” Also players - *leaks classified document that cannot be argued against to prove a point* Gaijin -

0 days The harrier NATOPS manual Distribution Statement C Wait again? Wasnt that already posted?? The hell with it WOO ANOTHER LEAK

After playing with different AIs for a bit, I concluded that the biggest challenge facing humanity over the next 20 years is to understand that AI does not really possess a native (actual) intelligence, i.e. an ability to understand and independently reason about any topic. AI only creates the illusion that it's "intelligent" through the use of the so-called Large Language Models (LLMs). It can summarize info from a large number of sources and give you a well-written narrative about the "consensus view" on a topic. However, it cannot intelligently weigh the evidence to generate new understanding or new insights about a phenomenon based on the available data/evidence. It certainly cannot produce new paradigms of understanding, which is what the core of a real human intelligence is. In other words, AI will not ever be able to perform functions that are inherent to the human soul as a conscious spiritual entity. That's because AI is and will remain a soulless computer algorithm running on lifeless machines. Let me know what you think...