Kompromat

That you can live with it isn’t what interest me here. What intriques me about folks of your ilk is how folks of my ilk are unable to react to a No God world that is presumed to be bereft of objective morality without being down in the hole that “I” am in, “fractured and fragmented”.

Once I was able to react to Trump [piss or no piss tape] as I imagine folks like Peter Kropotkin and Rachel Maddow still do: more or less objectively.

For them, Trump genuinely embodies all that make the world we live in such a terrible place. And once the right Democrat/liberal with the right moral and political values takes his place, the world will become a significantly better place to live.

Necessarily as it were.

I don’t think like that anymore. I’m not able to. Instead, I have come to presume that my own value judgments are basically just an existential fabrication rooted in the manner in which “I” construe the meaning of dasein.

So, I become a liberal pragmatist because it is the only actual option open to me. But then I think this: that the conservative pragmatists are in the same boat. Neither of us are able to go beyond the assumption that, liberal or conservative, “I” here is just an existential contraption rooted in the lives that we lived.

There does not appear to be a way in which to know [philosophically or otherwise] how one ought to live.

And that’s before both the liberal and the conservative pragmatists are forced to confront the moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy. They are far, far, far less concerned with “the right thing to do” and focus far, far, far more on that which sustains their own perceived self-interests.

The Trumps and the Putins of this world.

Yes, I believe you. Though oddly I will continue to focus on things that interest me. You can always ignore me if this is too unpleasant.

I know. It bothers you. I am not sure if you have ever considered some of the various explanations I have had for this. Could be as simple as genetic differences. Different animals will exhibit different reactions to traumatic experiences. People are different. For all sorts of reasons, some related to dasein. Some related to built in temperment.

Oh, look, a pragmatist, perhaps not just like me, but to this extent.

Perhaps being a liberal pragmatist is as close as you will get. I wish I could fly. I wish I’d won the lotto. I don’t spend much time bemoaning those things, though their were periods when I was younger I might have bemoaned the latter.

I would say I am doing the same thing, pursuing my own perceived interests. My sense is I have more empathy than those two people, however. And while I certainly prefer people who also have empathy, I do get worried by people who think they make their choices out of nobility and goodness. Some of them cause me and what I love no problems - though I am not sure about their families and themselves - but many others I see as rather a threat.

and then I forgot to react to this…

in your view all choices, behavior, attitudes, are existential contraptions. So my ‘coming after you’, as you frame it, would of course bee an existential contraption to you. Calling it that, adds no information, it does not distinguish it from any other behavior, or any other attitude anyone has every had in the history of the world, in your system. So it’s a strange thing to say.

I could see saying this to me if I said ‘I am actively critical of your posts because it is my duty’ or ‘…it’s a noble action’ or for the good of the world or whatever. But I don’t say such things.

It would be like me saying to you ‘But then that’s what I keep harping about in regard to your own incessant posting in ILP. Your posting is no less a behavior from my point of view.’

Huh? That doesn’t distinguish it from any other human action. Perhaps you were just trying to trigger me.

One interesting thing is you don’t bother me anymore. What I have asserted were patterns of your communication behavior still exist and continue, but they no longer bother me. I still find the blind spots fascinating however. And as along as their is development in my reaction and as long as I am learning from the interaction, I will likely continue.

I think this shift has happened for a number of reasons: I see the same pattern so clearly when you interact with others - how you treat their posts, even in threads not yours, as wrong on the criterion they do not solve your hole issue, how you refuse to justify your own points, and then of course the wall of repetition of your position as if it is a response to their posts when it often is not at all. when I am in the middle of a frustrating dialogue with someone, despite how I may come across, I wonder if the problem has to do with my failure to communicate clearly. Seeing it happen again and again with others and them also making the same points about your behavior, shifted something. Then also having dealt with similar kinds of narcissism in face to face life in recent time and confronting it irl, that also gave me perspective.

So sure, frame it as ‘coming after you’. I can absolutely understand how you would experience it that way. For me I experience it as probing again and again to see if you can actually acknowledge the things you are doing and/or develop yourself. And then to see what methods you use to act as if you have responded. I have no expectation that you will even consider what I write, but watching the activity invovled in your making sure you do not acknowledge anything mirrors things people do in face to face life.

And that is very useful. On some level I did not believe people would go to such lengths to hide things from themselves. I should know better, and I should know all the mechanisms, but, no, I am still learning.

And right back at you. You know, if the manner in which I construe the “self” here might come to perturb you in turn. :open_mouth:

Or, sure, it could be explained by embracing the assumption that we live in a wholly determined universe such that this very exchange we are having is only as it ever could have been. All we can do here [in my view] is to root our point of view in an explanation that comes closer to or farther away from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein regarding those parts of our lives not able to be pinned down as the embodiment of the either/or world.

To the extent that you are able to garner and then sustain some level of “comfort and consolation” in choosing behaviors that leave you less “fractured and fragmented” than “I” am [here and now] is the extent to which [in my view] we understand the actual existential parameters of pragmatism in different ways.

Though I really don’t spend much time “bemoaning” the plight that I have thought myself into beacuse I am not politically active as I once was. Back then you were expected to toe the party line because the party line was in fact construed to be either The Right Thing To do or, at the very least, reflected the best of all possible worlds. In part I was abandoned [literally] by my own “comrades” because the manner in which I construe the components of moral nihilism simply disturbed them too much. The last thing most folks on the left [or the right] want to be is “fractured and fragmented” when confronting a political phenomena like Don Trump.

On the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of the choices, behaviors and attitudes that we choose from day to day revolve entirely around contexts in which the either/or world prevails. We do what we do because it is the only thing that it makes sense to do. We’re not conflicted at all.

The existential contraption part [for me] is embedded in those contexts in which we grapple with doing one thing rather than another. Either because we are not ourselves sure of what to do, or becasue others confront what we do choose and a conflict ensues.

I bother people to the extent that the manner in which I perceive myself as fractured and fragmented gets closer and closer to making them feel the same way. The more they begin to think that being down in my hole is actually a rational understanding of the “human condition” in the is/ought world, the more “broken” they begin to feel themselves. The objectivists here obviously, but even the occasional pragmatist still able to hold on with a firmer grip to the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

It’s more me trying to figure out how they do this that keeps me in the exchange.

So, getting back to the OP, I have to settle for a reaction to Trump that “in the moment” can seem to be genuine and substantial. But then “I” pull back and recognize it more as a particular political prejudice rooted in dasein. Then, like Humpty Dumpty, I have that great fall. And I am then unable to put myself back together again.

I didn’t say anything about perturbing you. I said I was focusing on my interests. You seem, when you even manage to notice it, put upon when people are not focused on what you want them to be. I was pointing out that your surprise that you telling me that that was not what you were interested in was reminding you, yet again, that we don’t exist simply to solve your issues, but are people with our own interests.

‘Oh, sure…’ ?

If ‘Oh, sure,…’ is how you react to my explanation, that my reactions need not have anything to do with comforting myself or contraptions. If ‘Oh, sure…’ is your reaction and further you provide another possibility, one not incompatible with the one I mentioned, then your constantly being puzzled by our difference makes no sense.

This is why I react to you as if you are posturing. You contradict yourself about your own reactions so often.

It’s you who have always attributed my comfort and consolation to my being practical/pragmatic. But now here you call yourself a pragmatist.

So, after all this time you are accidently admitting that that was just castles in the air, attributing comfort and consoling to pragmatism per se. I say I am a pragmatist, at some point in the past, and you immediately call this the contraption that consoles and harp on this for months.

Now it turns out you are a pragmatist - which I pointed out at the time - and despite being one yourself you assume that it consoles me while it does not you. And you refused over and over to consider that my pragmatism had nothing to do with my not being as fractured as you

(and yes, I note that you think there may be differences in our pragmatism. But back then it was that I was a pragmatist per se that meant I had a contraption that consoled me)

And you never once admitted, even though I pointed it out over and over, that you were also a pragmatist yourself.

It must be hard to do the mental gymnastics you are about to do rather than admit that was all just a bunch of bs interpersonal posturing.

Your lack of honesty is astounding.

Truly astounding.

That a lack of honesty might annoy someone just seems off the range of possibilities. As one example of your various behaviors that used to annoy me so much. Good strategy never, once, weighing in on the other explanations for my reactions to you. Because to do that would mean actually having to think about them. No, much smarter to just pretend I never said them, and keep asserting that I was annoyed by you because you are so courageous sitting in the dark hole of truth. LOL.

You fractured self manages to have a rather pompous ego.

I have faced scary implications that no one else has faced, so they attack me and are peturbed.

I see absolutely no practical understand on your part of the implications of dasein on the variety of different kinds of reactions people have.

When interacting with someone else, there is only one possible reason they react negatively to you.

And amazingly enough, it is one that paints you in a good light.

LOL

An updated version of the previous post.

I didn’t say anything about perturbing you. I said I was focusing on my interests. You seem, when you even manage to notice it, put upon when people are not focused on what you want them to be. I was pointing out that you telling me that that was not what you were interested in was reminding you, yet again, that we don’t exist simply to solve your issues, but are people with our own interests. IOW I do not respond to your points about dasein, quote them, and say they fail to solve the problem of other minds or fail to prove epiphenomenalism false or…etc. You’re the one who seems surprised that others have their own issues that are not yours. You bemoan them not being in your hole. You are the one who often can only conceive of other people’s posts as attempts (failing ones) to solve you problem, and you remind them that it isn’t solving your problem, even in threads other people have started on topics not directly related to your issue. I don’t assume that other posters are failing if they don’t solve my issues or write about something else. I don’t assume that if they criticize one of my arguments, I have no need to respond to that because doing so will not solve my problems.

The least necessary thing I can imagine any poster needing to be reminded of is the you, Iambiguous, will continue to post about your issues. That you think anyone needs reminding of this is cluelessness at a near genius level of denial.

‘Oh, sure…’ ?

If ‘Oh, sure,…’ is how you react to my explanation, that my reactions need not have anything to do with comforting myself or contraptions. If ‘Oh, sure…’ is your reaction and further you provide another possibility, one not incompatible with the one I mentioned, then your constantly being puzzled by our difference makes no sense.

This is why I react to you as if you are posturing. You contradict yourself about your own reactions so often.

It’s you who have always attributed my comfort and consolation to my being practical/pragmatic. But now here you call yourself a pragmatist.

So, after all this time you are accidently admitting that that was just castles in the air, attributing comfort and consoling to pragmatism per se. I say I am a pragmatist, at some point in the past, and you immediately call this the contraption that consoles and harp on this for months.

Now it turns out you are a pragmatist - which I pointed out at the time - and despite being one yourself you assume that it consoles me while it does not you. And you refused over and over to consider that my pragmatism had nothing to do with my not being as fractured as you

(and yes, I note that you think there may be differences in our pragmatism. But back then it was that I was a pragmatist per se that meant I had a contraption that consoled me)

And you never once admitted, even though I pointed it out over and over, that you were also a pragmatist yourself.

It must be hard to do the mental gymnastics you are about to do rather than admit that was all just a bunch of bs interpersonal posturing.

Your lack of honesty is astounding.

Truly astounding.

That a lack of honesty might annoy someone just seems off the range of possibilities. As one example of your various behaviors that used to annoy me so much. Good strategy never, once, weighing in on the other explanations for my reactions to you. Because to do that would mean actually having to think about them. No, much smarter to just pretend I never said them, and keep asserting that I was annoyed by you because you are so courageous sitting in the dark hole of truth. LOL.

You fractured self manages to have a rather pompous ego.

I have faced scary implications that no one else has faced, so they attack me and are peturbed.

I see absolutely no practical understand on your part of the implications of dasein on the variety of different kinds of reactions people have.

When interacting with someone else, there is only one possible reason they react negatively to you.

And amazingly enough, it is one that paints you in a good light.

LOL

Once again you get it wrong. It’s not “Oh, sure”, it’s “Or, sure”. Meaning that I am acknowledging up front that I can’t be certain of my own frame of mind here. Why? Well, given the gap bewtween what I think I know about this and all that can be known about it.

On the other hand, we are all in that boat, aren’t we?

What then do you attribute it to? How are you less fractured and fragmented than “I” am given that you make the assumption [as I do] that an objective morality does not/cannot exist in a No God world?

I’m still trying to grasp the extent to which, when you confront others who confront your own values, you do not construe “I” here as embedded in dasein, confronting conflicting goods in a world in which what ultimately counts in any particular context is who actually has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors.

But we can only take these “general descriptions” down to earth and situate them [to the best of our ability here] in a particular context.

Aagin, only to the extent that you take us inside your head and explain how you come to embody a particular frame of mind in reacting to those who challenge your own values, will I ever come closer to grasping how you seem [to me] less fractured and fragmented.

With me I never feel completely comfortable regarding my own existential leap to a particular political prejudice. Why? Because I recognize [here and now] how my value judgments are just existential contraptions rooted in dasein. And that even to the extent I am able to convince myself that [in my case] the liberals have the better argument, my understanding of conflicting goods then forces me to accept that I accept this only because I have become predisposed existentially to embrace the assumptions made in the liberal arguments. An argument encompassed of late in my exchange with Peter Kropotkin regarding individual reactions to capitalism.

Those pragmatists more on the conservative end of the political spectrum are in the same boat. Neither of us are able to set aside our subjective/subjunctive leaps to partiuclar political prejudices that our lives have predisposed us to to make, in order to believe that in fact the objective truth resides in either the liberal or the conservative narrative.

Again, if your “I” is not as fractured and fragmented as mine, how do you account for that as a pragmatist? I have often called myself a pragmatist. But a pragmatist in opposition to those who embrace a dog eat dog “might makes right world” or those philosopher king objectivists who clain to embody a “right makes might” moral and political agenda.

My pragmatism is embedded in the idea that the best of all possible worlds is one that revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise. While noting that political economy and/or those nihilists who own and operate the global economy have always [historically] been a factor that must be taken into account.

Than of course it’s back around to huffing and huffing, to hurling retorts in which I become the issue:

Which tells us so much more about you than about me. The fact that I prompt you over and again to take the exchange there. It borders [at times] on the reaction I get from the Kids here!

But…

[b]Again, chose a context and a set of conflicting value judgments precipitating conflicting behaviors. Either from your own life or from a newspaper headline.

We can exchange our own moral narratives in reacting to it, and you can point out specifically my lack of honesty in the exchange.[/b]

The ‘or’ vs. ‘or’ part, lol, makes no difference. It’s the ‘sure’…the, here’s the answer or possible answer blaseness either way. Yup, KT, it would be that, or it could be…and you give an explanation that is compatible with mine. The suddenly it could have some explanation, as if you have not expressed

confusion and incredulity for a long time… then you just blithely give an explanation.

I have answered this question. I have explained that I cannot know for sure why, but offered some options that I see as possible.

Always asking for things already given.

And again after that you request a concrete example. I have done that also.

RR - redundant request.

No, sorry. I repeatedly said you were a pragmatist also, and you never agreed. Then here you just offhand say it. I understand that what I posted did not solve the problem for you. But you were not honest then. That’s all.

And yet again in the same post you move quickly to your dilemma. You could have been honest about your pragmatism back then, but you weren’t. Your dilemma is another issue.

And as I have had to remind you. I did go into concrete issues. I have given a range of explanations for why you and I might react differently to conflicting goods. I have also explained why it would be hard for me, not knowing you personally, not having good ways to compare us in all the possible ways necessary to even make a good guess. But you act as if these things have never happened.

We could have a new exchange and I could point out your lack of honesty? LOL. I pointed out your lack of honesty in an earlier exchange. I don’t know if you are going to lie next time and it’s not relevent.

Let’s call this Shifting away onus and responsibility. So SAOA for short.
We’ll call your criticism that something has not solved your issue when it was clearly not an attempt to do that Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. So NIST for short.
And we can call request for things already done as if they are not done, Redundant Request. Or RR for short. I’ll streamline my responses from here on out.

The sure part? Okay, I got it. Just not in the same way that you do.

If the answer you give isn’t successful in allowing me to grasp why you aren’t sure why, we can only keep plugging our points into different contexts.

If that isn’t something you want to do than stop reading my stuff and move on to others.

Then I’ll promise not to read your stuff and move on to others.

Thus…

And…

Over and over and over again, I note that, in regards to philosophy, my main interest revolves [by far] around how, in using the tools of philosophy, one might answer the question, “how ought one to live?”. With respect to moral and political values.

And over and over and over again, I have noted that as a pragmatist, I construe the best of all possible worlds as one that revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

And, in this context [over and over and over again], I note how I have come to think myself [philosophically] into a hole. This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And, on threads of this sort, it’s the only issue that matters to me.

Either create the new exchange or move on to others.

Realistically, what else is there?

Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise… shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims

Okay, it’s settled then. We move on to others.

Never thought I’d be resurrecting this one.

But consider…

washingtonpost.com/politics … -response/

[b]'President Trump’s long, aspirational, tortured relationship with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, entered one of its most controversial chapters this weekend. The New York Times first reported — with The Washington Post and others following up — that U.S. intelligence has assessed that a Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan to kill coalition troops, including American ones, and that there was intense debate within the U.S. intelligence community about how to respond as far back as late March. The Post further reported Sunday that the bounties have indeed been linked to U.S. troop deaths.

'Three months later, the Trump administration still hasn’t responded. In the intervening period, Trump has continued to describe Russia and Putin as friends of the United States, has sent humanitarian aid to Russia and has continued to push for its inclusion into the Group of Seven summit.

'The potential scandal here is readily apparent: the idea that a president and an administration would do nothing about an antagonistic foreign power funding the killing of Americans. '[/b]

Too early to tell how far this will go, but it certainly brings us back to the problematic relationship between Putin and Trump.

Hell, we might even see the “pee tape” resurrected again. After all, Putin seems to be dangling something incriminating over Trump’s head. Why not that? Would it really surprise [let alone shock] anyone?

Only partially, and dimunitively, as a cover for a major realization: It’s about the substantial gains within Trump’s policy, not to display evident disarray roaming those opinionated, who are driven by their own agenda, bereft in an ominous lack of ideology.

That is: some one has to venture into the credible world, that is closer to chaos , which at this time is inestimable.

The philosophical vacuum left by the fallen USSR-USA detente, is trying to be filled by some real measure of a new world order, which is primarily responsive toward some quality of acceptance.

nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/p … e=Homepage

[b]‘The intercepts bolstered the findings gleaned from the interrogations, helping reduce an earlier disagreement among intelligence analysts and agencies over the reliability of the detainees. The disclosures further undercut White House officials’ claim that the intelligence was too uncertain to brief President Trump. In fact, the information was provided to him in his daily written brief in late February, two officials have said.’

'Afghan officials this week described a sequence of events that dovetails with the account of the intelligence. They said that several businessmen who transfer money through the informal “hawala” system were arrested in Afghanistan over the past six months and are suspected of being part of a ring of middlemen who operated between the Russian intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U., and Taliban-linked militants. '[/b]

Of course Trump has left us with the impression that he does not necessarily read all the daily briefings. Thus allowing him to pick and choose the ones he actually did read. It really comes down to whether or not it can be established that he was aware of the intelligence. And the extent to which the intelligence itself can be proven.

Trump haters of course are hoping like hell that both can be established.

Indeed, if they are, how will Trump wiggle out of that?

And then of course the even murkier truths embedded in whatever one’s own rendition of the “deep state” is. The part that is ever and always a manifestation of political economy. Trumps is part of ours, Putin is part of theirs.

The “whole truth” that mere citizens [like us] are never privy to.

It’s either a reference to which economy is closer to the truth, the political or the social/psychological, hm- Freudian?

through a probable offering of a glean of hope for a negotiated insight into the swamp

or, that the media it’self is prevy to infer an unremarked continuation of what popular opinion relegates to , as just another myth, albeit merely an expediently inverted one.

Then this part: washingtonpost.com/opinions … as-troops/

[b]'When the report came out that the United States had intelligence that the Russians were paying bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops and that the White House had not decided what to do about it, President Trump tweeted: “Nobody briefed or told me, [Vice President] Pence, or Chief of Staff [Mark Meadows] about the so-called attacks on our troops.”

‘Wrong answer, Mr. President. The fact that you or your staff were not “briefed" on this critical intelligence does not excuse the White House for its failure to take action to defend our troops. The answer is not “nobody briefed or told me.” The answer is: What is the United States going to do about it?’[/b]

In other words, suppose it is established that Trump was not aware of the intelligence, but it turns out that the intelligence itself is established to be true. That Putin did put bounties on coalition forces. Including Americans.

What will Trump do? Or, if Putin does have in his possession some damaging information about him, not do?

edit:

Jennifer Rubin WP

[b]'The latest Russia scandal illustrates the point. According to the New York Times, Trump did receive intelligence in his daily briefing about the bounty that Russia put on U.S. troops: “The intelligence was included months ago in Mr. Trump’s President’s Daily Brief document — a compilation of the government’s latest secrets and best insights about foreign policy and national security that is prepared for him to read. One of the officials said the item appeared in Mr. Trump’s brief in late February; the other cited Feb. 27, specifically.” (Trump and the White House have denied he was briefed on the matter.)

‘The Associated Press also reports that the White House knew in 2019 that “Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported” and that Trump was briefed once by former national security adviser John Bolton in March 2019 and again by his successor, Robert O’Brien (who denies doing so)’.[/b]

&if, that intelligence be compromised?
???

nytimes.com/2020/06/30/opin … e=Homepage

Susan Rice OpEd

[b]'Here’s what should have happened. Had I, as national security adviser, received even “raw” reporting that Russia was paying to kill U.S. service members, I would have walked straight into the Oval Office to brief the president.

'Contrary to the spin-masters in the White House today, I would not have waited until we had absolute certainty. I would have said, “Mr. President, I want to make sure you are aware that we have troubling reporting that Russia is paying the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan. I will work with the intelligence community to ensure the information is solid. In the meantime, I will convene the national security team to get you some options for how to respond to this apparent major escalation in Russia’s hostile actions.”

'If later the president decided, as Mr. Trump did, that he wanted to talk with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at least six times over the next several weeks and invite him to join the Group of 7 summit over the objections of our allies, I would have thrown a red flag: “Mr. President, I want to remind you that we believe the Russians are killing American soldiers. This is not the time to hand Putin an olive branch. It’s the time to punish him.”

'This is what would have happened in any prior administration of either political party.

‘That it apparently did not is deeply troubling and raises myriad questions. If Mr. Trump was told about Russian actions, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Are his top advisers utterly incompetent? Are they too scared to deliver bad news to Mr. Trump, particularly about Russia? Is Mr. Trump running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?’[/b]

Finally…

‘What must we conclude from all this? At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.’

Note to conservatives:

This is clearly the liberal spin. But, seriously, why do you suppose Trump acts as he does in regard to Putin?

The following is an inter alia objective presentation, which has not much re-presentational value, except where the ’ Ali’s or parts of the summary are interpreted as coming from the same, or, identical sources.

Other than that, it may not give credence to any follow up to the question as to the why’s of the mechanics of Russian-U.S. relations, because of the increasing awareness of the incurred problems in reference to intelligence parameters.

The attack on intelligence by Trump, correlates with the role that Putin played in the Communist KGB, and the non personability of an appearent attack on CIA and FBI assets, have uncertain but relevant tie ins of why the recognizance of relationships have become muted.

The next comment is merely a subset, that may upend the patent need to understand.

This is why , material dialectics have almost negatively reversed rationale upon which reductive ideology should have memorialized it’s primary source.

The old detante, as well as the echoes of the material dialectic, have not been reduced sufficiently to an epoch, which could absolve either a practical, or an ideal representation of sufficient leadership power-relations, to satisfy reasonable dialogue, which could avoid compromising intelligent appraisals of reasonable objectives, that can transcend a reversal of an ideal to and through a pragmatic approach - to ascertain a sustainable balance of power; through the will of variable authority as represented currently.

The intelligences of both , of Russia and the US can not at the moment transcend new normative states
of affairs, hence the reverse trajectory of the executive roles can not clearly be specified.

Technology preempts reasonable grounds between majority and minority models.

There is the problem of differential intelligence, both: forwardly and backwardly designed, to make sense of unilaterally overlapping designs on authority.

As a consequence, not too much should or could be done to read too much into developing international relations at the moment.

This is exceedingly, an early blueprint, of which, the only focus of interplay that is certainly significant, that come between a reasonable balance of power, suffices in the pragmagical assumption if a non transcendental model of objectively reduced synthesis, from the supposed universal standard, as proposed on pragmatic basis, to the earlier framework, manifested by nationally identifiable predterminates.

That struggle, has superseded, reversely, any ’ existential struggle’, which has been patently been negated, by proponents of existentially priotorized assumptions, and which gave credence to the structurally nominal consequences that are still hanging in the balance.

Again, the idea is formed from an exiistential reduction from nominalism to the forming of such, that would give rationale to ‘exit’ from a ’ No Exit’ situation, that could give rise to an appearent need to form ulterior channels of representation to the will, to overcome repression.

And finally, as a note of apology, to Iambiguous, I wrote the above to remind myself of the search for the answer You pose, in terms for me to be able to seek reference within my own search for sources, and not meant to give definitive answers as to the reduced patent idea of the answers which could be given , as to why the personslly react and understand the underlying conditions which they are obliged to deal with, before forming the states of mind under lying underlying their respective modus operandi.

Thanks ahead for the allowance You or anyone may make in furtherance of required conditions.