Can Trump 2.0 pull it off?

Social Forums Current Events
41

Bob wrote:

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.

What do you even mean “declared his war on the rest of the world”? Did he literally announce to the world “America declares war on you!” Cause all I found was a press conference in which Trump simply reiterated what we already know (about Greenland, Canada/Mexico tariffs, and Panama) and only added that he refrains from saying whether he will use military force or not to take Greenland. He doesn’t want to be strapped down by commitments to things he said to the press, which I think is a wise move. It doesn’t mean he’s actually going to use the military.

To be honest, I have no idea what his strategy with Greenland is, or what installing American military bases there really requires. I find it wildly extreme to believe he’d literally have to annex Greenland in order to do that. He must have something more subtle in mind. And now that I think about it, I realize he must be in a sort of “arms race” with Russia and China. If he doesn’t take Greenland, they will.

Bob wrote:

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.

Well, that’s a bit less of a dodge, but I can work with it.

So as a Brit, you would say you have a moral obligation to “give back” to the citizens of the nations your country wronged in the past (or are still wronging in the present). So by implication, I guess that means that if a Brit wasn’t fulfilling that obligation, he/she would be morally contemptable and deserving of punishment. But since you’re not like that, Bob, we don’t have to worry about that since you, in some way, do “give back” (you do “give back”, don’t you Bob?).

I think it’s a wonderful idea to offer gestures of friendship and remorse for your past wrongs to peoples of other nations–I would never stand in the way of someone attempting to do that–but I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s “owed”. I would regard it more like bringing flowers home to your wife one day because you felt so inspired. It’s not an obligation, but it is a wonderful gesture (I particularly like the idea of returning the archeological artifacts to their countries of origin; I agree that they rightfully belong to the habitants of those countries).

I do take issue with this, however: “…the cost of reparation is too high, so it would have at least to be a credible apology” ← Is this a cop-out? It sounds like you’re saying our true obligations (reparations) are too hard, so we’ll settle for something easier.

Bob wrote:

The citizens of the former colonies must, to credibly acknowledge the damage done, step down from their ‘glorious past’ narrative ← Obviously, but does that we mean we don’t have a glorious past? → , and also acknowledge that their heritage was largely stolen ← 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.

Is this what you strive to do, Bob? Go humbly and generously among the nations of the world? You did say you like to travel and that you’ve talked with many of the world’s inhabitants. How expansive are your travels? What countries have you been to?

Bob wrote:

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.

There are none more foolish, Bob, than those who think they see. We’re all blind. At least I admit that.

Think of it this way: however we put together our understanding of the world and how it works–whether that be through media, teachers, books, first-hand-experience–we all seem to make two false assumptions: 1) that the picture that emerges in our minds (from gathering all this information) is like a window through which we see reality–unvarnished, undistorted, clear–and 2) that everyone’s looking out the same window. But what if the picture the media paints for you (and teachers, and books, and experience, etc.) is more like a colorful mural than a featureless window. And what if we were each looking at a completely different mural (this is like Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box). Of course, in that case, we’d all be blind to what everyone else sees. And at the end of the day, we’d all be tricking ourselves into believing that what we see is real.

The only reason our understandings of the world seem so real to us is because that’s what the mind does. It projects onto reality.

Anyway, Bob, I assume you’ll have more to say later. I look forward to your thoughts on the rest of my last post (and now you have to contend with this one. :smiling_imp: You’ve got your work cut out for you :smiley: ).

felix dakat:

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.

So you had a choice between Hell and Chaos. Lucky Americans! :smiley:

HumAnIze wrote:

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.

So how non-partisan are you trying to be, Humanize? And how successful are you at it? Do you believe yourself to be truly impartial, 50/50 on all issues political and social?

42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrHWzxSRR0k

These guys are the same opinion as I am. America is going down the path of colonialism, taking what they want. Of course, if Canada and Greenland vote to become further states of America, there will be no military involved, but already Russia media is saying that America has come around, and now they can do the same. The Baltic states and Europe can all we annexed to create the Russian Empire, and of course the freedoms of the West will be sacrificed, a new world order will split the world into three major blocks.

A world divided into such blocs aligns with some current trends in geopolitics. These blocs would likely exacerbate tensions, deepen competition, and potentially create spheres of influence akin to the Cold War, but with modern stakes like energy, AI, and climate control. Anyone who gets in the way will face the military might of those blocs. There may well be opposition, which will mean that in that case, there will be deaths.

There may still be a struggle over oil in the Middle East, but the way Trump is reacting, if they want it, they’ll take it, and only Russia and China will have a say in the matter. Oil politics have always been a flashpoint for conflict. With shifting energy priorities, the region’s significance may evolve, but as long as fossil fuels hold strategic value, control over Middle Eastern resources will remain contested.

Times of crisis in the U.S. (e.g., World War II, the post-9/11 era) have often seen a rise in collectivist rhetoric and policies, from rationing and conscription to the Patriot Act. While framed as necessary sacrifices, these measures have sometimes led to debates about overreach and the erosion of individual freedoms.

A shift toward strict collectivism, especially under the guise of addressing global crises like climate change or geopolitical instability, could parallel these historical moments, would become one of the biggest challenges in the West. A move toward strict collectivism could be a reaction to global crises requiring coordinated action. However, achieving a balance between collective needs and individual freedoms would be fraught, especially in societies in the West with entrenched values of personal liberty.

Trump is also re-writing history regarding Panama, and when the US gave back the canal, it was a gesture of good will. However, in the 19th century, the U.S. expanded its territory aggressively under the banner of Manifest Destiny, the belief that Americans were divinely destined to spread their values across the continent. This led to annexations (e.g., Texas, Oregon, California), the displacement of Indigenous peoples, and conflicts like the Mexican-American War. A world order based on military power risks endless conflict. Resistance movements—both domestic and international—could emerge to challenge perceived oppression, leading to prolonged instability.

Well, if we were to pay reparations to the estimated value of what had been taken from former colonies, it would break every economy that was involved. Therefore, I would say that it is not feasible. The symbolic gesture, if taken seriously enough, might appease former colonies. However, in view of the scenario I have painted above, former colonialists under the control of a power bloc are no longer able to decide either way. If Trump moves quickly, it will be all decided within a decade, including the elimination of resistance.

As a child I grew up in Malaya for three years and mixed with the villagers at the beach. The countries I’ve visited since then: Egypt (2x), Greece (several times), Turkey (I also had Turkish employees), Portugal, Spain (incl. the Canary Islands), Thailand (twice), Sri Lanka (three times), but I also live in Germany, travel to Britain and the Netherlands often, and occasionally Belgium, France and Norway. On my journeys, I have had many conversations with people hosting us but also with tourists from these places, including with Swedish, American and Canadian tourists. I also have friends from Africa, specifically from Ghana and Namibia.

If I take your words at face value, we can’t trust ourselves, no matter how much evidence we have, to know anything, which is rather silly. You must grant me enough good sense to discern and look up claims made on site.

Also, coming from an evidence-based profession, I can assure you that I appreciate that some of it is anecdotal, but books and news reports tend to confirm the stories we have heard. We have always preferred tours with personal guides who can tell us a bit more than the group guides, and they have brought us together with local villagers.

Your example may be suitable for people who are just onlookers, but for anyone who is listening rather than just hearing, and looking rather than just seeing, and discussing rather than just chatting, a more focused picture comes into view.