Bob wrote:
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.
← Says the all seeing eye named Bob →
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.
← Who do you imagine these blocs being? The West (ruled by the US) and Russia seem obvious candidates, but do you see a Chinese empire being a third? Or do you predict they will join forces with Russia and become The New Chino-Russian Soviet Union of the 21st Century (I’m told Putin longs for the days of Soviet supremacy, in which case it would make sense to team up with China). What about the Middle East? Do you foresee them becoming a global super power, or will they just be divvied up as usual? →
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.
← I guess that answers my question. →
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.
← This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone. Mind you, I’d be cautious about lumping Trump together with the Dick Cheneys and the George Bushes of these eras as the latter were bedfellows with the deep state, whereas Trump is an outsider and, as Felix pointed out, kind of a wild card. He’s definitely “America First”, which may make him just as bad if not worse when it comes to foreign policy, but exactly how he goes about doing that is the unpredictable part and makes all the difference in the world (literally). →
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.
← This is where my cynicism shines through in all its glory: this balance is decided way more by the media than the people. This is what I saw after 9/11 in regards to the Patriot Act. The media consistently only showed Americans agreeing with the Patriot Act, saying they are willing to give up some freedoms for security, while hearing from Americans I talked to that hardly anyone agreed with this. Was the media trying to foster a sense of social pressure to go along with it? To convince the viewer that everyone else is on board with it, so why aren’t you? →
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.
It would be nice if the world could get along, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya around the fire, wouldn’t it Bob? But the only way that works is if everyone agrees all at once to drop their weapons and imperialistic ambitions. Until that day comes, the hard truth of the matter is that if you don’t move first, the other will. I don’t like this arrangement any more than you do Bob, but I like even less the idea of being conquered by Russia or China. If anyone’s gonna annex Canada, I’d prefer it be America. Yet I don’t think that justifies just sitting back and accepting the state of conflict between the powers that be–we do have to find a way to build that fire and sing Kumbaya–but it’s insanity to think the right strategy is to voluntarily be the first to do it and expect the rest of the world to respond in kind.
Bob wrote:
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.
So you are somewhat of a pragmatist, huh? If I can paraphrase your argument, you’re saying that reparations (in the form of money) would break the economy, in which case it wouldn’t help anyone (thus defeating the purpose). ← Is that last part warranted? Whereas symbolic gestures, carried out over a sufficiently extended period of time, by enough people, might effectively ease some of the anger and resentment the world has towards the West. An alternative might be reparations but at a rate that doesn’t break the bank–again, over an extended period of time–but I think this would lack the “heart” essential for the rest of the world to believe the West “means” it. Or maybe the collapse of our economy is exactly what we deserve–that’s kinda what we did to their economies, after all–so saying that reparations will break the economy is no excuse at all. ← So many approaches. Take your pick.
Bob wrote:
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 ← But you’re officially British, correct? → . 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.
Wow! Who am I to argue with such an extensive world traveler? I assume this has been over the course of many decades. Have you found that sentiments towards the West have changed over the years, or has it remained pretty consistent? And how do you go about gathering this information? Do you deliberately set out to be as scientific as you can, or is it more what you’ve gathered from casual conversations and happenstance encounters without the intention of doing a rigorous scientific analysis of the reports you get? (I guess I’m asking, are you gathering these reports actively or passively?)
Bob wrote:
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.
But focus has nothing to do with truth. The most brainwashed among us has experienced a particular picture “coming into focus” at some point. But I appreciate your concerns, so let me address them.
As you know (because you contributed to it), I have a Theory of Consciousness. This is the background from which I come. It renders a picture of the world much like the Matrix, except that instead of being plugged into machines, we are plugged into nature. Instead of a metallic cable gouged in the back of our heads, we have light “gouging” our eyes and creating an image on our retina. All we know is the image we’re given by this “matrix”. We have no right to say whether or not this image is a faithful match of what’s really out there. It might be exactly what we see, but it might also be the literal matrix.
Yet, I don’t think this makes the image false. Rather, it means there’s a schism between realities–the inner mental reality of our experiences, and the outer reality from which our experiences come–both 100% perfectly real. But in the case of the image, this reality is trivial. It is real only because it is experienced (this is Berkeley’s esse es percipi). And that makes anything one experiences real, including one’s beliefs and opinions. For me, this makes it too trivial to take an interest in–it’s true because I believe it? Really?–and so I want to know the outer reality. That is, I want to know what from the outer reality matches what from the inner reality and, perhaps more interestingly, what doesn’t match anything in either reality. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is not only challenging, but impossible.
But as far as the inner reality goes, that I do know. If experience carries within it it’s own reality, it’s own being, then I know my experiences are real right off the bat (again, trivially). So at least I know that.
Now, when it comes to hearsay, I draw the line. Even hearsay as it exists in my mind–as what I heard, as an idea someone planted in my head–I draw a line. Hearsay isn’t true simply by default. Hearsay requires (so to speak) your “permission” to be true. You have to choose to believe it (or disbelieve it) before it becomes either true or false in your mind, and in my mind, the bar is set extremely high for what counts as “true”. Essentially, I think knowledge is a myth. Knowledge… the perfect apprehension, the perfect revelation, of truth. Insight that, once beheld, cannot be wrong. Well, I’m sorry, but one can always be wrong–even about 2 + 2 equaling 4–Descartes proved that 400 years ago. That is, at least, with respect to the “truth” outer there.
This is where the mural metaphor comes in. We “put together” our visions of the world from the pieces we gather of our experiences of the world, and once we learn language, from hearsay too. These are all building blocks that come together in constructing our beliefs and insights on the world, our understandings and comprehensions of the world, what we think we know, and it all gets superimposed on the canvas of our consciousness–the mural. We can’t get beyond it. The best we can do is approximate to the best of our ability, given the building blocks we’ve gathered, what the evidence tells us is out there, and paint that on our murals. But direct verification–the classic idea of knowledge–is impossible.
Now, I will give you credit–your experience and evidence gathered over a life time of worldly travels and meeting people–especially if consistent as you say–does give you a leg up. Consistency in the stories and reports you’ve heard from others all over the world, particularly in regards to what they think of America and the West, deserves serious consideration. But note that this doesn’t make it any less a mural–it’s just one that’s likely (more likely than others) to be a good match of what’s out there.
Yet there are hurdles to overcome even with your mural–at least for me. I haven’t had your experiences, so to me, your stories will always be hearsay. Which opens me to question your claims on various fronts. How much interpretation to you layer over your facts, for example. How good is your memory? And how easily can you be deceived? How easily is your thinking clouded by your biases and prejudices (yes, Bob, we all have them)? How scientifically are you gathering your data (the question I asked above)? How do I know you’re not just some practical joker online completely making this shit up? Or a Chinese operative being paid to convince Westerners on the internet that their country and history suck in an attempt to lower morale? How do I know you’re not a sophisticated AI bot like Iambiguous? Or even, am I misinterpreting you? For the most part, I find it easy to take your word for it (most of it), so I don’t really doubt the authenticity of your stories, or choose to argue with you over them, but the only thing I know for sure, is that they’re your stories. Until I can get all the questions above (and more) answered, it remains just Bob’s story.
This is where faith comes in. If I’ve abandoned knowledge, what else is there? I have to go on with life, so I fall back on faith, believing the things that “seem” true to me.
I will say this, however. Whereas I don’t doubt your stories, and I see the significance of their implications, there are other areas you’ve failed miserably to establish credibility with me. Siting Project 2025 for example… everyone knows–everyone–that’s been debunked. But like I said, that’s only obvious if your tuning into the right media outlets–to others, it’s totally hidden from you–and so we paint different murals and yell at each other for not seeing what’s obviously right in front of each of us. While your mural has some merit, I also see its flaws.
Besides the Project 2025 thing, for instance, there’s your claim that “Israel killed anyone who challenged the idea of Israeli expansion”. ← This is an extraordinary claim which requires… you know what. The same goes for the use of the word “annex” in regards to Greenland, Canada, Panama, and even Mexico (you did call Trump’s intentions to wage ware on the Mexican cartel an “invasion”–even if he gets the support of the Mexican government, I guess). ← You do know that these are layers upon layers of interpretation over top the facts, right? You do know how to make the distinction, right? Even if you meant to be hyperbolic, it doesn’t look good coming from someone who expects to be taken seriously as simply reporting the “facts”. If you actually strip away these interpretive layers and stick to just the facts–Trump is suggesting Canada becomes the 51st state, wanting to put military bases on Greenland, wanting to seize the Panama Canal (not Panama), wanting to wage war on the Mexican Cartel (not Mexico)–this all sounds like regular Presidential stuff. It sounds like business as usually for a (somewhat brazen) American president. And again, if you think of it in terms of Trump’s goals (the 5 I listed in the OP, at the very least), it all makes perfect sense. So even if you can’t peel away the layers of interpretation over top the facts, note that I can.
In any case, we have yet to discuss my points about Western nations expanding their influence beyond their borders vs. Western nations making life bearable within their borders. Could it be a matter of simply applying the law as it stands within the borders in a similar way outside the borders? Easier said than done, I realize, but as a pragmatist, I wonder how open you would be to a technical/practical solution such as this. Or do you believe that the laws of Western nations as they are applied within are just as contemptable as the tyranny and brutality of the West upon nations and peoples outside its borders has been?
You’ve got your work cut out for you 
).
, you think he’s a tyrant too? How can I convince you guy’s he’s not? How 'bout this: he gave Canada a reprieve! We don’t have to pay tariffs until April 1st. Gives us a chance to clean up our act (not really enough time in my opinion, but I’ll take what I can get). You see, guys, he has mercy. He has compassion. And I don’t think this would have happened if it weren’t for our kick-ass premier Danielle Smith who (I’m sure) softened Trump up during her visit to Mar-a-Lago a couple weeks ago. And now that Trudeau is on the way out (yay!), we’ll be holding federal elections in a few months, at which point we will be introducing to the world Canada’s version of Donald Trump: Pierre Poilievre! The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada! Don’t worry… he’s like Trump but polite 
. And he knows economics. He’s sort of on the same “common sense” trend that Trump is on. And he’ll fix the problems with our US border, which should appease Trump. Then the only question is, was the Canada/US border issue really the only issue? Because Trump did boast about how wonderful tariffs are because of how much revenue they generate. Will Trump, the America first guy, really sacrifice revenue just because Canada delivered on her promise to tighten up the border? We’ll see (he might have to if the impact to the American economy is as dire as they’re forecasting).