Kompromat

Okay, fair enough.

But my curiosity here still revolves more around why and how you came to think the way you do. Why that and not something else? In other words, how is it embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of any particular human identity [re value judgments] as more an existential contraption than a frame of mind that can be defended philosophically, or ideologically, or theologically, or scientifically, or genetically [naturally] re folks like Satyr.

Take us back, okay?

How has your life unfolded with respect to issues of race? What actual experiences, relationships, sources of information and knowledge etc., nudged/propelled you in the direction that embodies your own particular “I” here and now.

Have you thought this through?

And, if so, what are the components of your argument [in a venue such as this] that might persuade others to think and feel as you do now?

And then [more with Joker than with you] this part:

Zero comes here adopting the persona of a fierce supporter of the Jews. We of course are meant to see through the “irony” of this.

But then I got to thinking that maybe the irony instead revolves more around the fact that he is not being ironic at all!

Hell, maybe his shtick here is actually to expose those who do go after the Jews. Those who embrace a frame of mind more in sync with the manner in which, say, the Nazis went after them.

Is that…possible?

Another point of view here…

From Anne Applebaum’s column today.

[b]Nearly a year ago, I speculated that the Trump campaign might have shared data with the Russian Internet Research Agency, the team that created fake personas and put up fake Facebook pages with the goal of spreading false stories about Hillary Clinton. The Russians certainly seemed to know what they were doing. On the one hand, the Russian team targeted people who they thought might be moved to support Trump by anti-immigration slogans and messages; on the other hand, they targeted black voters with messages designed to discourage them from voting at all.

The latest indictment produced by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, together with President Trump’s strange performance in Helsinki, suggests a different hypothesis: that Russia shared data with the Trump campaign, and not vice versa. The indictment explains that the Russian hackers who broke into the servers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee not only stole the now- infamous emails but also stole data. “The Conspirators,” reads the indictment, “searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” They then “gathered data by creating backups, or ‘snapshots,’ of the DNC’s cloud-based systems” and “moved the snapshots to cloud-based accounts they had registered with the same service thereby stealing the data from the DNC.”

The Russian hackers, in other words, are the modern equivalents of the Watergate burglars in 1972. The only difference is the technology. The Watergate burglars broke into the Democratic campaign offices to tap phones and steal documents; the Russian hackers used malware and “cloud-based accounts” to achieve the same goal.

Did they share this information with the Trump campaign? If so, the timing is interesting. In October, a few weeks after the hackers broke into the DNC servers, New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman observed a major shift in the way the Trump campaign was spending its advertising budget. Access to Democratic Party data would, of course, have been useful in redirecting that spending. At about the same time, Trump also began using a curious set of conspiratorial slogans and messages, all lifted directly from Russian state television and websites. From Barack Obama “founded ISIS” to Hillary Clinton will start “World War III,” Trump repeated them at his rallies and on his Twitter feed. It was as if he had some reason to believe they would work.[/b]

On the other hand…

It’s important to stop and acknowledge that the evidence we have does not establish this kind of connection between Russian hackers and the Trump campaign; the Mueller probe needs to continue unimpeded to help determine what happened and what did not.

Still…

But shared data could explain why Russian state media, the Russian Internet Research Agency and the Trump campaign were all doing the same kinds of things at the same time. Shared data could also explain why Trump appeared to feel so indebted to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, why he wanted to speak to him with no aides present, why he is so reluctant to acknowledge Russian interference. It could even explain why he talks so obsessively and inaccurately about the size of his great electoral victory: because he himself believes that the Russians helped him win. He fears that this would make his presidency illegitimate. Which it would.

Carry on Bob Mueller.

It must be hard for both of you living in precisely the wrong country so many years after having that would be remotely possible.

Still, what always intrigues me about political commitments of this sort is less the arguments that folks make in defending them and more the sequence of variables in their lives that predisposed them to champion them in the first place.

And not something else.

Here [pertaining to the OP] there are facts that either will or will not see the light of day regarding the actual existential relationship between Trump and Putin. Something did happen. And in a particular order. But what? How close will Mueller and others come to sorting it all out?

But our reaction to the facts is considerably more convoluted. That’s the part [for me] that gets all tangled up in “I” as an ever shifting and evolving existential contraption going forward in a world [labyrinthian at times] of contingency chance and change. There’s just no way of predicting what you will think and feel a week, a month, a year from now.

The facts will stay the same. But our reaction to the accumulating facts may not.

That’s why an objectivist frame of mind is so tempting. Once you zero in on right and wrong from a particular moral and political zeitgeist, any particular means and ends [as they relate to interpreting the facts] will be constantly shifting “in your head” in order to sustain the most comforting and consoling psychological zeitgeist.

Iambiguous, for somebody that is a nihilist you sure seem to be obsessed with what is right, wrong, and egalitarian, dare we say you’re not as neutral or skeptical as you claim to really be?

You obviously vote liberal, you’re slipping…

Can we call you a fraud of a nihilist yet? No, too soon?

We’re going to obliterate whiteness all throughout the west destroying the European Caucasian wherever they exist. There will be no insurrection, defiance, push-back, separatism, or rebellion, what can go wrong? Nothing I tell you, the plan is perfect!

We Jews will formalize a world government because as God’s destiny being fulfilled as the chosen we’re destined to rule the entire planet and with our genocide of the Palestinian people as you can see we’ll stop at nothing to do so. The end justifies the means and nothing is beyond our abilities in achieving that end.

Kushner is partly under attack for the current flareup in the Middle East.
Instead of looking at causes, which hinges on reverse thinking sandwiched on doubtful effects to their causal claims, take historical signposts of causal certainty in terms of historic unaffected guidelines. They are not equivocal at all , and be at in mind they are not fodder to connect causes and their apparent outcomes, but merely events catalogued as unaffected historical records. Can one think of some?
On the forefront is the question of Arab unity as Arab Brotherhood.

Much is slung about this supposed societal feature of Middle Eastern real-social-politic, but is this really
a’ real’ real of most current descriptions of what really is going on? Is not the social unsophistication more to the point where regionalism and tribalism are more to the point?

Historically the facts bear this out. Jordan is the most convincing in an apparently undisguised manner in which the King there, a U.S. friend, refused to open up Trans-Jordan to Palestinian immigration there. The factionalism between the Shia and the Sunnies are a perpetual mobile of unsorted and inconclusive proof of un- certain claims to land and sovereignty between those groups as well.

The idea that these sorts of conflicts among unfriendly tribes, giving hate toward a common enemy, again, gives rise to very basic social -psychological defensive posture, again on a primary level.

Not accounting for such, but bypassing them, makes the reality sandwich extremely thin, disguised in populist terms, and perhaps giving a deliberately oblique view to the shakers, the intelligencia and the movers of those countries a bad taste of exemplarism, as hypocritical and self serving in those countries. Further, disociating a good and bad will of the West’s intentions.

Nah, who will you hire as pesonal assistents? And how will your Nuremburg Laws work? I mean the ones to determine race.

Either the facade parody Jew or the underlying separatist Joker…

What will either of you do with all the mixed race people? Adoptees? Interracial marriages? Professional partnerships?

You don’t want to inhibit the freedom of Jews or whites-

Well, at least your not national socialist, that has a ten year max duration and leads to the destruction of many of your own race.

The Kalergi Plan, we need to take out the white Europeans because they’re the only opposition to take us on in competition or opposing us. Our program against whiteness is progressing very well since the 1960’s.

All non Jews make up for a good servile population and we’re not really worried about them.

And the Nuremberg Laws when separating?

What about them?

It is great that we destroyed national socialism in Europe during World War II, it was the only political threat against us as it collectivized the Europeans in a form of organization that threatened our power or influence everywhere.

Being that we control capitalism and marxism we’ve essentially neutered or neutralized European whites where if they keep following both politics they’ll be within our realm of control.

And the Nuremberg Laws when separating?
[/quote]
What about them?
[/quote]
Well, you gotta figure out in your real and then fake Jewish separatisms how to deal with all the boundary cases, grey areas and close relations between races. IOW your own Nuremberg Laws.

Now you’re not making any sense at all.

Wendy has claimed you are a separatist, there are gray areas, hence the Nuremberg laws.

Nuremberg was pretty black and white. I’m unable to follow your rhetoric here.

This is a paradigm of how grey areas can give rise uncertainty, defeating deontological focus, used referentially as if it made some kind of objective sense possible.
A reductive gesture to a black and white argument failing a compromising situation, its a dilusive attempt to bring back to solvency that which can not again appear in concentrated forms.

Literally, Nuremberg could never due justice on what went on in those concentrated concentration camps.
They were not existential contraptions they were not merely metaphors of illness, they were epochs that prevented clarity in movement from sterile nihilism forwards or backwards

They literally and figuratively landed into a definitive black hole , from which escape was not possible or even conceivable.

Both: anti-semite and jew were caught in an inescapable paradoxical situation.

Ref: Sartre, ‘Reflexion sur question juive’.(in broad context) ed.1946 Edition Morihien

I am so glad the Soviets discovered those concentration camps before anybody else including the Americans. Thankfully the Bolsheviks were on our side…