This happened to me once, I needed to get some paper from some office in order to fill more paperwork, to bring to another office, and so on. So I decided to just make the final form myself and turn that in, to save even more time I printed ones for several years In the future. unfortunately I turned in the one for the year after, fortunately, the clerk lady noticed, and let me change it for the right one.
Not really, 20 years ago there was a dominos in the 3 horse town in the mofle of nowhere mexico were I used to live, but as far as I know there is no poza hut yet.
Any way, the best yankee piza chain used to be round table pizza? With the fat guy advertising a pie with several different meat toppings.
No, it too deep in the mountains, A guy I know added the minimum distance needed to travel to travel by land from one point of Eurasia to everyone else counting changes in altitude as adding an extra linear distance, so they weren't always straight paths. The center of the world was in southern Afghanistan near the Iranian border.
Isnt this bad for the euros, sine it makes exporting harder in a context when their factories are already closing due to lack of energy inputs, and qualified workforce.
This is a good question, were does legitimacy comes from in a monarchical society.
This reminds me of the time (possibly Ralph)Nader became shah of Iran and invaded india. The Mughal king was bragging about how he was the son of someone who was king and so on for several generations, and Nader shah responded by saying something along the lines of I am the son of the sword, and so on for more generations than you.
So yhea, ultimately legitimacy should come from the ability to raise an army and hold territory. But not entirely. there is always some sort of ritual involved, in order to provide some stability or institutional continuity.
But nader's regime didn't last long. It's institutions hadn't become strong enough to survive. They lacked a certain legitimacy in the minds of the subjects. And ironically so did the progenitor of the Mughal. It was amir Timur, acting as a regent of a descendant of gengis Khan. it was only after his death, and subsequent civil wars that Timur's descendents became kings in their own right even if their military power was much lesser than Timur's.
So there has to be some sort of continuity of ritual that forms the myth of the legitimacy of a given regime in the minds of it's people. And it's this the strength of this that prevents warlords from claiming kingship.
I think Japan is a good example, being isolated from the rest of the world, the warlords became shoguns, while the emperor remained a symbolic figure. Eventually the shogun also became a symbolic figure to the point were "Toy"O'Tommy Hideoshi wasn't even shogun but Taiko. But then his descendants were involved in the struggle to become shoguns, perhaps because of the interruption of ritual.
It somehow reminds me of the Taliban victory irl, now they are running things, but they have to maintain a bureaucracy, and make arrangements with all these corporations and institutions, and it's soul crushing.
I'm a dune fan, that's why I haven't watched the new movies. If I watch them I'm going to be incredibly pissed. from what I see of them, they look like shit. as dar as i know a hack director decided to adapt a book that's mostly dialogue and exposition without using dialogue and exposition, because it's what his remedial writing class said he should do. They also supposedly whitewashed it removing the islam bits for example.
Make no mistake, things will get worse. Trump does not have anything to do with it, they will get worse under a democrat too.