Imagine actually being this retarded.
Yeah. I mean, even try to imagine it.
Fuck, I cannot.
Who me?
That sounds like you’re throwing in the towel. And I was looking forward to a heated debate.
I guess you’re not interested in entertaining the point I made about each of us getting our information from different sources. Nope. For you, your sources are obviously correct. You can rightfully say you know the truth. And Gib? Well, he should stop watching Fox News. I mean, everyone knows Fox News is only for gullible conspiracy theory nut junkies (not to mention sexist, racist, nazi alt-right apologists). How retarded is he, really?
* sigh *
@seeds, would you like to explore the idea of getting our information from different sources? Honestly, I think it could prove fruitful.
Sure. What sources of information do you have in mind?
Also, I wonder why Carleas feels it is necessary to close this thread “…a month after the last reply…”?
None in particular. I just want to get into the idea that we’re each getting our information from different sources and the implications that fall out of that.
This isn’t like a small handful of people getting their info from tabloid journalism or the National Enquirer. When you have 50% of the nation getting their info from left leaning sources and the other 50% from right leaning sources, and the two sources contradict each other, you have a trust problem. It’s extremely difficult to know which sources to trust.
Now, most people will fall back on arguments like “well, my sources are more likely to be true” or “at least my sources are more consistent”. But I’m not sure how one calculates the probability of a particular source being true or reliable, and consistency may be a measure of a good lie just as much as it may be a measure of truth (i.e. good liars will know to keep their stories consistent). And then there are those who argue that it’s just a matter of sticking with a particular source over time, and that over time, you get a “feel” for which sources are more reliable than others. But how does one distinguish that from being brainwashed? Isn’t that how brainwashing works? You stick with it for a lengthy amount of time and it eventually “feels” true to you?
I don’t take an approach of trying to figure out which sources are more likely to be telling the truth and which are less likely (although one probably can take that approach). I embrace skepticism. Descartes proved 400 years ago that absolutely anything can be doubted, and while he stop just short of doubting his own existence, we know that even the ‘I’ can be doubted if we look towards Buddhist and materialist philosophies. Now, when it comes to politics and the information sources we rely on to know what’s going on in the world, I don’t think we have to go that far. But I do take the formal stance that anything I see on the news, or any media outlet, or word of mouth and hearsay, that I don’t know if it’s true or not. That’s not to say I regard everything as 50/50–a 50% chance of being true, a 50% chance of being false–some things I regard as having a higher probability of being true than not–but I don’t base this on some premeditated calculus or rational argument about what exactly the probabilities are–rather, I just go with my gut, estimate the probability based on how it feels, and I recognize this as emotion based or faith based–but not knowledge. In other words, I’m ok with believing things on faith just as long as I don’t confuse faith with knowledge.
As far as knowledge goes, I believe we know very little–maybe less than 1% of everything we think we know. And that’s because more than 99% of what we think we know comes from second hand sources–media, books, teachers, friends and family. Only about 1% comes from our own hands-on immediate experiences with the world. So while I might doubt a story that says Canada is on course to join America, becoming the 51st state, I don’t doubt that that story is out there. I saw it on youtube with my own eyes. What it told me, however, I didn’t see at all. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but that’s just my bias. I have a bias against believing wild and outlandish things since they don’t seem realistic to me. My biases will push me towards defending and making arguments in support of the things that align with my emotions and my values–and I’m ok with that–but I just don’t call it “knowledge”.
My challenge to you and anyone engaging in this kind of reasoning is to 1) see if you can agree with this, and 2) be willing to say of anything you believe from your media source of choice that you don’t know, with 100% certainty, whether it is true or a lie (and for what it’s worth, your favorite media sources don’t have to be lying to you; they could be mistaken, they could simply be not giving you the full picture, even you could be misinterpreting what they’re saying). I think this is a reasonable challenge for anybody–because who would honestly die on the hill of absolute certainty? Who would stubbornly insist that they absolutely know that everything their preferred media outlet tells them is always, consistently, and unwaveringly the truth? If one can bring themselves to admit that they don’t know, with absolute certainty, that what their preferred media outlet is telling them is true, then they step onto a common ground with others who admit the same and may otherwise disagree with them. For instance, if you believe in your left leaning sources, and I believe in my right leaning sources, and the two conflict on certain stories or stats or facts (or whatever), then we can at least agree that neither of us really knows the truth, and that can be a common ground, a starting point, from which to work together or get along. We can agree to take the attitude that while neither of us knows the truth, we both want to know the truth, and we can work together to figure out the truth. We don’t have to leave our respective media sources out of the conversation, but we don’t bring them in as an exemplar of the truth, but rather as an example of what the one media source is saying, and we can contrast that with what other media sources are saying. Hell, we can download the Ground News app to do a meta assessment on the biases and leanings on each of our sources (that is, until we start doubting the reliability of Ground News). Of course, none of this guarantees that we’ll come out of the conversation in full agreement about everything, nor does it mean our biases will always be checked at the door (biases are like gremlins that always find a way of sneaking in), but it can suspend animosity and distrust, at least to a point, and allow us to make progress covering as much ground as we can towards agreeing at least on some points, and hopefully learning something in the process.
Sorry for how long winded that response was, but these are the ideas I want to get out in a discussion about our sources of information and how they seem to be giving us different, and often conflicting, narratives. There’s also my thoughts on how the media in the west has evolved (or should I say devolved) since the 90s, which I think is a fascinating topic, and there’s also my thoughts on why none of us should believe our respective media sources (not just because we don’t know whether they’re telling us the truth or not but because they most likely aren’t). Take it in whatever direction you want, seeds, or don’t–sometimes one gets bored or put off by threads and the directions they go, so I’ll understand if you don’t reply, but I would like to know your thoughts on these matters.
Because orange man bad?
I joked with my daughter, whose young enough to be swept up by wokism and left leaning media, that the reason Trump is so racist is that he’s jealous of other races for having so many members while he’s the only orange person on the planet.
You can ignore America, but it won’t ignore us. The talk of Trump wanting to annex Canada and Greenland, invade Mexico, and seize the Panama Canal, shows up his vision of being an expansionist, colonising military power, and in the end, everything we tried to prevent after WWII. People have said it ‘makes sense,’ but where does sovereignty play a role in this “sense-making?” Where does anything remain that we have valued after the wars and the atrocities of the past culminated in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Where is the cooperation and respect that used to be core values?
The way to live in a growing multicultural world is to validate the other cultures, but unfortunately, the West has been unable to accept, let alone validate other cultures, and feel called to spread their understanding throughout the world. Of course, they say it is to prevent injustices, but what they don’t tell you is that in many cases, the intervention of the British and then the Americans over the last 250 years has been so damaging, that it has caused much more injustice and atrocities than existed before. Not that there were no injustices elsewhere, but the British Empire was built of piracy and conquest. The damage that the ‘global market’ has caused isn’t felt so much in our countries, but the BRICS initiative is a result of that.
Bob wrote:
You can ignore America, but it won’t ignore us. ← Where you from, Bob? → The talk of Trump wanting to annex Canada and Greenland ← It was a joke!!! → , invade Mexico ← When did this happen?! → , and seize the Panama Canal ← For good reason. → , shows up his vision of being an expansionist, colonising military power, and in the end, everything we tried to prevent after WWII. ← Is this a round-about way of calling him Hitler? → People have said it ‘makes sense,’ but where does sovereignty play a role in this “sense-making?” ← Huh? → Where does anything remain that we have valued after the wars and the atrocities of the past culminated in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Where is the cooperation and respect that used to be core values?
It’s all in the messaging, Bob… which is why I hate MSM.
Look, it sounds like you’re thinking this backwards. You’re thinking “orange man bad” and you look around for things to prove it. 'Cause it doesn’t work the other way around: Trump jokes about Canada being the 51st state, vows to take on the Mexican Cartel, and plans to take control of the Panama Canal (not sure how)… therefore, orange man bad. ← Doesn’t work. There are numerous ways of interpreting the above, and numerous ways to justify (or demonize) Trump under each interpretation, plenty of which even make it look like you got your facts wrong. You’re jumping to conclusions–ones you seem to like, I might add–from sketchy premises at best. The information pool is contaminated. You can’t base your judgments of world events or those involved by what you get in the media, not any more at least (was there ever a time?). The real world is always going to be 1,000 x more complicated than what the media can capture.
Bob wrote:
The way to live in a growing multicultural world is to validate the other cultures ← Unconditionally? → , but unfortunately, the West has been unable to accept, let alone validate other cultures ← Like hell it hasn’t! Where do you think the hub of this growing multicultural world is?! → , and feel called to spread their understanding throughout the world ← Like no other culture felt this call? → . Of course, they say it is to prevent injustices, but what they don’t tell you is that in many cases, the intervention of the British and then the Americans over the last 250 years ← Oh, we’re talking that timespan. → has been so damaging, that it has caused much more injustice and atrocities than existed before. ← And how did you measure this? → Not that there were no injustices elsewhere, but the British Empire was built of piracy and conquest ← You should’ve seen the Spanish! → . The damage that the ‘global market’ has caused isn’t felt so much in our countries, but the BRICS initiative is a result of that.
So BRICS would never have happened if it weren’t for the West? And we can predict with perfect accuracy what would have happened instead, huh? Nothing like BRICS would have emerged? Sooner? And with more force? Just sayin’, Bob, we don’t know.
You’re probably not gonna believe this, but a global economy is a good thing. A global government… no so much. Do you know what the opposite of war is? It’s not peace. It’s business. Business is what we do when we’re not warring with each other. Between two human beings, that’s sometimes a metaphor, but on the stage of nations, it’s literally what happens in times of peace. And it’s not just allowed by peace, it reinforces it. Who wants to go to war with a trade partner?
BTW, Bob, I’d love for you to join the conversation with seeds and I (if it’s happening) about the nature of information and how it’s channeled through our preferred media outlets.
I must confess, I dislike the way you comment in the quote too.
I am a Brit who has lived abroad for fifty years and since 9/11 (before then I couldn’t afford to travel), I have used my travels to get an idea of how the West is seen by other people. It isn’t so good.
I don’t like ‘jokes’ that are veiling the truth, such as the following historical statement said with a chuckle: “Nobody is going to build a wall across Germany.”
I don’t call him Hitler, although Vance once did, but I see a global movement towards authoritarian governments, and a reorganization of power blocs into American, Russian and Chinese. This may have the advantage of less talk about world wars, with each bloc keeping to themselves, but internal conflicts are still possible.
I’m not thinking in the simplistic way you claim, but I don’t have the confidence you seem to have in Trump, because to be honest, acknowledging that we fail to learn from history, I don’t trust the kind of power these people have. It seems to me that the brief pause that we had after WWII is over. There is a return to what people in power seem to think is the ‘right way’ to run the world, back to the usual state of affairs with tyranny and oligarchy regaining power (disguised as it was as monarchy and aristocracy).
I have a historical and quasi-independent view of current affairs (though obviously not fully), and the advantage of being retired, so I can look deeper. There is nothing new under the sun. We’ve seen these developments in the past, although it didn’t have such a global impact in the past.
The mutual validation of cultural differences is the only way ahead. What you are implying, is that there are things we don’t like about other cultures, but my observation is that it has been imperial (take any empire) intervention that has in many cases caused a radicalisation. Empires are abusive and oppressive, and always have been.
The toleration of cultures and the attempts to utilise cheap labour that you so praise requires a full integration, which is why immigrants often collect in ghettos. Britain complains about too much immigration, but the fact is displayed on a poster stating, “We’re here, because you were there!” It takes a lot of ignoring to overlook the effects of colonisation.
All European nations tried piracy and conquest, but none were as widely effective as the British. There are few countries in the world that Britain didn’t invade, and, in many ways, the Spanish suffered under the British ‘rule of the waves’. That doesn’t excuse anyone, but it is a question of proportion. America virtually took over when Britain fell to its knees, taking support from America in the form of the Marshall-Plan. Ironically, their common enemy, Germany, had seen a lot of financial power coming from across the Atlantic to help Hitler with his plans.
Take off your blinkers and recognise that BRICS is an anti-American alliance trying to break American hegemony, and its financial grip on the world. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund have forced many smaller countries into huge debt by taking part in the ‘global economy.’ I have walked through dried up rice fields in countries where they are now reliant upon imports to feed their populations. They were told to grow potatoes, but specific potatoes that do not grow in their soil.
Get out into the world and speak with people and you will have a more humbler opinion of your nation. Trading, not ‘business’ is the means of international interaction. But Britain and America stole indigenous technologies and prevented them from using them – in fact, they then sold them what they had stolen. Third World countries are countries that have been exploited and left in chaos when the colonizers moved out, leaving them dependant upon imports, and having to sell national resources to buy them. Bottled water and soft drink plants (Coca Cola etc.) use up the fresh water in these countries.
No, you don’t go to war with trade partners, you dominate them and make them buy your products. You belittle them and take away their dignity. I’m sorry, but your illusion is a perfect whitewashing of the West.
Trump has totally jumped the shark. That, or his media coverage has.
Orange Man is supposed to act in bad ways, he is supposed to not succeed. He is playing a role of pushing the dialectics as far as possible within the larger context of divide and conquer. To weaken American society, institutions, trust, global influence, everything you can think of.
Those of you who think Trump is good for America need to wake up. For every one good thing he does, a thousand other things will crumble and fall apart.
Putting Musk in power and cozying up to big tech is only proving the point. New world order is about global technocracy. China is the testing ground for the global system of technological tyranny the world controllers want to establish, and America is being used as the vehicle to get that system up and running in its more refined forms. They just need to appease the “conservatives” in a wet dream delusion that they and their values matter long enough to get the technocracy up and running for most people. As long as people like Musk and Thiel and Rogan and Trump are backing it, most of the ‘conservatives’ will voluntarily sign up to be part of the system. Dutifully signing up for their digital IDs, CBDCs, social credit scores, compulsory transhumanist vaccines and all the rest. And since the world controllers already have 99% of the ‘liberals’ on board with pro-big government (merged into pro-big corporation) technocratic statism, that leaves very few of us left to resist.
The guy that runs after him better be Banana Man, that’s all I’m saying.
Bob wrote:
I must confess, I dislike the way you comment in the quote too. ← Too bad
→
Bob wrote:
I am a Brit who has lived abroad for fifty years and since 9/11 (before then I couldn’t afford to travel), I have used my travels to get an idea of how the West is seen by other people. It isn’t so good.
People’s opinions of whether they like America or not is not a good measure of how much good or bad America as done around the world. You, apparently, base your dislike of America on what others around the world think of it. The woke around the world will dislike America because they were told to by their preferred media.
Bob wrote:
I don’t like ‘jokes’ that are veiling the truth, such as the following historical statement said with a chuckle: “Nobody is going to build a wall across Germany.”
There you go again presuming you know the truth. At best, this joke about Canada becoming the 51st state has grown into a “suggestion” by uncle Trump. And quite a flattering one! If you’ve gotten along with your neighbor next door for years, and one day they say, “Hey Bob, why don’t you move in with us? We’ve got several huge bedrooms, you can have your own bath, and we’d save on a whole bunch of things like mortgage payments, time it takes to clean, effort to protect your home (because we’ve got great security), etc.” would you take offense? Would you think they were trying to “annex” your home? An invitation is hardly the same as an invasion (it’s kinda the opposite).
Bob wrote:
I don’t call him Hitler, although Vance once did, but I see a global movement towards authoritarian governments, and a reorganization of power blocs into American, Russian and Chinese. This may have the advantage of less talk about world wars, with each bloc keeping to themselves, but internal conflicts are still possible.
I’ve noticed this too, ever since the advent of the Soviet Union. But if you look at the goals in the OP, it seems like Trump is trying to undo that.
Bob wrote:
I’m not thinking in the simplistic way you claim, but I don’t have the confidence you seem to have in Trump, because to be honest, acknowledging that we fail to learn from history, I don’t trust the kind of power these people have. ← Me neither (believe it or not). I totally believe in the motta that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. → It seems to me that the brief pause that we had after WWII is over. There is a return to what people in power seem to think is the ‘right way’ to run the world, back to the usual state of affairs with tyranny and oligarchy regaining power (disguised as it was as monarchy and aristocracy).
Like I said, I too believe that (absolute) power corrupts (absolutely), but this alone wouldn’t single Trump out as especially corruptible. You’d hate Biden just as much as Trump if this was all there was to it. The thing with Trump, in my opinion, is that as power hungry as he may be, what he’s promised to do will significantly reduce government power (maybe his own), especially in the deep state. What Trump gets out of it is glory, which is a form of power in itself. The trick is not only to limit the power that government officials have, but to channel their lust for power in a direction that benefits the nation rather than hurts it.
I might also add that the greatest return to pre-WWII standards (Hitler, Nazism, anti-semitism, etc.) is coming from brainwashed liberal students at universities all over the West. This call to sanctify Palestine as though they could never do any wrong, and to wipe Israel off the face of the planet along with the individual Jews in it (and maybe abroad too) is anti-semitism and Nazism par excellence. And it’s not coming from Trump or the right or any government agency (not directly at least). It’s coming from the breakdown of the education system in America. It’s as if they aren’t even being taught about what happened in Germany before/during WWII or even who this Hitler guy is. They just know he was an evil Nazi white man. And it’s coming from the left. These are (mostly) liberal students. In fact, they’re what radical leftism looks like. You know, the ones that call people like me racists and Nazis? So either they’re getting a shitty education, or they are the worlds greatest hypocrites.
Bob wrote:
The mutual validation of cultural differences is the only way ahead ← Unconditionally? → . What you are implying, is that there are things we don’t like about other cultures, but my observation is that it has been imperial (take any empire) intervention that has in many cases caused a radicalisation. Empires are abusive and oppressive, and always have been.
I have no qualms with validating other cultures, I just don’t think it should be unconditional. Do you agree with the Muslim world when it refuses to allow education for women? Or throwing people off a roof for being gay? We’re slowly getting crammed like sardines on this tiny ball called Earth, and a multicultural, interracial, polyethnic global society looks to be inevitable. So we have to get along–in that much, I agree with you–but we don’t want evil in this new world, or anything unhealthy or that undermines social integrity–so there has to be a weeding out process of harmful or malevolent ideas and values while at the same time trying to be open to and tolerant of good ones (kinda a good recipe for the border).
Bob wrote:
The toleration of cultures and the attempts to utilise cheap labour that you so praise requires a full integration, which is why immigrants often collect in ghettos. Britain complains about too much immigration, but the fact is displayed on a poster stating, “We’re here, because you were there!” It takes a lot of ignoring to overlook the effects of colonisation.
What does that even mean, “We’re here because you were there”? If it means what I think it means, Britain should complain about too much immigration.
Look, I don’t deny colonialism and corporate expansionism can be, and often were, devastating to the natives who originally inhabited the colonized lands, but I don’t think we should throw out the baby with the bath water. If we’re becoming ever more integrated around the globe, we’re gonna have to engage in some form of healthy trade with other countries. The problem is not with the West selling their goods in other countries or setting up factories abroad, it’s when power is not evenly distributed. When I was defending this idea above, I mentioned that a global government is not a good thing. Why? Because it is, by definition, a centralized power. I’m not denying that corporate expansionism can’t lead to the same kind of imbalance of power, but it isn’t defined that way. You can strike a balance between the nations of the Earth with respect to trade and business.
Furthermore, as I pointed out to seeds, I’m not big on blaming entire nations or ethnic groups (or however your identity politics divides people up) for crimes committed around the world. Show me the individuals responsible for the crimes against the native inhabitants, and I’ll show you where to lay the blame.
Bob wrote:
All European nations tried piracy and conquest, but none were as widely effective as the British. There are few countries in the world that Britain didn’t invade, and, in many ways, the Spanish suffered under the British ‘rule of the waves’. That doesn’t excuse anyone, but it is a question of proportion. America virtually took over when Britain fell to its knees, taking support from America in the form of the Marshall-Plan. Ironically, their common enemy, Germany, had seen a lot of financial power coming from across the Atlantic to help Hitler with his plans.
You know what? Fine! Britain sucks. It’s evil. It should be wiped off the face of the planet. And you’re British, right Bob? So you suck too. You’re evil. What should we do with you? Should we wipe you off the face of the planet?
It’s funny how you’re now ranking which empire was more “evil”–the Brits or the Spaniards. I always cringe when one starts doing a sort of utilitarian calculus on “good” and “bad”. I think it shows that one has lost sight of the problem. How are you measuring which empire had more prowess in its piracy and conquest? The Brits ultimately had a bigger empire. But the Spaniards, my point was, were a lot more ruthless in their conquest (what they did to the natives). The Brits at least intended on “enlightening” the natives before forcing their way of life on them (which itself DID benefit them in many ways–both the enlightening and the enforcing).
Bob wrote:
Take off your blinkers and recognise that BRICS is an anti-American alliance trying to break American hegemony, and its financial grip on the world. ← Did I say it wasn’t? → The World Bank and International Monetary Fund have forced many smaller countries into huge debt by taking part in the ‘global economy.’ I have walked through dried up rice fields in countries where they are now reliant upon imports to feed their populations. They were told to grow potatoes, but specific potatoes that do not grow in their soil.
You honestly believe that if BRICS succeeded in tearing down American economic hegemony, they would leave it at that and let the world flourish on its own? You know that Russia and China are part of BRICS, right? You think Putin and Jinping are saints? Like they have no imperialistic aspirations? Of course, America’s enemies are gonna ban together in an organization to tear it down. They’re not heroes fighting the evil American tyrant, they’re just competing tyrants. If it wasn’t for American hegemony, they would have held a global hegemony.
Bob wrote:
Get out into the world and speak with people and you will have a more humbler opinion of your nation. ← Not in my case, people tend to love Canadians.
→ Trading, not ‘business’ is the means of international interaction. ← difference? → But Britain and America stole indigenous technologies and prevented them from using them – in fact, they then sold them what they had stolen. ← Do you have an article on this? → Third World countries are countries that have been exploited and left in chaos when the colonizers moved out, leaving them dependant upon imports, and having to sell national resources to buy them. ← Colonizers don’t just “move out” → Bottled water and soft drink plants (Coca Cola etc.) use up the fresh water in these countries.
← I have no way of falsifying or confirming this, Bob. But I’ll take your word for it. →
No, you don’t go to war with trade partners, you dominate them and make them buy your products. You belittle them and take away their dignity. I’m sorry, but your illusion is a perfect whitewashing of the West.
If mine’s a whitewashing, yours is a blackwashing.
I don’t intend to die on this hill, Bob. It seems so much more reasonable to just bite the bullet and say the West has indeed done some shitty things to the world in the past (probably even by the standards of the time). I mean, how can you proclaim to the world that you are the land of the free yet half your nation owns slaves? Like I said above, if you recall, it’s complicated.
Rather, I want to respond to you in a different way. There are several things going on in this thread. There’s…
- Can Trump achieve his goals (which no one seems to care about).
- American (or Western) values, ideas, and ways of life.
- America’s (or the West’s) presence on the global stage.
There’s probably others, but these three seem most prominent and relevant here. And since no one wants to talk about 1), that leaves 2) and 3)–the distinction between the American/Western way of life and that of its effects on the rest of the world given its global presence. ← And I would say this distinction is the key to this whole affair.
In this thread, I’m defending 2), but not so much 3) (though I would like to). The American (and by proxy, Western) way of life–American values, American ideas, its way of doing politics–is, I’m saying, an overall good thing. I think it has proven over the course of the last 2 and a half centuries to be more beneficial to its citizens than harmful, and therefore could be taken by the rest of the world as an example of how life can not only improve, but thrive.
I choose not to defend 3) because it’s what America (or the West) becomes when it operates outside its own borders, borders that define where the law applies. With American laws unable to extend beyond its borders, laws that make possible the American way of life for its citizens, it cannot regulate the activities of corporations or military presences abroad, ensuring not that US expansion brings with it that very way of life, but instead that corporations and military presences abroad go unchecked and become monstrosities.
Are you willing to concede this, Bob?
HumAnIze wrote:
Orange Man is supposed to act in bad ways, he is supposed to not succeed. He is playing a role of pushing the dialectics as far as possible within the larger context of divide and conquer. To weaken American society, institutions, trust, global influence, everything you can think of.
That’s the media’s job. Why would Trump want half the nation to hate him?
HumAnIze wrote:
Those of you who think Trump is good for America need to wake up. For every one good thing he does, a thousand other things will crumble and fall apart.
This gets back exactly to my qualms with information. What do you mean “wake up”? You think you’re awake? What makes your information sources so pristine and infallible? What, you just “intuit” that Trump is bad for America? You’re insight is some kind of clairvoyant vision into his soul? Talk about a God complex!
What you are doing, Humanize, is just trying as hard as possible to avoid being called naïve.
(Bob’s kinda suffering the same thing but at least he’s a bit more thoughtful in the way he articulates it.)
HumAnIze wrote:
Putting Musk in power and cozying up to big tech is only proving the point. New world order is about global technocracy. ← You’ve got a funny definition of “proof” → China is the testing ground for the global system of technological tyranny ← By design? → the world controllers want to establish, ← Oh, the world controllers! Those guys! I guess that answers one of my questions. Yes, Gib, there is a secret government order even higher than the Republicans or the Dems. and America is being used as the vehicle to get that system up and running in its more refined forms. ← Explain to me again how Trump is instrumental here? → They just need to appease the “conservatives” in a wet dream delusion that they and their values matter long enough to get the technocracy up and running for most people. ← What was your theory before Trump won? → As long as people like Musk and Thiel and Rogan and Trump are backing it, most of the ‘conservatives’ will voluntarily sign up to be part of the system. ← How do you know when someone’s “backing it” and when someone’s duped by it; Is Rogan a master mind, or a stoner who gets all caught up in crazy ideas? → Dutifully signing up for their digital IDs, CBDCs, social credit scores, compulsory transhumanist vaccines and all the rest. ← How bi-partisan are you, really? → And since the world controllers already have 99% of the ‘liberals’ on board with pro-big government (merged into pro-big corporation) technocratic statism, that leaves very few of us left to resist.
Oh, you’re part of the resistance, I see.
Just out of curiosity, do you see conservatives and liberals as equal, if only in their pathetic naivety? You seem like a disappointed liberal trying to reject the entire spectrum but finding it harder to do so for the left vs. the right. You do realize that what you’ve got here is a conspiracy theory, right? A wildly speculative and vibrantly imaginative conspiracy theory with mind blowingly little evidence to back it up… right? You do realize what your mind is doing, don’t you? You’re not driven by the need for truth, but to avoid feeling naïve. The two are compatible, of course, at least in principle, so you’re intellect has no problem buying it, but ask yourself why your aiming for the bleakest picture possible rather than what seems more realistic, logical, and for which there is actual evidence.
Your assumption of “wokeness” around the world is telling. Many millions of people have no idea what the West is talking about when it comes to such terms. All they know is what their ancestors have experienced and what they are experiencing in contrast to what they are told or promised. The dominance of American media in the world gives them the impression that Americans know what is wrong with their society, but are unwilling to fix it, but instead want to export it to them.
I am looking at history rather than claiming to look for ‘truth’ as some pristine quality. From what I’ve seen, both people in Canada and Greenland have told Trump to F-Off, which I think means that they know what his imagination presents him, and he longs for power like Putin or Xi Jinping (or even Kim Jong Un) has.
I don’t think he is undoing that, but trying to evoke an American hegemony that expands from Greenland to Chile.
Odd that you think I have nothing against Biden. I think Biden is a war monger and a crazy old man whose ideologies are more important than common sense, but then again, I hate the American system and find it corrupt and abominable. Democracy died long ago over there. The ‘deep state’ is the very election system and the lack of proportional representation, just as it is the problem in Britain. The possibility of creating coalitions with smaller parties enables change that is necessary, because our situation is continually changing, and is also a chance to engage more people in politics. It doesn’t always work, I know, and the electorate is often themselves to blame, but the two-party system is stagnant and the true problem.
Hypocrites are what people are, we’re all hypocrites in some way because we’re confused. We need a lot of introspection to overcome our contradictions (“know yourself”). But unless you are a Zionist, you can see what has been going on since the Balfour declaration and it is a kind of colonialism like in South Africa, born out of the same frame of mind. Zionism has just managed to control Government policies towards it, with today’s Governments complicit in what is going on. Yes, the Palestinians were violent and did some pretty desperate things that shocked the world, but so did the blacks in South Africa, when they were fighting Apartheid.
If you look at history, and how Israel killed anyone who challenged the idea of Israeli expansion, and disproportionate land distribution, including UN authorities known for their engagement for peace, you realise that the idealisation of Israel’s policies is hypocrisy at its worst. Accusing people appalled at the violence of being perpetrators is, to be honest, quite schizophrenic. The students you oppose may not have the full picture, but the atrocities and the dispossession of people in the West Bank disgust me too.
With regard to validating other cultures unconditionally, I’m afraid you’re too late for the party in the Middle East. The gate crashers came long ago and prevented the party from happening. They were mostly from the CIA and Mossad. The party was the formation of The United Arab Republic which would have been able control it’s natural resources. But unfortunately for them, there were oil companies with a strong lobby in America, who considered those resources theirs. If they weren’t they were a danger to National Security.
There was no trust that the Arab countries could find their own way to a society which benefitted as many people as possible, and so after the moderates were killed, there were only radicals left. But these were ‘friends of the West’ and count the number of dictators that the West has installed (and later deposed) and you will have an idea of where many of the problems come from. That isn’t to say that everything would have been perfect but look at the West and tell me it’s perfect.
It means that the Brits occupied their country, and gave them British passports, in which it stated that the holder had “the right to abide in Britain.” Stupid? Yeah, probably. Especially when they leave chaos behind! People aren’t stupid and can read.
You can only do this if you respect sovereign nations and considering how often legally elected governments have been overthrown for policies that were not in America’s interests, I think you could see that Empire shits on sovereignty. History has shown how the World Bank and IMF have utilised military forces from the West to force countries to comply. Historians who work their way through documents that have been released after 30 years have proven this. I’m sorry if you haven’t been paying attention.
Obviously, you’re not, you defend them or deflect from their participation in distorting world politics. I haven’t got any identity politics, but your idea of making culprits responsible falls flat when America says that no American citizen can be brought before the International Criminal Court, but want to uphold its rulings against other people, such as Putin. It’s double standards (hypocrisy) that people are calling out (those you call hypocrites).
Cut the crap! I have issues with the double standards of all nations (as you can clearly see with my examples), and until we combat that, we will not get out of the shit we’re in. The problem is the biggest hypocrites are those in power.
It’s always telling when exasperation comes into the discussion. I’m saying that colonisation served only the colonisers, and if something fell by the side that helped the people colonised, well whoopee. It isn’t as though it was intended, but was rather thrown into the discussion when educated “savages” spoke back. This goes back as far as the 17th Century, when France conquered areas that are now in Canada, and called it New France. Kondiaronk, a chief of the Huron-Wendat people travelled to Europe during the 17th century and was known for his sharp observations of European society and complaining at being called a savage by inhabitants of a country that let their poor die in the streets.
You could also watch the interview with Shashi Tharoor on How British Colonialism ‘destroyed’ India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giYXrofZYo&t=92s or read his book “Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.” It really is a problem when “savages” speak back like they are doing all over the world.
That isn’t the question. Of course there are just as bad players in the world, the problem has been that America has played the moralist, saying that they are precisely NOT like those examples. The difference is perhaps now that Trump openly wants to by like those people, and the manifest for 2025 threatens to attempt that = HIS GOALS.
I have spoken about his goals. Others have too, but obviously these comments are not the ones you want to discuss. So what is there to concede?
Sure Gib you have a point, back in middle school , that leveling force was called peer pressure.
, point being , the analogy is useful here, cause such forces exert influence both socially and personally, authority figures carry early grudges of not belonging to the grave, or carry others there.
It’s far easier to belong by virtue of physical characteristics into a crowd, especially for those who find it’s revers, painful attribution of compensatory intelligence to be their primal motivation as a goal.
They call them people pleasers, but then what else can they become other then slide to hermeticism.
Can Trump 2.0 pull it off?
Trump already pulled it off.
He gaslit all you fools. Again.
Bob wrote:
Your assumption of “wokeness” around the world is telling. Many millions of people have no idea what the West is talking about when it comes to such terms. ← Do they need to? → All they know is what their ancestors have experienced and what they are experiencing in contrast to what they are told or promised. The dominance of American media in the world gives them the impression that Americans know what is wrong with their society ← with their own society or the viewer’s socierty? → , but are unwilling to fix it, but instead want to export it to them.
You must mean their own society. So then give me an example.
Bob wrote:
I am looking at history rather than claiming to look for ‘truth’ as some pristine quality. ← And what is history to you? The truth, or just a narrative? → From what I’ve seen, both people in Canada and Greenland have told Trump to F-Off ← Look harder. → , which I think means that they know what his imagination presents him, and he longs for power like Putin or Xi Jinping (or even Kim Jong Un) has.
If you say so, Bob. I wish I had your psychic abilities. That way, I could just read the minds of people like Trump and know exactly what they’re thinking. Alas, I’m limited to what the media tells me, a media hell bent on painting the worst picture of Trump they can put together. The truth is out there, I’m sure, but I’m blocked by a wall of pixels and words.
Bob wrote:
I don’t think he is undoing that, but trying to evoke an American hegemony that expands from Greenland to Chile.
To me, it seems like he’s trying to fulfill items #1 and #5 on the list. He’s looking around the world for ways to cut down spending on other countries. Taking the Panama Canal because, according to Trump, they’re “ripping us off” is one example. Buying Greenland is another (which I don’t think is going to happen). Tariffs are a third. He’s focused on reducing America’s debt and taxes, not imperialisms.
Whether the idea of imperialisms appeals to him or not (probably does) is another matter, but I think it’s eclipsed by his focus on MAGA, which appeals to him even more. Regardless of what his true motives are, the goals he set out (listed in the OP) WILL reduce power in the government.
Bob wrote:
Odd that you think I have nothing against Biden. I think Biden is a war monger and a crazy old man whose ideologies are more important than common sense ← Good to hear → , but then again, I hate the American system and find it corrupt and abominable ←
Of course!
I have no idea what you’re talking about here, Bob. What do you mean that the two-party system is stagnant? Like it’s time to switch up the parties? Reps vs. Dems is so yesterday? Or do you mean it’s time for 3 parties, or 4, or 5. Let me tell you, as a Canadian, minority governments come with their own problems.
Bob wrote:
Hypocrites are what people are, we’re all hypocrites in some way because we’re confused.
Ah, so those students get a free pass because we forgive hypocrisy. Well, at least if you’re on the left. If you’re on the right, you’re a racist and a Nazi just for being on the right. And of course, who could forgive that? Have I got that right?
Bob wrote:
We need a lot of introspection to overcome our contradictions (“know yourself”). But unless you are a Zionist, you can see what has been going on since the Balfour declaration and it is a kind of colonialism like in South Africa, born out of the same frame of mind. Zionism has just managed to control Government policies towards it, with today’s Governments complicit in what is going on. Yes, the Palestinians were violent and did some pretty desperate things that shocked the world, but so did the blacks in South Africa, when they were fighting Apartheid.
So where do you draw the line, Bob? Some of those students are chanting for the deaths of Jews on their own campus! What do those Jews have to do with the manner by which Israel treats the Palestinians? Do you at least condemn those students? And none of the native Africans, to my knowledge, burned babies alive or use their own people as human shields. Do you not draw the line as burning babies alive and using your own people as human shields? (Note that I draw a line between Hamas and the Palestinian people.)
Bob wrote:
If you look at history, and how Israel killed anyone who challenged the idea of Israeli expansion…
Killed anyone who challenged the idea? Really? I know you’re big on history, Bob, but where are you getting your history from? I’ve said my piece about media and how I distrust it, but the same goes for history. Unless you hopped in a time machine and seen it yourself, history is, just like everything else we learn, second hand information and hearsay (which probably conflicts with someone else’s history). I’m not saying that what you’re saying is wrong, but I won’t always just take your word for it. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. What extraordinary proof do you have that doesn’t require a time machine?
Bob wrote:
and disproportionate land distribution, including UN authorities known for their engagement for peace, you realise that the idealisation of Israel’s policies is hypocrisy at its worst. Accusing people appalled at the violence of being perpetrators is, to be honest, quite schizophrenic. The students you oppose may not have the full picture, but the atrocities and the dispossession of people in the West Bank disgust me too.
Yet when Hamas terrorists storm into Israel and slaughter families, burning babies alive, that doesn’t disgust you? At least try to be bi-partisan, Bob. And please tell me you at least see how dangeously close those students are getting to classic nazi anti-semitism with their chants of death to the Jews. If the only difference is that the Jews in modern day Israel deserve it, well, Hitler thought he had moral justifications too. The least those students could do is hold off calling anyone else racist and nazis until they’ve gotten this current bout of anti-semitism out of their system.
Bob wrote:
With regard to validating other cultures unconditionally, I’m afraid you’re too late for the party in the Middle East. The gate crashers came long ago and prevented the party from happening. They were mostly from the CIA and Mossad. The party was the formation of The United Arab Republic which would have been able control it’s natural resources. But unfortunately for them, there were oil companies with a strong lobby in America, who considered those resources theirs. If they weren’t they were a danger to National Security.
Ok, and… what does that have to do with denying education to women and throwing gays off buildings?
Bob wrote:
There was no trust that the Arab countries could find their own way to a society which benefitted as many people as possible, and so after the moderates were killed, there were only radicals left. But these were ‘friends of the West’ and count the number of dictators that the West has installed (and later deposed) and you will have an idea of where many of the problems come from. That isn’t to say that everything would have been perfect but look at the West and tell me it’s perfect.
You already know I wouldn’t say the West is perfect, but again, what does this have to do with denying education to women and throwing gays off buildings? Are you saying that the Muslim world never dreamed of doing those things until we radicalized them? Are you saying that because we radicalized them, women and gays should take one for the team and accept those values being imported into the West? What exactly are you saying?
Bob wrote:
It means that the Brits occupied their country, and gave them British passports, in which it stated that the holder had “the right to abide in Britain.” Stupid? Yeah, probably. Especially when they leave chaos behind! People aren’t stupid and can read.
So then are you saying that because we messed up the Muslim world, the least we can do is welcome them into ours?
Bob wrote:
You can only do this if you respect sovereign nations ← I totally agree → and considering how often legally elected governments have been overthrown for policies that were not in America’s interests, I think you could see that Empire shits on sovereignty. History has shown how the World Bank and IMF have utilised military forces from the West to force countries to comply. Historians who work their way through documents that have been released after 30 years have proven this. I’m sorry if you haven’t been paying attention.
Even if I was, I have a problem (as you know) trusting second hand information and hearsay. That’s not to say I can’t go with it for the sake of argument (I think it’s a cop-out to reject everything just because it’s second hand information or hearsay) but like I said earlier, I just don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Bob wrote:
Obviously, you’re not, you defend them or deflect from their participation in distorting world politics. ← Show me where I’ve defended the individuals responsible; America in general? The West in general? Sure. But individuals? → I haven’t got any identity politics ← But you do → , but your idea of making culprits responsible falls flat when America says that no American citizen can be brought before the International Criminal Court, but want to uphold its rulings against other people, such as Putin. It’s double standards (hypocrisy) that people are calling out (those you call hypocrites).
But we forgive hypocrisy, remember? And I’m not America. I’m not the International Criminal Court. My opinions don’t have to align with their policies.
Bob wrote:
Cut the crap! I have issues with the double standards of all nations (as you can clearly see with my examples), and until we combat that, we will not get out of the shit we’re in. The problem is the biggest hypocrites are those in power.
Don’t dodge the question. Does the guilt of a nation (Britain, America, Canada) trickle down to its citizens? If Britain is guilty of colonialism, does that mean British citizens are guilty of colonialism? Are you guilty? And if so, what is the most fitting punishment for you?
Bob wrote:
It’s always telling when exasperation comes into the discussion. I’m saying that colonisation served only the colonisers, and if something fell by the side that helped the people colonised, well whoopee. It isn’t as though it was intended, but was rather thrown into the discussion when educated “savages” spoke back.
And you’re so sure of that, huh? You’re talking about what went on in the minds of those who lived 300 years ago. Weren’t Europeans devoted to the Christian faith back then? Didn’t they have it firmly engraved in their minds that they had a moral duty to bring the Good News of Christ to the far reaches of the Earth, to save all those unclean savages from the firy pits of Hell? Didn’t they force conversions? Didn’t they force the natives through their education systems? That was intentional. And as far as the Europeans thought, morally right. Of course, today we look upon that with disdain, and rightly so. We’ve evolved since then, morally, spiritually, socially, and politically. But these were people of their times. They thought that bringing Christianity to the natives, educating them, and introducing the Western way of life to them was the compassionate thing to do. And for a time when every other nation would have simply slaughtered and vanquished those who stood in the way of conquest, it was the compassionate thing to do. But like I said, we evolved. These are the stages we have to go through in order to evolve.
And by the way, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t blame the West for the bad things they did to the natives which they didn’t intend while at the same time fail to credit the West for the good things they did to the natives which they didn’t intend.
Bob wrote:
You could also watch the interview with Shashi Tharoor on How British Colonialism ‘destroyed’ India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giYXrofZYo&t=92s or read his book “Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.”
Oh, well if Sashi Tharoor says so, then…
Bob wrote:
That isn’t the question. Of course there are just as bad players in the world, the problem has been that America has played the moralist, saying that they are precisely NOT like those examples. The difference is perhaps now that Trump openly wants to by like those people, and the manifest for 2025 threatens to attempt that = HIS GOALS.
You mean Project 2025, the conservative think tank agenda for Trumps presidency? You know Trump’s debunked that on numerous occasions, siting his own agenda instead, right?
So I guess America is the only country on the planet that moralizes, huh? Putin doesn’t back up his policies and the Russian way of life with moral justifications? Xi Jinping doesn’t moralize on behalf of China?
I don’t know what you think Trump’s GOALS are but I wonder whether you can distinguish between what you think you know and what you speculate.
Bob wrote:
I have spoken about his goals. Others have too, but obviously these comments are not the ones you want to discuss. So what is there to concede?
Numbers 2 and 3 above. But for some reason you decided to omit probably the central part of my points about them, which is what I was referring to as a concession.
So again, I said:
In this thread, I’m defending 2), but not so much 3) (though I would like to). The American (and by proxy, Western) way of life–American values, American ideas, its way of doing politics–is, I’m saying, an overall good thing. I think it has proven over the course of the last 2 and a half centuries to be more beneficial to its citizens than harmful, and therefore could be taken by the rest of the world as an example of how life can not only improve, but thrive.
I choose not to defend 3) because it’s what America (or the West) becomes when it operates outside its own borders, borders that define where the law applies. With American laws unable to extend beyond its borders, laws that make possible the American way of life for its citizens, it cannot regulate the activities of corporations or military presences abroad, ensuring not that US expansion brings with it that very way of life, but instead that corporations and military presences abroad go unchecked and become monstrosities.
Are you willing to concede this, Bob?
Are you willing, in other words, to agree that while America and the West haven’t exactly been paragons of moral virtue on the global stage, they have demonstrated that a free, fruitful, and happy life can be lived given the right sociopolitical environment and freedoms. And further, that the line drawn between these two is right along our borders–that the law which applies within Western nations and makes possible such a way of life, doesn’t have the power to extend beyond such borders, resulting more in tyranny and oppression around the world when Western powers decide to extend themselves beyond those borders?
Meno4 wrote:
Sure Gib you have a point, back in middle school , that leveling force was called peer pressure. ← What leveling force? → , point being , the analogy is useful here, cause such forces exert influence both socially and personally, authority figures carry early grudges of not belonging to the grave, or carry others there.
← Please elaborate →
It’s far easier to belong by virtue of physical characteristics into a crowd ← Oh, are you talking about identity politics? → , especially for those who find it’s revers, painful attribution of compensatory intelligence to be their primal motivation as a goal.
← aaand you lost me. →
They call them people pleasers ← Or virtue signalers? → , but then what else can they become other then slide to hermeticism.
Hermeticism? As usual Meno, you are cryptic as ever. I think you dwell on another plane of existence. You should come down some time and speak our language.
In any case, what does hermeticism mean to you? And why is it an alternative to being a people pleaser?
HumAnIze!
HumAnIze wrote:
Can Trump 2.0 pull it off?
Trump already pulled it off.
He gaslit all you fools. Again.
Gaslit?
I’m only going to answer this because as you were typing, Trump came out and declared his war on the rest of the world to ‘Make America Great Again’ whether by trade wars or by military presence. My recent Substack article looks at America from a European perspective, which I incidentally published before I saw the news about Trumps press conference.
Colonialism does put guilt on a nation that a nation should address. However, the cost of reparation is too high, so it would have at least to be a credible apology, which might be something profoundly symbolic. We’re not talking about ‘punishment’ but showing contrition for the deeds of the past. Returning the cultural relics of those countries which are still sitting in our museums might be one way.
The citizens of the former colonies must, to credibly acknowledge the damage done, step down from their ‘glorious past’ narrative, and also acknowledge that their heritage was largely stolen. This means that they go humbly and generously among the nations of the world, although the time for that seems to have passed, and a resurgence of racism towards the poorer countries is visible.
The world Trump has been trying to take us to since 2016, is an attempt to reduce the standard of the lives of Europeans to American standards, with the same societal traps, lack of safety nets etc., and if you can’t see that, you are even more blind than I already thought you were. I have no intention of leading you by the nose to see the thing I stated. It’s out there to see, but there is no-one so blind as those who will not see.
Hardly. But, he is a change agent and change is much needed in America. Harris was unable to separate herself from Biden‘s weaknesses and failures. Trump is a chaos agent. So necessary change is coming, but with a huge price.
1 Like
Imagine actually being this dumb. No I mean, try to imagine it.
Because these idiots actually pay attention to CNN, NPR, Foreign Affairs and NYT and all the rest. Yes, all of their “educated” “ideas” are taken from these trashrags.