Statement about Solway and Trump

[David Quinn]

Eric,

This view seems to completely disregard the fact that the Russian economy is, at the present moment, less than one-thirtieth (!) of the combined economies of Europe, the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Australia. (Of course I am not including other economies in Asia). Furthermore, Russia grossly mismanaged the Sochi Olympics. Russia has wasted money on a useless spaceport near Vladivostok. In addition, the invasion into Chechnya was operated with a shoestring budget using new para-military tactics because the Russian military is under-funded and has out-of-date equipment. And somehow, despite all of their recent bungling, they are the masterminds behind the destabilization of the West. Wait, I thought the Chinese were behind it all? Or was it the Islamic Fundamentalists? Or was it the gays with the Gay Agenda? Is it an internal plot by the CIA to hide their knowledge of alien technology? Or was it the Zionists? Was it the International Banking Cartel? Oh yes, I think it’s all tied together by the Frankfurt School of neo-Marxism. Is that right? I just can’t keep my conspiracy theories straight. Maybe they are all true.

As the Politico article points out, it is precisely because the Russian economy is faring so poorly that Putin has poured so much energy into sowing confusion and chaos in every sphere he can. It is a cheap, affordable way for him to maintain a significant presence on the international stage. Russia no longer has the wealth to be a superpower, hence it has to resort to guerrilla tactics. Since Putin and his cronies are all ex-KGB they have the expertise to make it work.

While it might be true that Russia tries to create psy-ops campaigns against other countries, it is highly implausible that they are capable of destabilizing the entirety of Western civilization, not to mention the fact that since the era of Peter the Great they have tried to become increasingly Western themselves (albeit with fits and starts).

I agree that they wouldn’t be able to do it on their own, nor would they be able to do it in normal times when the West is operating with confidence. But these are not normal times, and the West is experiencing a crisis of faith. In such circumstances, the Russian influence can be amplified.

One of the more interesting snippets that I picked up from the HyperNormalization film was the existence of a Russian propagandist called Vladislav Surkov. I don’t know how much of it is believable, but it does give some insight into the sort of high-level strategies that the Russians are capable of.

[David Quinn]

What does Kevin (an Australian), Diebert (a Dutchman) and jupiviv (an Indian) have in common, besides being members of this forum? Well, they have all spent the last few years immersing themselves in alternative politics and visiting alternative sites,

That's where your analysis already breaks down. None of the sites Kevin is associated with or Jup have listed were even known to me, perhaps in name.

Given that the tactic of sowing confusion and misinformation has become such a significant part of Putin’s international strategy, it is easy to conceive that he has built up a large army of operatives able to work at many different sites.

I look at the film that you recommended, HyperNormalization (the premise of which, coincidentally, came from a Russian writer), a film that drives home a dystopian message of confusion and chaos and a sense of immanent collapse, and I look at your overall message in this thread that describes a dysfunctional, hyper-complex Western system on its last knees, and it all seems to dovetail neatly into the narrative being pushed by the Russians.

This trying to label, catalogue and lump everything you oppose together to make it easier to digest is the bigger problem. It might prevent people to understand what they're talking about. It's easy to point out idiocy and inconsistency in others after all.

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this repeated pattern of pro-Putin love/anti-West hate that I see in the Russians, in Trump, in many of Trump's supporters and in a number of people on this forum. On the surface at least, it all hangs together a bit too well to be a coincidence.

[David Quinn]

Hi GetoriksII,

I live near O'Hare International Airport of Chicago, IL, U.S.A. I have seen first hand the reactions of my fellow American citizens to this Trump character. He is tremendously unpopular and disliked.

But then I'm guessing that you can travel a few miles into the next district and there everyone thinks Trump is the greatest being since Jesus Christ. The country seems incredibly polarized.

Regarding Trump in particular, and the world breakdown crisis of humane civilized decency into dog-eat-dog barbaric criminality, we must promote rational optimism. The danger is very real, but the masses do have Plato, Machiavelli, Confucius, and others to guide them through the coming days. Our love of truth must always outweigh our hatred of falseness, or we too may become dupes.

Totally agree. The key solution to entangling ourselves from this whole fiasco lies with our placing even more value on truth and rationality than ever before. This applies to each and every one of us. It applies to the journalists who need to ensure that their reporting is at a very high level. It applies to the judges who need to use the law properly to ensure that the Trump administration does not trample over the constitution. It applies to the average person who needs to keep believing in the validity of science and factual knowledge and constructive, cooperative engagement. And it applies to us as philosophers, who need to make sure that we don't get befuddled by the post-truth mayhem, that we maintain a firm grasp on absolute truth. All of us as individuals need to promote the importance of truth in any way that we can.

Below are three authors well worth your time. Each has their own flaws and limitations, of course. Despite that, all are tremendously insightful and informative. They have made great transformations in their lives and tend to avoid getting led into a cunningly crafted ideology or movement which panders to their unconsciousness and their emotional habits and attachments.

I’ll be interested to see your list.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Given that the tactic of sowing confusion and misinformation has become such a significant part of Putin’s international strategy, it is easy to conceive that he has built up a large army of operatives able to work at many different sites.

Again you seem to assign near supernatural powers to an entity trying to explain a phenomenon you (and many) are at a loss to describe in any other terms. Should we, as philosophers, not have higher standards?

I look at the film that you recommended, HyperNormalization (the premise of which, coincidentally, came from a Russian writer), a film that drives home a dystopian message of confusion and chaos and a sense of immanent collapse, and I look at your overall message in this thread that describes a dysfunctional, hyper-complex Western system on its last knees, and it all seems to dovetail neatly into the narrative being pushed by the Russians.

But the documentary was made by the BBC, aired exclusively by the BBC. So now the BBC is victim of those Russians too? Instead you think it's evidence I read Breitbart or similar! You need to wise up, David. Did you leave your brain at the golf course? ;-)

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this repeated pattern of pro-Putin love/anti-West hate that I see in the Russians, in Trump, in many of Trump's supporters and in a number of people on this forum. On the surface at least, it all hangs together a bit too well to be a coincidence.

Lets all get to the bottom of what lies at the core of the division. Mind you, I'd probably agree with you that Russia aims to amplify the discord and weaken the Western alliances. But that doesn't explain the origins of these widening fractures and divisions within Western society. To pave over it with easy answers and maintain that's it just a degree of dumbness or anger growing as some dark storm cloud is way too convenient and low on fact.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To me, the analysis of socio-political structures in society is functionally little more than an intellectual hobby. That it makes for a numbing patter among the conference cocktail circuit and peels the panties off naive liberal women who like to hobnob with the upper-class intelligentsia is another matter altogether in its favor, from a careerist point of view.

And yet it doesn't stop you from analysing and opining on socio-political structures or society. Or analysing even all the other analysis! There's a weird contradiction there which you should try to explain.

That’s the problem with the Hegelian study of the theory of these structures. There is no way to measure when they strengthen or weaken, nor when they come into or out of existence. There is no model, in a rational sense of the idea of a model, of future structures that we might move into or avoid depending upon human decisions.

Something Adam Curtis could have said! Sadly enough we know now it's Russian infiltration by the BBC, by the logic of David supplied above.

As an intellectual exercise, it’s quite a bit of wasted energy that could have otherwise been diverted into rational thinking. What these models devolve into are simply narratives, and nothing more, upon which to propose current political solutions to problems that are deemed urgent or necessary.

Because we, as a society, refuse to resolve to dedicate ourselves to philosophy, in its absence we only have politics.

That's a interesting model you have there your self. But luckily we can dismiss it as wasted energy and ineffective intellectual hobby. Done! Yahoo!

[Eric Schiedler]

David,
I agree that they wouldn’t be able to do it on their own, nor would they be able to do it in normal times when the West is operating with confidence. But these are not normal times, and the West is experiencing a crisis of faith. In such circumstances, the Russian influence can be amplified.

One of the more interesting snippets that I picked up from the HyperNormalization film was the existence of a Russian propagandist called Vladislav Surkov. I don’t know how much of it is believable, but it does give some insight into the sort of high-level strategies that the Russians are capable of.

It becomes difficult to measure if it is the propaganda or the zeitgeist. After all, there are a lot of other media outlets who are trying to get their message out. It seems difficult to determine exactly where the others failed or succeeded in spite of the fact that the conversation turned to Russia. The fact that the conversation is focused on Russia will make for an effective historical narrative. On the other hand, it does seem worthwhile to see if several people, on the individual level, are falling into the same trap, as it can make for an interesting discussion of why their attention has focused in that direction.

[Eric Schiedler]

Diebert,
And yet it doesn't stop you from analysing and opining on socio-political structures or society. Or analysing even all the other analysis! There's a weird contradiction there which you should try to explain.

It depends on your definition of model or structure. If by model or structure, you mean the post-Hegel structure that is claimed to be scientific and predictive, then I think it is a poor model. Making observations of part of human activity, or rather, the activity of a common type of individual, is not a model in this sense because I don’t claim it is scientific nor predictive. Ultimately it comes down to what you value. If you want to get into modern politics, then it is worthwhile to discuss these models because you have to talk about them - it becomes a meta-conversation. That’s why I do not value in participating in them. There are people who want to use them and be called philosophers but they are doing politics or writing history, they’re not philosophers striking out for truth in my view.

Having said all of that, if you want to argue that the liberal establishment failed to stop the rise of Trump (and Brexit and other alt-right groups across Europe) and has largely mismanaged its time in power then you won’t get a disagreement from me.

[jupiviv]

Making observations of part of human activity, or rather, the activity of a common type of individual, is not a model in this sense because I don’t claim it is scientific nor predictive.

Why make those observations then?

If you want to get into modern politics, then it is worthwhile to discuss these models because you have to talk about them - it becomes a meta-conversation. There are people who want to use them and be called philosophers but they are doing politics or writing history, they’re not philosophers striking out for truth in my view.

But philosophers may strike out for the truth and find socio-political issues. It's impossible to be wise yet avoid applying one's wisdom to something as ubiquitous as the society one dwells in.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It depends on your definition of model or structure. If by model or structure, you mean the post-Hegel structure that is claimed to be scientific and predictive, then I think it is a poor model.

There's no serious social theorist, as far as I know, who claims their theories to be scientific and predictive. They're not meant like that, not even with academics. And yet there can be value in theorizing, formal or informal. There are of course fields which do try to follow a more scientific and predicative aspect, especially with modern computer involved. Someone like Adam Curtis has tackled that subject a few times in various documentaries and shows their influence (and the errors following). And you'd find some of that in sociobiology, various economical models, system theory and perhaps ecology

Having said all of that, if you want to argue that the liberal establishment failed to stop the rise of Trump (and Brexit and other alt-right groups across Europe) and has largely mismanaged its time in power then you won’t get a disagreement from me.

Well, it's certainly not their task to stop others, although some in the liberal establishment believe it's up to them to change, stop and develop all poor of mind and means. But my interest is in enlarging the understanding of the social dynamics which causes people, of various background and mental capacity, to form political movements aimed at radical changes in the fields of immigration, foreign policy and cultural discrimination. Anyone who still believes the fairy tale that such movements are filled with "dumb" people is just not getting yet what's happening. It's the same "look away" policy that gave Trump the victory, which would have been way bigger if his personality wasn't so abrasive and his brain less scattered.

[Eric Schiedler]

Jupiviv,

Making observations of part of human activity, or rather, the activity of a common type of individual, is not a model in this sense because I don’t claim it is scientific nor predictive.

Why make those observations then?

The goal of a genius is to be able to encompass all other beings. This begins with observations in a subjective manner.

If you want to get into modern politics, then it is worthwhile to discuss these models because you have to talk about them - it becomes a meta-conversation. There are people who want to use them and be called philosophers but they are doing politics or writing history, they’re not philosophers striking out for truth in my view.

But philosophers may strike out for the truth and find socio-political issues. It's impossible to be wise yet avoid applying one's wisdom to something as ubiquitous as the society one dwells in.

If a wise man decides that the best use of their wisdom is to participate in politics, then it is wise. As an example, Socrates spent his time during the Peloponnesian War talking to people in Athens about their reasons for conducting the war. As a modern example, Zizek conducts interviews about politics. However, he gets very upset when people accuse him of deconstructing the truth and not speaking the truth. He claims that he is for the truth in a post-truth world but never seems to define what truth is nor buttonholes people for their definition of the truth. Instead he wants to talk about his theories. I'd find him much more interesting if he ran for office instead of calling himself a philosopher.

[Eric Schiedler]

Diebert,

But my interest is in enlarging the understanding of the social dynamics which causes people, of various background and mental capacity, to form political movements aimed at radical changes in the fields of immigration, foreign policy and cultural discrimination.

If you find it wise to spend your time on it, I’d like to hear your observations of the outcome of your efforts after some time.

Anyone who still believes the fairy tale that such movements are filled with "dumb" people is just not getting yet what's happening. It's the same "look away" policy that gave Trump the victory, which would have been way bigger if his personality wasn't so abrasive and his brain less scattered.

Speaking only for myself, my position has never been that I observe Trump supporters to be “dumb”, or “uniquely dumb” in some way that other voters are not stupid. My position is that the core of Trump supporters are not dumb as they can readily point to flaws in elite institutions, but rather they are emotional because reality is not meeting their expectations. And Trump is successful precisely because his personality is what it is; his core supporters like that he is a pure, distilled, talented version of the modern media figure and all politicians rely on a core base to gain momentum in an election. These core Trump supporters are like consumers who avidly proclaim that they want to buy the product they are buying and they point to his personality as a primary motivation, so I’m inclined to believe them.

[jupiviv]

The goal of a genius is to be able to encompass all other beings. This begins with observations in a subjective manner.

What's the use of a subjective observation? Unless there is some possibility for duplication you're likely daydreaming. When observing patterns in history and comparing them to present events, for example, you have to refer to accepted sources. Even in the case of judging character, there has to be something already there that can be recognised in oneself through introspection.

If a wise man decides that the best use of their wisdom is to participate in politics, then it is wise.

Yes, a wise man's decision is wise, and vice versa. If another wise man decides that the decision of the wise man in question isn't wise, then neither is the wise man in question wise. And of course, the other wise man can also be unwise. It comes down to the individual's judgment. I find David's floundering about in Trumpland to be very foolish, for instance.

These core Trump supporters are like consumers who avidly proclaim that they want to buy the product they are buying and they point to his personality as a primary motivation, so I’m inclined to believe them.

Yes, as I think I've pointed out before Trump is a pro fake wrestling champion. He even nominated WWE star Vince McMahon's wife to the department of small business administration.

Trump is substantially like all the other modern, post-WW2 US presidents; he has a different (not necessarily better or worse) *personal* style which is driving a lot of people nuts. Outside of (non)conforming to fashion, there isn't a whole lot for American presidents do since they are figureheads and not dictators. This is why they all spend so much time playing golf. Certainly Trump has broken the law, has been/is a money launderer, has spent his whole life associated with gangsters etc.

Put that in perspective: Trump has routinely sailed in waters that most others, including those in law enforcement, steer out of. Trump’s associates live their lives in high relief, unlike Congressmen or newspaper editors, they are not concerned with elections (popularity contests); they solve their disputes the old-fashioned way. That Trump has thrived in this environment is indicative; he is not literate; he's a crude parvenu. But he is canny and has good survival skills. Those skills and the ruthlessness that run along with them are why he was voted for in the first place.

[David Quinn]

Given that the tactic of sowing confusion and misinformation has become such a significant part of Putin’s international strategy, it is easy to conceive that he has built up a large army of operatives able to work at many different sites.

Again you seem to assign near supernatural powers to an entity trying to explain a phenomenon you (and many) are at a loss to describe in any other terms. Should we, as philosophers, not have higher standards?

I don't see how I am ascribing supernatural powers to anyone. We already know that the Russians are involved in all forms of cyber-warfare - whether it be hacking, industrial espionage, election interference, social media trolling, etc. And we know that they have long been involved in a sustained campaign of sowing confusion and misinformation. So it is no great leap to suppose that they could be engaging in a large-scale anti-Western propaganda campaign.

It is understandable that you and jupiviv are resistant to the notion and are mocking me for it, and indeed I could be way off base. But come on, it is nowhere near as fanciful as the two of you are trying to make out.

Also, don't forget that the anti-Western narrative that the Russians are pushing is corrosive by nature. It is not one that has to pushed relentlessly with great effort. It is like a cancer. If you wanted to kill someone with cancer, you don't have to set about trying to individually infect thousands of different cells in different parts of the body. You only have to inject it into one particular area and allow it to spread of its own accord.

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this repeated pattern of pro-Putin love/anti-West hate that I see in the Russians, in Trump, in many of Trump's supporters and in a number of people on this forum. On the surface at least, it all hangs together a bit too well to be a coincidence.

Lets all get to the bottom of what lies at the core of the division. Mind you, I'd probably agree with you that Russia aims to amplify the discord and weaken the Western alliances. But that doesn't explain the origins of these widening fractures and divisions within Western society.

I agree with this, and I said as much to Eric. But even taking this into account, I've still yet to hear an explanation from you and jupiviv as to why there is this sudden widespread love for Putin and Russia. I'm all ears.

[jimhaz]

I don’t actually have anything of value to add, and I'm not on top of the arguments, so really l am just chatting away below and saying hi.

All three of us think you are wrong, therefore we are all brainwashed by KGB propaganda? Not only is this paranoid, but you are effectively calling us stupid for trusting what you deem to be Russian propaganda]

You can add me to that list. Maybe you and Juppie just have too great a love of being contrarian.

I have a friend who is also on Putin’s side, stating that he is just being resistant to NATO build ups close to Russian borders and the takeover of Crimea was desired by the inhabitants due to a primarily being Russia. Also a Clinton hater.

I acknowledge that, but immediately discount it as Putin has set himself up for a cold war scenario by becoming the same old dictator type the USSR had, in modernised form. I just think he wants the old pre-break countries under the Russian thumb again. He also has upped the GDP spend on Russian military for a decade until recently. 1000 of his actions and his personality type point to him being only interested in manipulation for his entertainment – so the “I’m only defending Russia from NATO, just like any other country would do” never holds any water for me.

All his info comes from sites that appear more or less pro-Russian AND his own love of conspiracy theories. I don’t bother researching for info as there is nothing in me that will allow me to trust the information on those sites.

Sometimes he is correct such as in the case of Japan and Fukushima cover-ups, but overdoes it as for instance he advised his sister on the California coast to move due to radiation dangers from Atlantic ocean and atmospheric flows. It is sort of cry wolf problem – he could have been right, as far as I can see Fukushima is still incredibly dangerous and is still being destructive – but as he has history of being a drama queen no-one will ever really heed his advice.

This fellow has always been a contrarian IF it relates to information he has located. 30 years ago he was rabbiting on about 666. Perhaps now we have the internet these natural contrarians enjoy utilising the various alternative sources purely for attention seeking. We all love it when we are the first to mention something others are not aware of….I mean isn’t that what philosophy is all about! (not so tongue in cheek that comment).

The far left and SJW’s never place any blame on Russia – it always the fault of the US entirely. My resistance to this claptrap does not induce me to even research the contrarian viewpoint on Putin/Russia. To be honest I don’t care if the overarching US strategy for the last two decades is to purposely act as a catalyst for trouble in Muslim countries – it keeps them poor. To have a wide array of Muslims with the resources for big time military or imperialistic endeavours concerns me.

As to my own contrarian madness, I’d be very susceptible to a theory that said they were just playing good cop / bad cop. I just hope the muslim issue was not public fear replacement after the Cold War –although there is also a case for keeping the masses a little fearful otherwise the west would become too soft.

Also, don't forget that the anti-Western narrative that the Russians are pushing is corrosive by nature. It is not one that has to pushed relentlessly with great effort. It is like a cancer. If you wanted to kill someone with cancer, you don't have to set about trying to individually infect thousands of different cells in different parts of the body. You only have to inject it into one particular area and allow it to spread of its own accord

Much like the anti-GW lobbyists sponsored by fossil fuel companies or the old 'smoking is good for you' advertisements.

[jupiviv]

I acknowledge that, but immediately discount it as Putin has set himself up for a cold war scenario by becoming the same old dictator type the USSR had, in modernised form. I just think he wants the old pre-break countries under the Russian thumb again. He also has upped the GDP spend on Russian military for a decade until recently. 1000 of his actions and his personality type point to him being only interested in manipulation for his entertainment – so the “I’m only defending Russia from NATO, just like any other country would do” never holds any water for me.

Here's the thing - I don't really care about what "holds water" for you, and most probably neither does anyone else posting here. I care about cogent points backed up by evidence. The quoted paragraph isn't so much an argument as it is a string of wild accusations held together by words, and the same applies to the rest of your post.

[jupiviv]

We already know that the Russians are involved in all forms of cyber-warfare - whether it be hacking, industrial espionage, election interference, social media trolling, etc.

"We" know no such thing. Besides, only one of those things can be described as an act of war, i.e. election interference. The US has interfered in the governments and election processes of many countries. For example in Haiti, after dictator and US crony Duvalier was overthrown and replaced by Aristide. A google search with "us haiti aristide" led me to a report by the NY Times of all papers, back in the days when it was respectable:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/14/world ... wanted=all

The US also interfered in the Russian elections in the 90s, although I don't have time to find links.

What proof of Russian interference in the US elections do you have?

But even taking this into account, I've still yet to hear an explanation from you and jupiviv as to why there is this sudden widespread love for Putin and Russia. I'm all ears.

Not wishing conflict with a country, or challenging politicised and ideologically motivated portrayals of that country's leader, aren't indications of "love". More like sanity, which has clearly taken its leave of you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The US also interfered in the Russian elections in the 90s, although I don't have time to find links.

• According to research by political scientist Dov Levin, the US and the USSR/Russia together intervened no less than 117 times in foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, or “one out of every nine competitive, national-level executive elections”. (...)
  
  To the horror of the west, Yeltsin’s popularity nosedived to the point where a communist triumph in the 1996 presidential elections could not be ruled out. (...) in the run-up to the election, Russia was granted a huge US-backed IMF loan that – as the New York Times noted at the time – was “expected to be helpful to President Boris N Yeltsin in the presidential election”.
  
  Yeltsin relied on US political strategists – including a former aide to Bill Clinton – who had a direct line back to the White House. When Yeltsin eventually won, the cover of Time magazine was “Yanks to the rescue: The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win”. --sources

[jimhaz]

Here's the thing - I don't really care about what "holds water" for you, and most probably neither does anyone else posting here. I care about cogent points backed up by evidence. The quoted paragraph isn't so much an argument as it is a string of wild accusations held together by words, and the same applies to the rest of your post.

You've learnt nothing from here, but egotism.

When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master - to paraphrase Darth Vader

Of sucking your own mental cock, yep.

[Dan Rowden]

Hey Jimbo. Good to see you. I shan't be contributing further to this 'debate' but I welcome any contribution you care to make.

Sorry I lie - one last post showing Trump's utter disregard for reality and his quite apparent inability to parse anything other than through the filter of his own insane emotional nexus: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/p ... .html?_r=0

This sort of batshit in a POTUS can never be a benign thing.

[jupiviv]

Here's the thing - I don't really care about what "holds water" for you, and most probably neither does anyone else posting here. I care about cogent points backed up by evidence. The quoted paragraph isn't so much an argument as it is a string of wild accusations held together by words, and the same applies to the rest of your post.

You've learnt nothing from here, but egotism.

I've certainly learned it from you. You started the post with "I have nothing of value to add" and then proceeded to explain via an anecdote why your self-admitted animosity towards Putin/Russia is justified. But don't worry, Dan will welcome your future contributions!

[jupiviv]

Hey Jimbo. Good to see you. I shan't be contributing further to this 'debate' but I welcome any contribution you care to make.

Presumably polemical pearls such as this:

The far left and SJW’s never place any blame on Russia – it always the fault of the US entirely. My resistance to this claptrap does not induce me to even research the contrarian viewpoint on Putin/Russia. To be honest I don’t care if the overarching US strategy for the last two decades is to purposely act as a catalyst for trouble in Muslim countries – it keeps them poor. To have a wide array of Muslims with the resources for big time military or imperialistic endeavours concerns me.

So the far right is supporting Trump but not Putin, the far left Putin and Hillary but not Trump, and both are against Putin and the US. But I guess such is the nature of Russian "industrial espionage" as David so eloquently put it.

Sorry I lie - one last post showing Trump's utter disregard for reality and his quite apparent inability to parse anything other than through the filter of his own insane emotional nexus: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/p ... .html?_r=0

I don't even know what the point of that article is. To advertise a Jewish magazine and describe a single confused exchange between Trump and a reporter from that magazine? The reporter asked him what the government will do about "anti-semitism" after exonerating him from it. Why didn't he just ask what measures were being taken against the bomb threats? Not that Trump *added* any clarity - according to the given description - but it seemed like another attempt to paint Trump as being incompetent, idiotic etc.

Meanwhile: MSNBC Anchor says it is the media's job (and not Trump's) to "control exactly what people think".

[jimhaz]

[I shan't be contributing further to this 'debate' but I welcome any contribution you care to make]

Hi Dan, I’m afraid I’m just too lazy to do the necessary homework. Too little fire in the views these days, and David and you have already said pretty much all I would have thought on the matter.

As already mentioned, on geopolitical issues I have a significant problem with knowing what information to trust – just what the hell is the right context for valuing the information I might be reading!

So I more or less have to revert to gut feeling based on circumstantial evidence over the years and my judgments about the personalities of the US and Russian leadership teams. In addition how would I know whether the necessary underlying strategies are those that would do the least harm to the world - there are more layers than those stated on websites.

The one thing I am tired of is having to support the least worst dominator in politics, so neither Trump or Putin will ever receive anything but disbelief and disrespect from me.

[ME: As to my own contrarian madness, I’d be very susceptible to a theory that said they were just playing good cop / bad cop.]

I read a lot of fantasy. Some of the more dud storylines simply would not work if people just communicated. If Putin was serious about defending the homeland and avoiding unnecessary conflict or making Russia “relevant”, now they’ve dropped to 3rd place in the importance rankings, surely it would not be hard to reach an agreement wherein Russia agrees to no further territorial expansion. Instead he does things like trying to force Russian as the official Ukraine language as part of some peace deal.

Perhaps leaders are so egotistical and megalomaniac the arms manufacturers fear talkers have no trouble at all convincing them to be geopolitically aggressive.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don’t actually have anything of value to add, and I'm not on top of the arguments, so really l am just chatting away below and saying hi.

Hi Jimhaz/Jamesh. A bit of a self-deprecating re-introduction isn't it? Of course we all know a lot of pretence of the opposite will follow :-) Are you still posting mostly bored or do you feel actually engaged with a topic this time? Anyway, you should post a topic here that interests you and see what happens as this active Trump topic attracts a lot of visitors in need to swear allegiances to God, society or some moral or rational order which is supposed to still guide the world. Anyway, welcome back.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If Putin was serious about defending the homeland and avoiding unnecessary conflict or making Russia “relevant”, now they’ve dropped to 3rd place in the importance rankings, surely it would not be hard to reach an agreement wherein Russia agrees to no further territorial expansion.

I'd say they rose to the 3rd place despite taking a big hit on the already weakened (oil) economy, now because of sanctions. Their attempt to secure East Ukraine against an openly anti-Russian and war oriented non-elected government is from a defensive point of view a rational move.

Instead he does things like trying to force Russian as the official Ukraine language as part of some peace deal.[

Dude! It has always been that, it's the new post-coup government which was actually trying to remove it as official language. I'm not going to bother with links. It's always the people with the vapid "facts" who don't really want to enter any "debate" I suppose.

[jimhaz]

Hi Diebert

A bit of a self-deprecating re-introduction isn't it?
Are you still posting mostly bored or do you feel actually engaged with a topic this time?

I’ve not given the issue the level of thought you folks have, and haven’t followed the forum to know what has already been discussed.

I wrote this in response to Jup before leaving work, intending to add or improve it. It will do as an answer. So yes, still bored and not engaged.

“Fair enough. I was trying to avoid a hard core discussion by downplaying my own off the cuff views, as I am just not interested in proving anything. It is not something I can do anything about, so I refuse to become too invested or defensive about my own views - as tends to occur with extensive argument.

The to and fros you and Diebert seem to like are not for me – they become too academic, I don’t want to compete at the fine detail level.”

Of course we all know a lot of pretence of the opposite will follow :-)

I felt I needed some content, rather than just saying Hi….and then perhaps not posting again. Yes, David and Dan were the impetus. Their viewpoint and writing quality has always had great appeal to me.

Anyway, you should post a topic here that interests you and see what happens

That’s a problem, I don’t have any philosophic questions and require novelty to be interested.

It would seem this is a widespread phenomenon. What you say here pretty much sums me up.

“It's a bit like a "shallowing" of information and knowledge. But really a shallowing of perception and reason. This is linked to the good old truths as peddled on this forum: feminization in terms of multiplication of distraction, bombardment of senses, increasing anxieties while suppressing the effects, endless games of desire and gratification in the general void of any higher ideal or principle. Living in the now of consumption and sensation since the past and future look too depressing and confusing. The promotion of the new cow.”

Anyway, welcome back

Cheers. I probably lost interest in philosophical investigation a decade ago, so I’m not back. It would be nice to have the motivation to be engaged, but after mulling for ages over what to say in this post I can see it ain't going to happen. I’m fairly certain the core philosophy here helped me put aside depression and after that my very limited earnestness fell away. Even back then, relative to enlightenment I often referred to myself as a pretender. Judging by my attitude at present that is clearly the case.

Technology has become a curse. I really hoped that enough people would eventually get bored with the shallowness of the entertainment based world and look for something deeper, so that there could be a critical mass here at GF. I hate the feeling that my mind opening experience here was just a case of being around at the right time, early in the age of the internet.