Trump enters the stage

The sign preceded the signal -that incurses the backward look even before before Descartes’ cogito, as a social reflection of identity.
Can’t sleep because of jet lag .

The cogito as am identifiable self on a social basis, tries to predate the answer to the failure of the will, and the developer of the sign as: bubble, sign as the failure of the eye, in the shot to -under lying motif- in esse eat percipii, becomes the ontological necessity .

As if space time was pre tempted of a lasting identifiable sign, and needed to incorporate its signal, a more complex social deviemce, a deviance understood by Leibnitz.

Intentionality tried filling the gap between being and nothingness, and failed miserably. The signs were taken as signals , based on nothing but archytipical essences, mysteriously appearing , Steiner reduced it to such, and probably saw the need of a new ideal , a new reformation. In that effort, along with Blavatsky, and other mysterious compensations.

The mirror of identifiable traits, as odious and mistaken as it has become, necessitated a test, a societal conflict of which the result became a horror show.

A test of will raised by the intentional use of a ladder, which became too much for the heavy load upon which such transmission overbore its capacity.

It broke , and the triad of national, social and and material dialectic came to a crashing halt, when intentionality and the social will to overcome its obstacles lost the transmission of signs of information , and could not connect with any meaningful social signifier signature, with which to indemnify the reason d’etre for its very composite picture of its social significance.

The result was a retro-cultism of the kind Levi Strauss talks about, projected into the ultra modern post understood social contract.

It’s social understanding exhibits negative symptoms of cultist, mixed with national boundaries, so as to create a myopic individual bubbling of sources, the social mirror filled with the doubt manufactured by an evil genius, presenting a misunderstood fear of a lack of substance in a material world, leading to ideological vampires, to replace the processes of democracy.

The richest man in the world is approaching the wealth of Solomon, and Amazon, the allegory used to shield vast primitive forests possibility,
creates representations of major uneven distribution.

Trumpism is a.cover for am original regression to the Cogito ergo Sum, but only for the lonely, the ones on the pyramid, whose only method is by way of a hidden social control.

Trump knows it, and all bow to the hope of the machine, the love machine that was meant to change the very genetic make up of human life, upon which alter we must oblige , for fear of extinction.

The oligarch habe narrowed their view of intentional wielding of.power to a constant shortening of term, not because they want to, but they have to.

They are our last hope.

Oh to still believe in scapegoats. …

Forever young eh?

In a next life you will learn to scrutinize your sources.

We have agreed son some level that this post contains no real opinion or slant but creates a modicum of impartiality sans an absence of any real dialectical synthesis, but it adheres tacitly on some level by a philosophical leaning toward an empirical approach to a kind of neo~kantism, a futility of, evident to more sophistry then substance.

That this is what’s happening is not anxhoixe it is based on a consumer need to. Ompenaate for a xhangingnworld which needs compensating forces.

Trumpism is not a consist ent stream of thought, it is not a functional apparatus but a required body-politic to deal with what materialism post dialectics can consistently contain.

At the end of the road, which really is no end looking back in an era post history, it is said, the pieces will need aethestic distance gleaned from a point of view of appreciating function, of this apparatus .

Until then, it can not be said of a postmodern process ofnthoufj eitjwr be this or that.

Right now the most that can be said is: it is what it is.

ABCNews
Is Russia playing a double game in Mueller court battle?
By Lee Ferran
Oct 5, 2018, 5:00 AM ET

WATCH: Special counsel Robert Mueller said they allegedly set up campaign-style rallies in US battleground states.
When special counsel Robert Mueller announced indictments in February targeting 13 Russian individuals and three Russian business entities for their alleged roles in a Kremlin-directed election influence campaign, legal experts thought the case had little chance of going forward.

After all, each of the defendants was believed to be safely in Russia, which does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.

“When those indictments dropped I think it was widely assumed that it was unlikely that any of those defendants would ever appear in a U.S. court,” April Doss, a former attorney for the National Security Agency, told ABC News.

But then the Russians did something unexpected. In April, an American law firm told the court it was representing one of the accused businesses entities, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, that wished to fight the case. Unlike cases against individuals, the American legal system allows for corporate defendants to be represented by an attorney even if no individual from that company is physically present in court. The quirk in the system meant that Concord could fight the charges from Russia without any of its officials actually standing in front of an American judge.

After pleading not guilty to a fraud-related charge, Concord, through the Pittsburg-based law firm Reed Smith, has mounted a spirited defense, challenging the special counsel’s office every legal step of the way. Eric Dubelier, the lead attorney for Concord, declined to discuss the case.

Doss, who recently served as senior minority counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe, said Concord could be fighting back for “reputational” reasons – in order to clear its name – but she and other national security and legal experts told ABC News that Concord, and ultimately the Kremlin, could be up to a more concerning double game: using the U.S. legal system to gather intelligence or undercut the broader Russia probe.

In the same way U.S. officials said Russia pursued different goals in the alleged 2016 election interference campaign to set itself up for what Doss called a “win-win-win” regardless of the election’s outcome, she said it’s “entirely possible that something similar is happening inside this Concord litigation.”

Yevgeny Prigozhin gestures at the Konstantin Palace outside St. Petersburg, Russia, Aug. 9, 2016.

An intelligence operation, run through an American court

To Matthew Olsen, a former senior official in the Justice Department’s national security section and an ABC News consultant, Concord’s legal strategy raised a concerning question: what if the Russians were attempting to force an American court to play host to an ongoing intelligence-gathering operation?

Olsen described what could be a new twist on an old espionage and legal tactic known as graymail, in which a defendant argues that their defense requires the disclosure of sensitive information. It could be a legitimate request, or it could be designed to force the U.S. government to make “hard choices” about dropping charges or pursuing them at the risk of exposing sensitive intelligence, Olsen said.

“It definitely comes into play in many if not most espionage cases,” he said. A representative for the Russian government in Washington did not respond to ABC requests for comment.

In an early discovery request, Reed Smith requested access to detailed information about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative methods, including all electronic surveillance of the defendants and identities of any informants involved in the case. It also asked for evidence of any time the U.S. has interfered in a foreign election since the end of the Second World War, a period covering more than 70 years of potential U.S. secrets.

Mark Zaid, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in national security cases, said in August he suspected Concord’s goal was to “expose what the government knows.”

“They’re digging. They’re fishing,” Zaid said.

Due to Concord’s purported ties to the Kremlin – the firm is owned by Yevgeniy Prigozhin, often referred to as “Putin’s chef” – prosecutors appeared concerned that any sensitive information they turned over to the defense could take a detour to Moscow. In a court filing in June, they argued that the judge should impose restrictions on the handling of discovery information because of the “risk of exposing this material to the Russian government.”

After some back and forth, the special counsel’s office and the defense eventually agreed to use special measures first developed decades ago to deal with cases involving classified information, including a “firewall counsel” who will help decide what information can be shared by defense attorneys with other parties and strict rules about where documents and other materials can be stored.

New York defense attorney Alexei Schacht, whose cases often run into classified information, said the protective system generally works, but is dependent on all parties “playing by the rules.”

A view of the four-story building known as the “troll factory” in St. Petersburg, Russia, Feb. 17, 2018. The U.S. government alleged the Internet Research Agency started interfering as early as 2014 in U.S. politics, extending to the 2016 presidential election, saying the agency was funded by a St. Petersburg businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin.
Another angle of attack on Mueller

In June, lawyers for Concord deployed another tactic – filing a motion to dismiss the case by taking aim at Mueller directly and questioning the constitutionality of his appointment.

Doss, the former NSA attorney, said that while a dismissal would be at odds with the intelligence-gathering tactic, either would further Russia’s broader interests.

“It doesn’t have to be a single choice,” she said.

If the legal attack on Mueller had been successful, Doss said the resulting political fallout would “sow discord” in the U.S., which was “the whole goal of the 2016 active measures campaign.”

So far Mueller has managed to fend off Concord’s and other similar legal challenges, including one by Andrew Miller, an American who defied a subpoena from Mueller by arguing the constitutionality question. In August two judges rejected Concord’s bid to formally join in an appeal launched by Miller after his argument was also struck down in a lower court.

Paul Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, told ABC News he couldn’t speak to Concord’s motivations, but he praised Reed Smith’s work on the constitutionality argument and said the firm was doing a “professional and excellent job of making their defense.”

Since the unsuccessful argument against Mueller, Concord has challenged the case on other legal grounds, including claiming “selective prosecution,” a charge with which the court is now grappling. Doss said that any dismissal would “undermine the effectiveness of the prosecution” in the wider Russia probe and weaken arguments against Russian election meddling internationally – another “strategic goal” for Moscow.

As the case continues on, seven months after Mueller’s original indictments, Concord has not shown any sign of letting up in the legal siege.

“There’s no downside,” Zaid said. Even if Concord loses its case, “they can just disappear. It’s a corporation, and they’re not here.”

iinteresting twist on primacy of illusive Russian tactics.


A leading Holocaust historian just seriously compared the US to Nazi Germany
“If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell.”
By Zack Beauchamp on October 5, 2018 11:21 am

Adolf Hitler at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Getty Images
Usually, comparisons between Donald Trump’s America and Nazi Germany come from cranks and internet trolls. But a new essay in the New York Review of Books pointing out “troubling similarities” between the 1930s and today is different: It’s written by Christopher Browning, one of America’s most eminent and well-respected historians of the Holocaust. In it, he warns that democracy here is under serious threat, in the way that German democracy was prior to Hitler’s rise — and really could topple altogether.

Browning, a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina, specializes in the origins and operation of Nazi genocide. His 1992 book Ordinary Men, a close examination of how an otherwise unremarkable German police battalion evolved into an instrument of mass slaughter, is widely seen as one of the defining works on how typical Germans became complicit in Nazi atrocities.

So when Browning makes comparisons between the rise of Hitler and our current historical period, this isn’t some keyboard warrior spouting off. It is one of the most knowledgeable people on Nazism alive using his expertise to sound the alarm as to what he sees as an existential threat to American democracy.

Browning’s essay covers many topics, ranging from Trump’s “America First” foreign policy — a phrase most closely associated with a group of prewar American Nazi sympathizers — to the role of Fox News as a kind of privatized state propaganda office. But the most interesting part of his argument is the comparison between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Paul von Hindenburg, the German leader who ultimately handed power over to Hitler. Here’s how Browning summarizes the history:

Paul von Hindenburg, elected president of Germany in 1925, was endowed by the Weimar Constitution with various emergency powers to defend German democracy should it be in dire peril. Instead of defending it, Hindenburg became its gravedigger, using these powers first to destroy democratic norms and then to ally with the Nazis to replace parliamentary government with authoritarian rule. Hindenburg began using his emergency powers in 1930, appointing a sequence of chancellors who ruled by decree rather than through parliamentary majorities, which had become increasingly impossible to obtain as a result of the Great Depression and the hyperpolarization of German politics.

Because an ever-shrinking base of support for traditional conservatism made it impossible to carry out their authoritarian revision of the constitution, Hindenburg and the old right ultimately made their deal with Hitler and installed him as chancellor. Thinking that they could ultimately control Hitler while enjoying the benefits of his popular support, the conservatives were initially gratified by the fulfillment of their agenda: intensified rearmament, the outlawing of the Communist Party, the suspension first of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly and then of parliamentary government itself, a purge of the civil service, and the abolition of independent labor unions. Needless to say, the Nazis then proceeded far beyond the goals they shared with their conservative allies, who were powerless to hinder them in any significant way.

McConnell, in Browning’s eyes, is doing something similar — taking whatever actions he can to attain power, including breaking the system for judicial nominations (cough cough, Merrick Garland) and empowering a dangerous demagogue under the delusion that he can be fully controlled:

If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings. …

Whatever secret reservations McConnell and other traditional Republican leaders have about Trump’s character, governing style, and possible criminality, they openly rejoice in the payoff they have received from their alliance with him and his base: huge tax cuts for the wealthy, financial and environmental deregulation, the nominations of two conservative Supreme Court justices (so far) and a host of other conservative judicial appointments, and a significant reduction in government-sponsored health care (though not yet the total abolition of Obamacare they hope for). Like Hitler’s conservative allies, McConnell and the Republicans have prided themselves on the early returns on their investment in Trump.

This is the key point that people often miss when talking about Hitler’s rise. The breakdown of German democracy started well before Hitler: Hyperpolarization led Hindenburg to strip away constraints on executive power as well as conclude that his left-wing opponents were a greater threat than fascism. The result, then, was a degradation of the everyday practice of democracy, to the point where the system was vulnerable to a Hitler-style figure.

Now, as Browning points out, “Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism.” The biggest and most important difference is that Hitler was an open and ideological opponent of the idea of democracy, whereas neither Trump nor the GOP wants to abolish elections.

What Browning worries about, instead, is a slow and quiet breakdown of American democracy — something more much like what you see in modern failed democracies like Turkey. Browning worries that Republicans have grown comfortable enough manipulating the rules of the democratic game to their advantage, with things like voter ID laws and gerrymandering, that they might go even further even after Trump is gone:

No matter how and when the Trump presidency ends, the specter of illiberalism will continue to haunt American politics. A highly politicized judiciary will remain, in which close Supreme Court decisions will be viewed by many as of dubious legitimacy, and future judicial appointments will be fiercely contested. The racial division, cultural conflict, and political polarization Trump has encouraged and intensified will be difficult to heal. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and uncontrolled campaign spending will continue to result in elections skewed in an unrepresentative and undemocratic direction. Growing income disparity will be extremely difficult to halt, much less reverse.
I’ve observed this kind of modern authoritarianism firsthand in Hungary. In my dispatch after visiting there, I warned of the same thing as Browning does here: The threat to the United States isn’t so much Trump alone as it is the breakdown in the practice of American democracy, and the Republican Party’s commitment to extreme tactics in pursuit of its policy goals in particular.

We are living through a period of serious threat to American democracy. And Browning’s essay, a serious piece by a serious scholar, shows that it’s not at all alarmist to say so.

Is this a collusive piece of propaganda as well? Rember Nazi sympathizers within the rank and file of leading induatrial magnates in this country prior to WW2, most notable among them : Henry Ford.

And now am antithesis:

Read more news from CNN
VIEW IN APP

Live TV
President Donald Trump’s winning streak
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN
Updated 2:27 AM EDT, Sat October 06, 2018

(CNN) Donald Trump may have never had a better time being President.

Only a re-election party on the night of November 3, 2020, could possibly offer the same vindication for America’s most unconventional commander in chief as the 36 hours in which two foundational strands of his political career are combining in a sudden burst of history.

Trump will become an undeniably consequential President with the Senate due to vote Saturday to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, consecrating the conservative majority that has long been the impossible dream of the GOP.

On Friday, Trump had celebrated the best jobs data for 49 years as the unemployment rate dipped to 3.7%, offering more proof of a vibrant economy that the President says has been unshackled by his tax-reduction program and scything cuts to business regulations.

While his 2016 election campaign was most notable for swirling chaos and shattered norms, Trump’s vows to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court and to fire up the economy were the glue for his winning coalition.

The struggle to confirm Kavanaugh split the country, deepened mistrust festering between rival lawmakers and threatens to further drag the Supreme Court into Washington’s poisoned political stew. But Trump stuck with it and ground out a win.

So he has every right to return to voters in the next four weeks ahead of the midterm elections to argue he has done exactly what he said he would do. He now has a strong message to convince grass-roots Republicans that it’s well worth showing up at the polls.

Testing the new message
He will get his first chance to road-test his new, improved message at a campaign rally in Topeka, Kansas, on Saturday night.

It’s ironic that it was Trump, a late convert to conservatism – not authentic Republicans like President Ronald Reagan, both Bush presidents and beaten GOP nominees Mitt Romney and John McCain – who finally delivered the Supreme Court majority.

If he is confirmed as expected, Kavanaugh will be Trump’s second nominee to reach the court in less than two years, following Neil Gorsuch.

Of course, the Supreme Court win is the culmination of decades of work by conservative activists and was masterminded by the cunning of Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell. But Presidents get credit when they are in the Oval Office when things go well and Trump, whether it is his fault or not, has taken more than his share of criticism.

Trump has so far been uncharacteristically quiet about his banner day – perhaps to avoid any last upsets before Saturday’s scheduled Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

He did pump out two short tweets.

“Very proud of the U.S. Senate for voting ‘YES’ to advance the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh!” he wrote.

Earlier, he had tweeted: “Just out: 3.7% Unemployment is the lowest number since 1969!”

A President of consequence
There is more evidence than the soon-to-be reshaped Supreme Court and the roaring economy to make a case that Trump is building a substantial presidency that in many ways looks like a historic pivot point, despite its extremely controversial nature.

Largely unnoticed in the Washington imbroglio over sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, the Trump administration is engineering significant changes at home and abroad that often represent sharp revisions of direction from traditional American positions.

This week, for instance, the White House initiated a potentially momentous shift in the US approach to China, recognizing the Asian giant as a global competitor and a threat to American security, prosperity and interests – reversing decades of policy designed to manage Beijing’s ascent as a major power and eventual partner.

The administration is also tightening a vise around Iran in a strategy that threatens to escalate into open confrontation with the Islamic Republic. Elsewhere in the Middle East, a bolstered anti-ISIS strategy has blasted the radical group from its strongholds in shattered Syria. And Trump has rejected decades of US orthodoxy in managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which could have uncertain results.

Trump’s bullying approach to trade negotiations has recently yielded remodeled agreements with Canada, Mexico and South Korea. While he exaggerates how much he changed existing deals, he can still boast that his “Art of the Deal” negotiating strategy – another core component of his appeal to his supporters – is working.

An announcement of a deeper slashing of refugee admissions by the United States further cements the “America First” philosophy that has changed global strategic assumptions.

At home, Trump’s assault on regulations at agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency is accelerating, in a blitz against what Steve Bannon once called the administrative state that fulfills another long-dreamed-of goal of the conservative movement.

The case against the President
Many of Trump’s perceived achievements are hugely controversial, and his opponents will argue that they stain America’s image, reverse a march toward human progress and justice, and will ultimately exert a price the nation will be paying for many years to come.

And Democrats carp that Trump is only building off the far more significant economic work of his predecessor Barack Obama in the wake of the Great Recession and argue that his tax cuts sharply worsened inequality and exploded budget deficits in a way that will haunt the economy for decades.

Trump’s critics say his approach to the world threatens to buckle the international system of alliances and a rule-based trading system that made America the richest and most powerful nation in US history and a beacon of democracy.

They say his presidency is in fact most notable for a culture of corruption, falsehood and demagoguery.

There is a case to be made that Trump’s constant twisting of truth, invention of false political realities and strategy of tearing at the country’s racial, gender and societal divides in order to capture and wield power threaten the eternal values and institutions of the nation itself.

This week, the President stood accused of tax fraud after a New York Times investigation into his family finances in the 1990s. And, though special counsel Robert Mueller has gone quiet in election season, Trump’s campaign is under investigation to see whether it conspired with a foreign power to win his election.

The voters will choose
Most credible pollsters have the President at only around 40% approval, a level that is rarely conducive to successful congressional elections. Republicans are in danger of losing the House of Representatives, a scenario that could cripple Trump’s White House with relentless committee investigations and even the specter of impeachment.

Often the chaos and discord the President sows distracts from more successful aspects of his presidency, and his raging temperament and insistence on waging perpetual political warfare exhaust many voters.

It will be up to voters in November and in 2020 to decide which of the two interpretations of Trump’s presidency – an era of conservative achievement or a disastrous national distraction – becomes dominant.

But it already seems that Trump’s grand design will be difficult for a future President to quickly reverse.

Less than two weeks ago, foreign diplomats at the United Nations laughed at Trump when he boasted about the historic sweep of his presidency – and there was no doubt that he was, as usual, exaggerating.

But it’s also no longer possible to credibly argue – despite the distracting blizzard of controversy, busted decorum and staff chaos constantly lashing Washington – that there is not something significant taking place that is changing the political and economic character of the nation itself.

The filthy Meno is wrong, by opinion of the wise.

What species, however meager, can the dog offer of her intelligence? Her detractors are 9000. And no one supports her. And the rest of the world does not know her name.

Now, this long crude harangue of a thread, stolen from the what the web sight allows, has found me disgusted by the stench.


let it be said, Trump is clearly, in one respect, the apex of democracy, notwithstanding he lost the popular vote by a vast portion, it is that his crassness is most close to vulgar speech, closer than any man ever to come to office

What is indicated is this hundreds of years long coming of simplified, ergo, democratized speech. For instance, at the time of the unveiling of the New Deal Roosevelt had to excise the word provided by his speech writer, with no one “excluded”, and place in: no one left out. As quite a few persons would not understand, or have no use for, the word “excluded”. Interestingly, in some ways, the dumb public has bent slightly upwards, as compulsory primary education ha given most of us command of such words as excluded these days. Perhaps Trump is the exact meaning of Aristotle’s notion of golden mediocrity.

In short, the sage Meno, with her sententious manner, is once again mistaken utterly.

Guide, there is no mistake for as others have sensed some measure of partiality in this forum, there is none. This is just a independent reporting sentiments which polarize the political arena with oaaies which come from opposite side of the spectrum, and as I said before, the word is not pit on either the underpinnings nor the cosmetic manipulation of the supposed ‘facts’.

At times it looks like one side has preponderance , at others the contrary.

This appears to be a huge case of exclusion , but rather, it is a case by case process of a game by elimination, as you have noted, and in deed, the moral majority does not appreciate the difference.

Such presents the opportunity to manipulate the public indifference, by squeezing the so called collusive charges onto the gap created, whereas there is none, Irena) carefully crafted . my feeling is that it is a grand show, to postpone as long as possible the coming verdict.

I’m not calling you not right, nor right, because it is too early to tell which outcome will become moat functional and create a largest approved environment. My feeling is, Trumpism will become a hidden independent party by the time the next election rolls around.

What you write is wholly unintelligible. And since you are a thoroughgoing egotist (who imagines their inner dreams are manifest to everyone merely by putting some symbols to paper), a clock-work drone, who refuses to communicate with others your meaning, one must excoriate you as a dullard with the flurry of forces appropriate to the hate of the vile evil of idiocy. Befouling mediocrities like yourself must be obliterated from the face of the earth. You have absolutely no understanding or sense of the world, you simply are unconscious of this living in a bubble of images of others that are wholly empty, and that makes such ones as yourself a negative and malignant reality.

.

At first the insults were kind of funny, and I thought at first they were meant to be irony , but it soon appeared to devolve into downright exhibitions of
Ill will and rudeness.

The shallowness you mention is obviously caused by an inadequate reading of the principles of philosophy, and the compensations inherent in the many used ad-hominems, and intermixed by strange and angry rhetoric, which do not seem like a pleasant way for intelligent and helpful discourse to commence.

Therefore your contributions shall not be invited to this forum.

Guido the nut gutter I had terrible day and I reread your diatribe and decided not to be so harsh. You may be right about the bubble and it reminds me of
Zazecs conscription and allow you further to torture me

Bubble on the otherwise you . the inside looking in if that’s conceivable, a munch edward figurization that at times I expect to rejection, for it befuddles bemoans inscription.

Apology not, feelings cut, apoplectic and oxymoronic, yet .

So never me mind Trumpism isn’t the thing for a new York minute description the last the mirrored last miniscule possibility for an impersonal catharsis.otherwise the photonegative collapse into smaller and smaller menos.

Now the anathema of a totallyregressed masochism caustic descriptive return into the narcissism of total masochistic ideation , yes, with pictures even.

To Andre Breton

Žižek.uk
Slavoj Žižek on Peter Sloterdijk: The revolution does take place, just differently
Slavoj Žižek Slavoj Žižek
1 year ago

Slavoj Žižek on Peter Sloterdijk: The revolution does take place, just differently

Peter Sloterdijk is one of the most accurate diagnosticians of our time. In his work Rage and Time, from the distinction between Eros (desire, that is the desire to possess, that is the possession of objects) and Thymos (pride, that is giving-willing, that is recognition) he offers an alternative history of the West – that is, as history of anger management. The “Iliad”, its founding text, begins in fact with the word “anger.” Homer calls the goddess to stand by him when he sings the song of the anger of Achilles. Although the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon concerns a woman – Agamemnon robbed Achilles of his slave girl Briseis – it is not about the loss of an erotic object, but about injured pride. And that is Sloterdijk’s point.

While anger can explode in ancient Greece, he experiences a profound change in the Jewish-Christian tradition, a sublimation, a postponement. No longer us, but God is keeping a record of our transgressions, and decides on the Day of Judgment. The Christian prohibition of revenge is the exact counterpart to the apocalyptic scene of the last days. The idea of ​​a Last Judgment, in which all the accumulated debts are paid off and a world out of joint is corrected, lives in secularized form in modern leftist projects.

Now the judge is no longer God but the people. Left political movements in fact act like Anger-Banks (Zorn-Banken). They collect collective Anger-Investment (Zorn-Investitionen) and, in turn, promise the people long-term Revenge-Interest (Rache-Zinsen), thus establishing a more just world. Because after the revolutionary Anger-Explosion (Zorn-Explosion) the ultimate payment never takes place, and inequality and hierarchy always reappear, there is always an urge for the second – true, total – revolution. It is only to satisfy the disappointed and to bring the liberation to an end: in 1792 after 1789, October after February 1917.

And the revolution?
If there is no real proletariat at this stage, the revolution could just be transferred to imported substitute subjects Click To TweetThis leads us to the great problem of Western Marxism today: the absence of a revolutionary subject. Who could take the role of the proletariat? The farmers in the Third World, students and intellectuals are excluded. In the meantime, the refugees are to revive the European left, after the motto: If there is no real proletariat at this stage, the revolution could just be transferred to imported substitute subjects. This way of thinking is cynical through and through. It bears witness to a leftist paternalism, quite apart from the fact that it gives new impetus to the violence against immigrants.

The problem is that there is simply never enough spontaneous Anger-Capital (Zorn-Kapital) – that is why the leaders have been borrowing from other Anger-Banks, like the Nation or Culture. In Fascism, the national anger prevailed. In China’s communism, Mao mobilized the cultural anger of the exploited peasantry. In our time there are two main types of anger left: the anger of the losing Islamic modernists against the decadent system of capitalism, and the wrath of the right-wing populists that is aimed at immigrants. In lesser form, Latin American populists, consumerists and other representatives are resentful of the refusal to recognize globalization. The only thing that is clear: the situation is confusing, all the different forms of anger (Zorn-Formen) do not come together.

[…]

Corbyn shall do it
[…]

[Extract. Originally appeared at Neue Zürcher Zeitung on June 26th 2017. Translation by Ippolit Belinski (and google translate), a complete and better translation is welcome.]

Share with friends
Categories: - Newspapers and Magazines, Articles
Tags: anger, capitalism, Christianity, Peter Sloterdijk, revenge, revolution
Leave a Comment
Žižek.uk
Powered by WordPress

Back to top

I believe it is right to add this clarification. The destruction of persons of negative and malignant mental development like Meno is analogous to the removal of wolves form the nature of pre-modern man. Intelligence scrapes out only the most endangered and penurious life. So long as intelligence is inadequately established idiots must be destroyed, their menace to human existence is synonymous to that of gigantic abiotic disaster to primitive peoples. If intelligence were sufficiently established, one could allow such dire doltishness as finds us in Meno to go on attempting to inveigle her fellows so far as we remain in nubibus and not yet discovering the methods needful to the neutralization of predatory animals, for instance by placing them in natural reserves and zoos. But one can not do that when intelligence is not sufficiently established. Such clock-work egotistically absorbed ones as “Meno” must be suppressed if intelligence should ever get its footing.

Meno is likely just a Schlagwort of sorts. The disjecta membra of the “smaller and smaller menos” only happens in the buzzword. The buzzword is meno’s name for time. But, for “Meno”, time, is clock-work crassness and more there is not.

René Char has made the assertion that the “beau risque” of radically despising the menos and their toxic unconsciousness, and identification with their utter egotism, is not wholly incomprehensible to the poet. For the poet lassos the mere symbol meno under several conceptions. Thus snapping the neck of the savage animal.

Will reply Guide meanwhile Colin Powell et so. Madeline Albright says,

WORLD
COLIN POWELL SAYS DONALD TRUMP HAS TURNED AMERICA FROM ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ TO ‘ME THE PRESIDENT’
By Benjamin Fearnow On Sunday, October 7, 2018 - 12:53
Colin Powell
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he doubts President Donald Trump can ever be a “moral leader” and has turned “We the People” into “Me the President.”
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES | OLIVIER DOULIERY / STRINGER

Former U.S. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright both questioned the dramatic negative effects the Trump administration has had on the United States and its people Sunday.

Speaking with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Sunday, Powell criticized Trump’s attacks on the news media, close U.S. allies and even its own citizens. Powell lamented his three favorite words in the U.S. Constitution have long been “we the people,” but Trump’s short time in office has morphed the famous Founding Fathers line into “me the President.”

“You see things that should not be happening,” Powell told CNN’s Zakaria. “How can a president of the United States get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans? Hasn’t he read the First Amendment? You are not supposed to like everything the press says, or what anyone says…that’s why we have a First Amendment, to protect that kind of speech.”

Loading video

Powell reitarated why he became a voice against a Trump presidency during the 2016 campaigns.

“I hope the president can come to the realization that he should really stop insulting people,” Powell continued. “I used this two years ago when I said I could not vote for him in the 2016 election. Why? He insulted everybody. He insulted African-Americans, he insulted women, he insulted immigrants. He insulted our best friends around the world – all of his fellow candidates up on the stage during the debates. I don’t think that’s what should be coming out of a president of the United States. But I don’t see anything that’s changed in the last two years.”

Powell asked Americans and Congress to “take a hard look at yourself” to realize what “you’re doing to keep these forces in check.” He ridiculed not just what the Trump administration is doing, but instead what others "are not doing as the United States of America. What are we doing? We’re walking away from agreements, we’re walking away from alliances,” Powell continued.

“The world is watching,” Powell added. “They cannot believe we’re doing things like separating mothers and children who are trying to get across the border from south of our border. They can’t believe we’re making such an effort to cease immigration coming into the country. It’s what’s kept us alive

Sloterdijk/Zizek is shallow, and has no cosmic sense. The discussion of myself, Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, is another region. They say many things that are correct, but gibt keine Denken, gibt keine Wirklichkeit. Reality and thought are the same. Shallow people never feel this. only shallowness calls such a cosmic sense “idealism”, as though it were half of a “theory”.

God is “überflüssig”, but only because the most spiritual will to power, der geistigste, is living, i.e., open and not perfectible.

The mystical individualism of post-Borgia Christendom, makes the text into an idol, to replace the Pope. No “truth in interpretation” is to be found, even amidst the positive appropriative act of be the “flesh of human weakness”, the un-ziel in toto announces itself as irreconcilable.

Kriemhild, divine virtue, under a fragrance of blood and breath. Never the malignancy of a “meno” , frustrated politically, in infinitely intense resentment. Ergo: Heidegger sagt: Philosophy is Over. It will not be reborn. The ground of decision is prior to speech, nothing can be deliberative. weigh well, with respect to “value”.

Ergo: amusement, relief, openness, lightness of spirit,

Ergo: such geist as “Liberté, Égalité, Fragilité”, such geist which is more than gesellshaft, more than mere public agreement, “equality of outcome” has no GOD, ergo, is untaken decision of unconsciousness. Ergo, it is willed by the will, and not time.

thumos is only a talk of the politically ambitious, but the rest of the mind, soul, or Platonic psychology is equally in play. Since Schmitt the notion of politics has lost any gravity and become vague since all-comprehensive.

the meaning of demos goes back to Linear B, and remains profoundly misted, adding -arcy creeps into the range of the confussin which for idiots like Meno is undecptavly known in the imbecile unconsciousness of the everyday.

NOTE: Sadly, meno is still practicing her crude political propaganda.

Sloterdijk/Zizek is shallow, and has no cosmic sense. The discussion of myself, Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, is another region. They say many things that are correct, but gibt keine Denken, gibt keine Wirklichkeit. Reality and thought are the same. Shallow people never feel this. only shallowness calls such a cosmic sense “idealism”, as though it were half of a “theory”.

God is “überflüssig”, but only because the most spiritual will to power, der geistigste, is living, i.e., open and not perfectible.

The mystical individualism of post-Borgia Christendom, makes the text into an idol, to replace the Pope. No “truth in interpretation” is to be found, even amidst the positive appropriative act of be the “flesh of human weakness”, the un-ziel in toto announces itself as irreconcilable.

Kriemhild, divine virtue, under a fragrance of blood and breath. Never the malignancy of a “meno” , frustrated politically, in infinitely intense resentment. Ergo: Heidegger sagt: Philosophy is Over. It will not be reborn. The ground of decision is prior to speech, nothing can be deliberative. weigh well, with respect to “value”.

Ergo: amusement, relief, openness, lightness of spirit,

Ergo: such geist as “Liberté, Égalité, Fragilité”, such geist which is more than gesellshaft, more than mere public agreement, “equality of outcome” has no GOD, ergo, is untaken decision of unconsciousness. Ergo, it is willed by the will, and not time.

thumos is only a talk of the politically ambitious, but the rest of the mind, soul, or Platonic psychology is equally in play. Since Schmitt the notion of politics has lost any gravity and become vague since all-comprehensive.

the meaning of demos goes back to Linear B, and remains profoundly misted, adding -arcy creeps into the range of the confussin which for idiots like Meno is undecptavly known in the imbecile unconsciousness of the everyday.


The veritable is absolute. Semantic identification is incomplete out of context, and your observation. In prioritizing meaning and action appears correct insofar as the invalidation of the priority of the word can be demonstrated as such.

The most elemental organic life has been shown to choose over one to a more advantageous position, is the primal argument for that interpretation.

How that differs in kind from verbal distinction, of the origin of signs can also poatscribed the post modern philosophical notion of signaling.

But how does that process demonstrate a disunity between the original meaning to the modern - post modern anthropic notion?

Unless it can justify a semiotic functional derivative , as your German references exercise, the invariable sign s cannot totally explain the use of language to fill inn the transition between archaic and modern usage of language.

We can’t simply take language as a given in-situ, and change meanings to adapt to current situations. Therefore Therefore . your interpretation is correct in situ, but not as a transcendental foundation , if I understand you .

That directly relates to the notion of foundation as relating to it to it’self.
That such is necessary, even as you describe the topical understanding of the ideal, not to mention, the ideas which are the their derivative, functional analysis becomes impossible, and the opium pdntje people becomes a necessary adhesive of what god represents to them. And for them UNITY serves am absolute purpose in existence, weather they be the worship of totum, or an Anthropomorphic IDEA. Its roots, pervade and Nietzsche did not really kill god.

This strict religious identity is more formative then nationalism , or any other group-set theory which can border sets of members. In this sense religion transcends the identity of national bounderies or ethnic characteristically, although that linkage is ever unserstood, correctly.

So I do agree that actions come before communicative signaling for most practical purposes, because of this unawareness of inter-relative linkage, it does not prove that they are .
This collusion of semantic arguments with the postscripted actions makes the difference , since the original in-situ actions were not. Meaning sneaks in like a thief in the night , to capture which ever unknown variable comes in to take up the slack . A very slight shift over the course of generations can create a solid foundation , albeit only by deference to lower meaning structures

Ergo: zizek at. al are realistic and shallow purposely, so as to be able not to be accused of insignificance and trivially mundane. I can’t believe otherwise, and that goes even for Heidegger, Hegel and Nietzsche.

Now one way to argue against the above is simply do what you accuse me of doing, vis. painting clouds in the sky, but that would be too easy and shallow In It’s Self. That mode of categorical dismissal would imply a total exclusion of a view , which way of arguing defeats the purpose with the newly -sementically formed foundation. Negation by absolute does not defeat the conception of total disengagement in a relative sense.

-and noe the latest:

Don’t tell former FBI general counsel James Baker that those now-infamous discussions about secretly recording President Donald Trump and using the tapes to remove him from office were a joke.

He apparently doesn’t believe it. And he held quite the vantage point - he was on the inside of the bureau’s leadership in May 2017, when the discussions occurred.

Baker told Congress last week that his boss - then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe - was dead serious about the idea of surreptitiously recording the 45th president and using the evidence to make the case that Trump should be removed from office, according to my sources.

Baker told lawmakers he wasn’t in the meeting that McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which the subject came up. But he did have firsthand conversations with McCabe and the FBI lawyer assigned to McCabe, Lisa Page, about the issue.

“As far as Baker was concerned, this was a real plan being discussed,” said a source directly familiar with the congressional investigation. “It was no laughing matter for the FBI.”

Word of Baker’s testimony surfaces just days before Rosenstein is set to be interviewed in private on Thursday by House Judiciary Committee lawmakers.

Since The New York Times first reported the allegations, Rosenstein, the No. 2 Department of Justice (DOJ) official, has tried to downplay his role in them. His office has suggested that he thought the discussions were a joke, that Rosenstein never gave an order to carry out such a plot, and that he does not believe Trump should be removed from office.

But making those statements through a spokesperson is a bit different than having Rosenstein himself face Congress and answer the questions under penalty of felony if lawmakers think he is lying.

Baker’s account to lawmakers this month clearly complicates an already complicated picture for Rosenstein before Congress, assuming he shows up for Thursday’s interview.

But even more so, Baker’s story lays bare an extraordinary conversation in which at least some senior FBI officials thought it within their purview to try to capture the president on tape and then go to the president’s own Cabinet secretaries, hoping to persuade the senior leaders of the administration to remove the president from power.

Even more extraordinary is the timing of such discussions: They occurred, according to Baker’s account, in the window around FBI Director James Comey’s firing. Could it be that the leaders of a wounded, stunned FBI were seeking retribution for their boss’ firing with a secret recording operation?

I doubt this is the power that Congress intended to be exercised when it created the FBI a century ago, or the circumstances in which the authors of the 25th Amendment imagined a president’s removal could be engineered.

This wasn’t a president who was incapacitated at the time. He was fully exercising his powers - but in a way the FBI leadership did not like.

And that makes the FBI’s involvement in the tape-record-then-dump-Trump conversations overtly political - even if Rosenstein believed the whole idea was farcical.

Keep in mind, this is the same FBI that, a few months earlier during the 2016 election, had its top counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok talking to Page - his lover and the top lawyer to McCabe - about using their official powers to “stop” Trump in the election and having an “insurance policy” against the GOP nominee. That insurance policy increasingly looks like an unverified dossier created by British intelligence operative Christopher Steele - a Trump hater himself - that was bought and paid for by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign through their mutual law firm.

“You walk away from the Baker interview with little doubt that the FBI leadership in that 2016-17 time-frame saw itself as far more than a neutral investigative agency but actually as a force to stop Trump’s election before it happened and then maybe reversing it after the election was over,” said a source directly familiar with the congressional investigation.

Baker provided some other valuable insights in his congressional interview. As I reported last week, he revealed that he accepted information in the Russia investigation from a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee.

And my sources also confirm Baker admitted he received a version of Steele’s dossier from left-leaning reporter David Corn of Mother Jones magazine, and then forwarded it to Strzok’s team. Corn says that occurred in November 2016, right after the election.

That transaction is significant for two reasons. First, at the time Steele had just been fired from the FBI probe for leaking to the media and he wasn’t supposed to be further assisting the probe. So Corn essentially acted as a back door to allow information to continue to flow.

Secondly, the FBI was using the news media as an investigative source outside the normal chain of evidence.

Whatever you think of Rosenstein or the Russia probe, the statements Baker made to Congress have implications for all Americans.

The FBI was created to investigate crimes and stop foreign intelligence and terrorism threats. It was never designed to be a broker in the political process of elections or the execution of the 25th Amendment.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

Now , another revelation.

The Resistance stance coincides in substance what IKE -Dwight Eisenhower warned about 60 years ago warning about the military industrial complex.

This has been mentioned before, but has been used by the resistance in a format less in the evolving context of the situation as it stands today.

According to script Trump is acting out these previous warnings : The corporate world elite, has am agenda specifically targeting the so called U.S. hegemony and nationalism, in fact what they want is opposite to what Trump says.

But Trump is like a bugle boy, and as all presidents his p.r. is carefully crafted to am identifying middle man, to sell the goods to the highest bidder.

The five always are plentiful: no taxes to the elite, who are major corporate leaders of international scope.

They are symptomatic of gutting the middle and lower classes out of their substantial identity by doubling down on the lower economic tier by turning consumerism into an ideological aim.

And they are getting better at it. The astronomical figures of accumulated wealth , contrast starkly in the amount of corporate taxes levied : in IKE’’ era of surpassed 90%, and today it has been cut to practically to 0%. The desperation for the continuation of the American Empire has a noteworthy feature that the 1% can not fathom in an era of short term corporate profits, which are trying to be in some fiscal rhythm-to negate Marx’s prediction of diminishing returns at the point where certain limits in value are reached.

Marx did predict the fall of Capitalism, and this desperation. , well known in the construction of tea similar mood in America- McCarthyism, which was seen at that early time as significant and a wake up call.

The demonizing of.Russia , served the industry of divestiture in armaments, to a.spectacular degree, and this business isn’t he only absolute guaranty for big time profits.

The out to get us propaganda has snow balled since.the break up of.the Soviet Union, and I feel at this point guilty at this thought since the Soviet Brutality has noteworthy horrors of the killing of very young Hungarian patriots.

However, the adhesive politics is not always tacitly obvious and semantics can now, as it did before , whitewash any residual and easily forgotten minor skirmish.

The elitists have poured hundreds of billions into fracting oil, so they could establish the primacy of.the U.S., as the number one oil producer in the world, at a great loss.

That is what the power of.propaganda can do, at a tremendous price, which obviously is affordable to them on the same premise as deconstructing the structure of.any institution, be it the media, the political system and progressive institution of judicial, representative and social artifacts

To those dispossessed, time is a matter of saynto day struggle for jobs, health care etc.; but to those holding astronomical and some fortunes , already computerized with more and more certainty of profit taking, losses will be rewarded by inside knowledge of when to buy puts on investments

As fortunate this appears to such people and institutions , it amounts to a gutting out of social values.

Now the ability to do this hinges on victimization of certain people, and the easiest mark is the powerless immigrant, the racially excluded and others, who are getting less and less able to exercise what has been basis basis of political power.

The costly wars of the Greeks is a.precedent where empires sank, and Britain’s loss of.the Pound as the major leading international currency marked Her for the fall. The signification was her conflict with Nasser over the Suez Canal.

Incidentally, there is linkage there with international indecision over saving the Hungarian Revolution’s 1956-7 patriots, sorely it was just a.skirmish.

Other precedents was when the still fixed and sustains Brit Empire refused to help the imprisoned Tzar, his own close relative

Now the big question of.determination and policy grew a tune ever stronger.to allow those who kind of intuited the real signs in yet a progressive era, and how and when a reversal would commence.

The reversal started around the 1960’s when the social programs started to be financed with increasing borrowing, and the mostly financed by U.S. printed bonds, imdentified by politically and militarily pressures inn the Chinese. The Chinese.grabbed the offer, since at that.time the Sino-Soviet alliance was at its lowest ebb in unifying ideology in terms of.the Communist.Internationale.

However, if China would cash those securities at this time, it would shorten the time when the U.S. monetary collapse would take place.

At this extremely tense time, they constructed the very fitting presidential actor-clown, who can fulfill the dual functions of.tragedy and comedy.

This brings the ideological basis.to what is.really happening in the control world.

The U.S. has been reduced-gutted of.social philosophy onto the use of semantic and contradictory hype, as if, the promises of a Kantian-synthetically bridges.sense.could work, amid a.failed Leibnitz type functionally actionable process, by the use of a mirrored gloss of naive realism of the type which were invented as a defensive tactic of the future use of seminal revision of basic textual authority.

The issue underlying this whole scenario of the reduced seminal use of contradiction as the basis of a new order, is, whether the very basic pragmatic concept can survive such elemental distortions, or if anyone can survive the coming realization of wjat really is going on.

That.depends on the further compressor of technology with art, and the.Mercedes.has been severely attacked by the number one auto producer in the world today: Alan Musk. Can that huge symbol become the sign of a Eurozone failure? Is that why MUsk has been so demonized.of late?

Probably

An earlier prediction still stands, probably, that a cap. total of individual wealth of 1 trillion dollars, inflation and interest rates factored in, may be a bench mark limit.( This is merely gut level)

Owner of Amazon is nearing 200 billion dollars.

After that, if it ever gets there., the bubble will burst.

But will it?

Departing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday morning lauded White House senior adviser Jared Kushner as a “hidden genius” of the Trump administration.

Haley made the remark from the Oval Office as she announced her resignation at the end of the year.

“I can’t say enough good things about Jared and Ivanka [Trump],” she said. “Jared is such a hidden genius that no one understands.”

Haley gave Kushner credit for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deal last week.

Capital the hidden ideal as envisioned by Atlas Shrugged, has a very simple premise for its undoing.

Capital and Democracy are not natural co-ordinates,jointly and directly proportional, to the same forces caused by internal and external factors; the momentum of their move ment and their vectors separate
At times the separation is minimal and re-constructanle, of certain limits to su h allow enough depth to the evolving margin, so as to enable sufficient corrections to modify the unwanted effects of total marginal corruptibility.

Corruption is used in a hyper relative sense, that is topographic and open to analysis of symptomatic signs of stealing, collusion , and baseless manipulation.

But corruption in the widest sense also considers the probable curvature of what Marcuse used to call devolvement of structural depth unto one dimensional linerality.

Actions by impulse and insufficiently based criteria, will insubstantiate.

The fact may be hiding on the universal grasp on denial of historical artifact.

Building the U.S. great again is an example of adopting contradictory messages to the world stage. Most of Eurasia labors in a world historicism of long established boundaries, whereas U.S. apostasy, is structured on denying those boundaries. The political reactivism contrasts strongly with boundaries per-se, because the figurative basis clashes with its substantive construct.

Its like a newly rich but very crass person moving next to an established and ancient respected one, for whom it would appear de-class to consider their substantial wealth as opposed to their standing and lineage.

The abstract firms of ideology are superior to the ones which have merely a wide range of applications of advantage and utility, merely using market mechanisms to buy opportunity, such as those involved in hostile take-over, - creating the widest interpretation of opportunism.

It has been shown that internal competition may work on this level within national boundaries, and schools of thought have shown that if kept in those bounds, will minimize national boundaries within the constraint of separate and almost equal competitors on that stage of a reduced theater.

However an international stage, may not fathom an unbounded ergo unfounded theater-which can transform a seemingly harmless war over trade, into one where such war can create a real theater of real war.

This has precedent, and Trumpism at this moment may be unable the certain leakage between borders.

Here are a series of articles which brings these possibilities into the open:

WORLD WAR 3: Russian minister warns nuclear treaties under threat as relations plunge
Nuclear missile

Russian nuclear missile cruiser submarine Yuri Dolgoruky launches a Bulava missile (Image: GETTY)
SKY-HIGH tensions between the US and Russia are putting critical treaties designed to prevent a nuclear arms race in jeopardy as relations sink to an all-time low, a senior Russian official has warned.
By SIMON OSBORNE

Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described Western governments as “adversaries, not friends” and said a “complete malfunction of the American system” meant longstanding weapons agreements could be binned, leaving nuclear powers without constraint in the event of a future conflict.

He said: “We could lose several elements on arms control infrastructure. The building is shaky.”

Mr Rybakov warned another round of sanctions intruded by Donald Trump in the summer were “dangerous” and getting in the way of negotiations over renewing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty “New START” which saw both sides agree to reduce their deployed nuclear arms by half but is set to expire in 2021.

He said: “If there is no progress then risk of a real backfire grows.

RELATED ARTICLES

Russia WARNING: ‘Do not underestimate Kremlin’ after GRU blunders

World War 3: Romania warning as Russia steps up Black Sea operations

“I don’t think we can easily say the future of New START is bright.

“We truly do not see any desire on the US side at this point to engage in discussions on an extension ion the treaty which we have proposed.”

Mr Ryabkov was speaking as negotiators from the two countries met in Geneva to discuss a Cold War era treaty that was supposed to keep expansion of long-range nuclear-capable missiles in check.

Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other of breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a 1987 pact which bans firing land-based missiles with a range of up to 5,500km.

Tupolev Tu-22M3M supersonic strike bomber

A new Tupolev Tu-22M3M supersonic strike bomber is unveiled in Kazan, Russia (Image: GETTY)
The US ambassador to NATO warned Moscow against developing a new cruise missile that could be armed with nuclear warheads, arguing that it was in breach of the INF and could be used against members of the Western military alliance.

Kay Bailey Hutchison said: “Counter measures by the United States would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty. They are on notice.”

The US government took a more aggressive line against Russia this year, when Mr Trump unveiled a new nuclear strategy that revolved around countering Russia and called for the development of small tactical nuclear weapons that were cheaper to maintain and could be used in more realistic scenarios.

Washington has also accelerated long-running US military plans to develop new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear-capable cruise missiles and has just confirmed hypersonic weapons testing is well underway.

RELATED ARTICLES

HYPERSONIC ARMS RACE: US military chiefs vow to beat Russia and China

World War 3: US steps up arms race with new hypersonic missile tests
The sabre-rattling comes against a grim backdrop of mistrust with over the crisis in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria, allegations of Russian meddling in US elections and the Kremlin’s role in the attempt to assassinate former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury.

Mr Ryabkov said: “We have a situation that is much, much worse than even during the most heated moments, or rather the coldest moments, of the past.”

He said Moscow would not be swayed by Dutch, British and US claims its agents had also sought to hack into the computer network of The Hague-based Office for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons as it investigated the attack on Mr Skripal.

He said: ”If some believe that this makes an impression on Russia and somehow causes Russia to hesitate, then that is a very wrong conclusion.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (Image: GETTY)
“On the contrary, a consolidated effort to pressurise Russia only diminishes chances of any real engagement towards resolution.

He said Moscow was not concerned about the growingly negative rhetoric coming from the West because it viewed Western governments as “adversaries, not friends”.

He said: “We do not believe that the broader West are friends with us. Rather, we see the West as an adversary that acts to undermine Russia’s positions and Russia’s perspective for normal development.

“So why should we care so much about our standing among adversaries?”

RELATED ARTICLES
Russia reveals hypersonic missile able to reach US in MINUTES
Putin aims to CRANK UP his armed forces with FUTURISTIC weapons
Russia’s Su-57 fighter jets to be equipped with SUPERSONIC MISSILES
ADVERTISEMENT

NEXT ARTICLE
EU news Yanis Varoufakis Italy Matteo Salvini Jean Claude Juncker Europe disintegrate
Doomed EU? Varoufakis claims Salvini’s Italy pushing Brussels closer to ‘DISINTEGRATION’

And now Clinton hits back:

HILLARY CLINTON
Clinton strikes back at Trump for saying she colluded with Russia
The president has been making his former rival an issue on the midterms campaign trail.
by Adam Edelman / Oct.12.2018 / 6:07 PM GMT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Oxford University on Oct. 9, 2018.Neil Hall / EPA
SHARE THIS —
Hillary Clinton is hitting back at President Donald Trump for having claimed at a recent rally — without providing any evidence — that she was the one who colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential contest.

At a rally on Wednesday night in Erie, Pennsylvania, Trump directly accused Clinton of engaging in a conspiracy with Moscow to influence the race for the White House.

“There was collusion between Hillary, the Democrats and Russia,” Trump said, just after his supporters had chanted “lock her up” about Clinton. “There was a lot of collusion with them and Russia and lots of other people.”

Trump has discussed that theory publicly and on Twitter, but the charge amounted to a direct allegation that Clinton herself conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. He offered no evidence of his claim.

The idea prompted a swift Clinton comeback.

“Seriously, you asked Russia to hack me on national television,” she tweeted Thursday afternoon.

The tweet was apparently in reference to a July 2016 press conference in which Trump invited the Russians to “find” thousands of missing emails from a personal server Clinton had used when she was secretary of state.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said then.

Minutes after Clinton tweeted Thursday, Donald Trump Jr. fired back, claiming that Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had spent millions of dollars “working with foreign agents” to create a “fake dossier with them.”

“You should really sit this one out,” he told Clinton, adding that “every time you talk, we win.”

Trump Jr.’s tweet was referring to the fact that a law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC helped fund opposition research that eventually became a controversial dossier, known as the Steele dossier, on then-candidate Trump.

The back-and-forth comes as special counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate whether Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia or obstructed justice afterward.