Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:Waging war on the intelligence services is a bold, high-risk strategy on Trump’s part, but it is one that he has to undertake if he going to succeed in installing a police state. Gaining control of the intelligence services is a must. For their part, the intelligence services utterly despise Trump and see him for the mentally-ill, wannabe dictator that he is, and they are doing everything they can to prevent him from succeeding in his hostile take-over of the country. Michael Flynn is a casualty of this war.
There are different perspective possible without assigning an IQ of 30 to Trump. We're talking about someone going to Washington announcing that he's going to challenge the whole establishment, "draining the swamp' and so on. Now such a radical change sure will need a police state or state of emergency if it would create a revolt. But to some extent that is now happening but nobody want to destabilize the country. So all efforts are done through media, reports, rumour and delegitimization.

As I said before, the methods to depose of Trump and limit his powers are already signs of a police state ruled by intelligence agencies. They are no signs of democracy where voters can decide which crazy road to take. A police state is the one where some elite thinks they have the keys to the kingdom. In the old Soviet state they diagnosed you with mental disorders if you openly doubted the rationality and logic of the communist system. And then sent to a camp for re-education. Whatever such system can be called, certainly that only happens in a land which has lost not only its marbles but also its freedoms.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert,
You seem to attribute as many negative attributes to him as his fans might be heaping up the praise. He's so many things, so many labels! To be all that, and so cunning and deceiving, so manipulative as you are implying, he must have superman powers!
No, it is more the case that he is a very unusual person who is thriving in a very unusual set of circumstances. With over two decades of the internet now behind us, with the predominance of social media and tailored news, with the cynicism and jadedness of many people (including yourself), the awful hullabaloo over Obama (the evil black foreign Muslim!), the hysteria over Clinton and her emails, the alarm of white communities terrified over losing their privileged status in an increasingly global environment, decades of Republican conspiracy theories and fake news, etc, etc - all of these things have come together to produce a perfect storm and create the conditions for a conniving bullshit artist like Trump to prosper.

So many people, for whatever reason, are aiding Trump in this regard, including jaded intellectuals who really should know better.

It would be unnatural at least. And that's exactly the interesting thing about him: your reaction and that of the liberal, feminine, political correct, equality loving and those overly attached to some "reasonable" image. Sometimes his most vocal enemies make me want to side with Trump.
And in doing that, you would be playing into the hands of the Trump/Breitbart propaganda machine.

It isn’t just the feminine and politically correct types who oppose Trump. Virtually everyone who is intellectually competent is in opposition to him. No matter what the field - military, science, intelligence, medicine, psychiatry, academic - the most renowned experts in all walks of life are united in their view that Trump is dangerously delusional and unfit for office.

Here is a clip from Sam Harris, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yBGE80covk

Diebert, if hatred of a particular group of people is causing you to want to side with a lunatic who lives in a fact-free world, then there is something seriously amiss.

And perhaps you should also consider who is shouting the loudest against The Donald. Why side with those obvious products of the feminization of society?
It’s all relative. As much as I dislike the feminization of society, it is preferable to having a dangerously unstable lunatic create an authoritarian state steeped in hate and fear.

I also don't like cooking, but it is preferable to starving to death. It doesn't mean I get turned on by celebrity chefs.

You write as if Trump never said anything wise. But there are a couple of things I find impressive. First his strong efforts to stress he wants to get along with Russia in a times where everyone tries to do exactly the opposite.

Is that really his wisdom, though? Or is because he has debts to Russian financiers and other such dubious ties? If it is the latter, then how can it be a good thing? If the Russians have a dark hold over a dangerously unstable man like Trump, then how will a closer alliance between them possibly serve the interests of the rest of us?

Come on, Diebert, get a grip. And you call me a romantic.

And all the Tweets, the gossip, the character traits of one guy, it just doesn't worry me that much although I cringe just as well. But all the focus on a skilled show man I find mostly old wife's gossips. And all those fears it will ruin or wreck the world: all void and meaningless. We've been there already too many times before.
The trouble with being jaded by the past is that it can blind one to the present. One is hemmed in on all sides by rusted-on assumptions.

Perhaps young Jup is right though and are you just talking like an older Aussie with a romantic out-of date view of the wider world where somewhat rational forces still organize everything. Or you refuse to believe that politics has become a show, a make belief, of a world which has already passed. All the clowns and narcissists we see now are perhaps just our own, Western, ideological mirror images?
You’re not making any sense. You were saying earlier that you supported Russia on the basis that they are being the most rational in world affairs. So do you still value the idea of our using rational forces to organize the world or not?

We, as human beings, create order from the chaos of Nature. We impose our man-made structures upon the world because they make our lives more comfortable and free of care. Is this something you are now against? Is it suddenly old-fashioned to want to live in an ordered society which enables everyone, including thinkers, to pursue their interests to the utmost? Are you advocating pure anarchy? Do you want us to go back and live in the caves? Are you bored with life?

Or you refuse to believe that politics has become a show, a make belief, of a world which has already passed. All the clowns and narcissists we see now are perhaps just our own, Western, ideological mirror images?

To my mind, this has always been the case. Democratic politics has always been a make-believe show. The strings of politicians have always been pulled by powerbrokers in the background. I don't see how today is any different.

As I said before, the methods to depose of Trump and limit his powers are already signs of a police state ruled by intelligence agencies. They are no signs of democracy where voters can decide which crazy road to take. A police state is the one where some elite thinks they have the keys to the kingdom. In the old Soviet state they diagnosed you with mental disorders if you openly doubted the rationality and logic of the communist system. And then sent to a camp for re-education. Whatever such system can be called, certainly that only happens in a land which has lost not only its marbles but also its freedoms.
Those who work for the intelligence services are required by oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Thus, if they perceive that Trump and his cohorts are threatening to ride roughshod over the Constitution and the democratic institutions of America, then they are duty bound to act against him. This has nothing to do with being a police state. It is one branch of government safe-guarding the interests of the wider population.

Of course, I am not saying that everyone who works in the intelligence services is a saint or that malpractices within these departments should be tolerated. Not at all. However, sane people in all walks of life - whether they be spies, or journalists, or academics, or scientists, or philosophers - are duty bound to oppose evil when they see it.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:
DQ: A quick search reveals that he has flip-flopped between Republican and Democratic positions his whole life.

Jup: As have most people, including politicians. The point is that Trump isn't an ideologue, which is what you (contradictorily) claim he is.
He is definitely not an ideologue. And yet he lives in a fact-free environment. The correct term for him is bullshit artist.
He is that, definitely. But even bullshit artists can tell the truth. I take issue with your idea of him as a lunatic usurper of a "relaxed, common sense" government. For example:
I haven’t heard him utter a single truth about anything. Nothing coherent ever comes out of his mouth, so it is laughable to even think that Trump could utter a truth.
See this kind of rhetoric forces me, like Diebert, to take the side of Trump. Not because I support him, but because I have to emphasise the actual reality.
A lot of people like to project onto his comments whatever it is they want to hear. Because his speech is so incoherent and henid-like, they are like rorschach blots that admit of multiple interpretations. He just splats them out there and leaves his rabid fans to do the rest. It is very effective in the current climate.
He isn't incoherent when pointing out some of the problems. Only when explaining the solutions! But that is true both for him and populism in general.
Waging war on the intelligence services is a bold, high-risk strategy on Trump’s part, but it is one that he has to undertake if he going to succeed in installing a police state. Gaining control of the intelligence services is a must. For their part, the intelligence services utterly despise Trump and see him for the mentally-ill, wanna-be dictator that he is, and they are doing everything they can to prevent him from succeeding in his hostile take-over of the country. Michael Flynn is a casualty of this war.
I absolutely disagree. The actions of US intelligent agencies do not indicate that they are organizations intent on enforcing justice and safeguarding freedom. The Flynn fiasco if anything proves this beyond a doubt. Why haven't they released any transcripts, recordings etc.? Why even contact the press instead of going directly to Congress or the judiciary with the impeachable evidence?
However bad the system might be, however fragile the economy or however corrupt the establishment, it makes no sense to address these problems by putting in charge a crazy person who lives in a fact-free environment. How does that solve anything? What kind of dark, twisted, distorted convolutions of mind do you have to go through in order to view that as a solution? It’s insane.
I look at it as a consequence, not a solution. I myself have emotional reactions to some of the things going on, but nowhere near the kind you are evidently having about Captain Queeg a.k.a. the Donald. Overall, my attitude to this whole mess is that of a self-styled 8 year old chemist studying the effects of commercial oil of vitriol upon salty water, cookie crumbs and baby crows.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I haven’t heard him utter a single truth about anything. Nothing coherent ever comes out of his mouth, so it is laughable to even think that Trump could utter a truth.
See this kind of rhetoric forces me, like Diebert, to take the side of Trump. Not because I support him, but because I have to emphasise the actual reality.
What's an example of a truth that he has uttered?

DQ: Waging war on the intelligence services is a bold, high-risk strategy on Trump’s part, but it is one that he has to undertake if he going to succeed in installing a police state. Gaining control of the intelligence services is a must. For their part, the intelligence services utterly despise Trump and see him for the mentally-ill, wanna-be dictator that he is, and they are doing everything they can to prevent him from succeeding in his hostile take-over of the country. Michael Flynn is a casualty of this war.

Jup: I absolutely disagree. The actions of US intelligent agencies do not indicate that they are organizations intent on enforcing justice and safeguarding freedom. The Flynn fiasco if anything proves this beyond a doubt. Why haven't they released any transcripts, recordings etc.? Why even contact the press instead of going directly to Congress or the judiciary with the impeachable evidence?
They could easily have had valid reasons for acting as they did. Without further details we can only speculate. I'm sure more of the story will come out in the coming weeks and months.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I haven’t heard him utter a single truth about anything. Nothing coherent ever comes out of his mouth, so it is laughable to even think that Trump could utter a truth.
See this kind of rhetoric forces me, like Diebert, to take the side of Trump. Not because I support him, but because I have to emphasise the actual reality.
What's an example of a truth that he has uttered?
He is right about the fact that immigration laws need to be enforced. He is also right about the outsourcing of industry being a problem. On the latter point, however, he offers no solution. Assuming that the factories of the 20th century can be financed, who will the workers be? Robots or brawny men paid $15/hour? If it's robots, who will the customers be? If it's brawny men, how are they going to pay for the cars and washing machines? If the brawny men are paid $40/hour, how are the companies going to sell them in countries who pay their brawny men 1/40th of that? Without foreign imports, how will Americans afford cars and washing machines that are far more expensive to manufacture in America? There's no indication that he or his people have thought about any of this.
They could easily have had valid reasons for acting as they did. Without further details we can only speculate. I'm sure more of the story will come out in the coming weeks and months.
No, they acted beyond the scope of their function. The CIA's job is to provide reliable intelligence to the government. They have instead provided intelligence to the press, and that intelligence is unverifiable by nature. Leaks are good for keeping power in check, but only if they *are* leaks. No one in their right minds will take the CIA at its word. The CIA knew that, yet leaked the Flynn stuff, because they wanted even *more* chaos around Trump. But it's possible that this is all a tragicomic farce to establish a pretext for another war or "time limited, scope limited kinetic action" as Obama would say.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:What's an example of a truth that he has uttered?
jupiviv wrote:He is right about the fact that immigration laws need to be enforced.
He is also right about the outsourcing of industry being a problem.
There's more:

- "The southern borders are a route for drugs (eg heroin) and other criminal trafficking."- Even someone like this liberal Puerto Rican professor supported Trump strongly on this and that article exposes how idiotic all mainstream papers were reporting it (and never retracted of course). It's very simple: despite all the howling from know-it-alls, Trump spoke a truth which he announced to address although the solution of some mega-wall or militarization of a zone will be very likely not worth it and create other kinds of tensions but who am I to say.

- Hillary Clinton "said she was under attack in Bosnia but the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers" - indeed a known made-up lie, showing a weird dysfunctional side in Clinton which should not be discarded too quickly.

- "72% of refugees admitted into U.S. are from a list 7 countries: SYRIA, IRAQ, SOMALIA, IRAN, SUDAN, LIBYA & YEMEN." - numbers back this up in a general sense although no one from Libya and Yemen, both would make sense security wise to screen or block.

- "There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals." - also turned out to be true and relevant, a real problem also in Europa by the way. And the percentage of criminals and other adventurers is quite high in the immigration stream (they have a strong motive!). Not to mention radical, militant Muslims.

Just one quick list to at least show some things are not only true but are be pointing to issues which seem relevant to name or create policy around. Which is another discussion than the one about the proposed solutions. One of them is of course: stop making a mess in other countries. Also a dead ringer of a truth from the Donald, not only that: it's a core issue underlying a lot of other self-created problems of the West. And that's because the West acts irrationally most of the time a.k.a. "making very bad deals". Pointing that out so boldly is not madness but a moment of sanity.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:No, it is more the case that he is a very unusual person who is thriving in a very unusual set of circumstances. With over two decades of the internet now behind us, with the predominance of social media and tailored news, with the cynicism and jadedness of many people (including yourself), the awful hullabaloo over Obama (the evil black foreign Muslim!), the hysteria over Clinton and her emails, the alarm of white communities terrified over losing their privileged status in an increasingly global environment, decades of Republican conspiracy theories and fake news, etc, etc - all of these things have come together to produce a perfect storm and create the conditions for a conniving bullshit artist like Trump to prosper.
If you're trying to say the world is and always was a strange place where morals or rationality appear almost as incidental, then I'd not only agree but also would have condensed that paragraph quite a bit. But somehow I suspect you think the disconnect is really some recent issue in terms of scope and dominance? That's perhaps the base difference then, to me modernity itself looks likes this Frankenstein monster which somehow copes, somehow survives. Essentially I'm not even convinced reason had anything to do with most of what keeps society going. Necessities, belief, power, yes. And science, although born out of a very strict, limited appliance of reason, the usage of the resulting technology has still little to do with that. Or in other words: I don't think our minds are very good in dealing with the complexities of causality. Only when we dumb the situation down first to something we recognize or control. In other words: most of life will fall out of the scope. And this is not just my belief, one can derive it quite easily from the truth of causality and understanding of the infinite.
So many people, for whatever reason, are aiding Trump in this regard, including jaded intellectuals who really should know better.
And some jaded thinkers are opposing him strongly, for whatever reason.
And in doing that, you would be playing into the hands of the Trump/Breitbart propaganda machine.
That's only relevant if there actually existed this enormous conspiracy which could afford and control such vast machinery.
Virtually everyone who is intellectually competent is in opposition to him. No matter what the field - military, science, intelligence, medicine, psychiatry, academic - the most renowned experts in all walks of life are united in their view that Trump is dangerously delusional and unfit for office.
That's just some stubborn faith speaking, in itself potentially dangerous as you disqualify in one stroke not only many millions of qualified US citizens and Europeans as delusional, or degrade some of the more competent members of your own forum as basically crazy, or not to mention discredit your own philosophical "father" but you're asserting it almost out of nothing as fact.

What the world needs to fear is the mindset unwittingly betrayed here. But at least I won't call it incompetent. It's ideological.
Diebert, if hatred of a particular group of people is causing you to want to side with a lunatic who lives in a fact-free world, then there is something seriously amiss.
Political discussions or even preferences at the voting booth have nothing to do with siding with this one or that one. That's more like G.W. Bush talking with his black and white proposals: with or against the terrorist -- with terrorist meaning anything threatening our good Empirical Existence, with bombs, lunacy or alternative facts. And the same message might be there implicit: never ask why it's happening and if perhaps there's something else going on which would challenge the perception and definition of the words "lunatic" as well as any larger "asylum".
It’s all relative. As much as I dislike the feminization of society, it is preferable to having a dangerously unstable lunatic create an authoritarian state steeped in hate and fear.
That's debatable. But then again, it's just a preference and one that I understand. But it's a false choice though. It's reasonable to suppose some dangerous, unstable passage is needed to get something to change at all, at this stage. And that's my main reason not to join the Trump witch hunt at this stage. The world is changing but modernity and Western governing: not that much.
If the Russians have a dark hold over a dangerously unstable man like Trump, then how will a closer alliance between them possibly serve the interests of the rest of us?
My view on the benefits of a deliberate, outspoken reproach towards Russia is completely independent of conspiracy theories involving some ominous Russian influence on Trump. At the moment, it's more likely people advertise this idea of a supposed dark hold over Trump because of some internal politics. But even if it was true, it doesn't invalidate the fact that there are many good reasons to work with Russia on a few global matters. So I'm not even sure if some proven cloak and dagger operations would change that fact. It might change the view if Trump could be a president and he'd be impeached of course, if there was any truth to it at all.
You’re not making any sense. You were saying earlier that you supported Russia on the basis that they are being the most rational in world affairs. So do you still value the idea of our using rational forces to organize the world or not?
Societies are hardly organized by any rational means so far -- they seem to run mostly on the power of theatrics and perhaps increasingly so. Foreign policy is different, it's where it happens these days, the cutting edge, the only relevant political chessboard left although it's getting rapidly even too complex for even that and mixed with non-state entities. But I think Russian leaders represent "Realpolitik", being wise enough to understand how the global world works but yes, also lost in some pretence about their own society, knowingly or unknowingly. For this reason I don't expect the USA to introduce rationality into society (that has to come from the people, over generations) but I do hope to see first some introduction of rationality in foreign relations and policy. Which is for example why I was more worried about Clinton than any other candidate. She and her husband simply had the wrong track record.
We, as human beings, create order from the chaos of Nature. We impose our man-made structures upon the world because they make our lives more comfortable and free of care. Is this something you are now against? Is it suddenly old-fashioned to want to live in an ordered society which enables everyone, including thinkers, to pursue their interests to the utmost? Are you advocating pure anarchy? Do you want us to go back and live in the caves? Are you bored with life?
Lets just say I'm challenging the illusion of particular "man-made structures" and other ordering imposed on nature. Simply by pointing out their transient, contemporary nature. And also the tendency of people to hold on to various structures while nature, or reality, already is moving on. There's this attachment which always keeps creeping up, in society and men alike, this refusal to rest inside the restless, to hold on to what was crafted out before, now steadily looking back instead of forward. Perhaps Kevin is an example but somehow I get the same drive from you in your arguments: to want to defend some order, some time frame against what you see as forces of chaos. Isn't that the same as Kevin is supposed to be involved in? To actively, politicly, preserve "masculine" values of society against "feminine forces" of the progressives and "establishment"? Or now hearing you defending, actively, politicly, those "reasonable" mainstream wind mills against the chaos of a rule of Trump and Breitbard?
Those who work for the intelligence services are required by oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Thus, if they perceive that Trump and his cohorts are threatening to ride roughshod over the Constitution and the democratic institutions of America, then they are duty bound to act against him. This has nothing to do with being a police state. It is one branch of government safe-guarding the interests of the wider population.
It would have everything to do with a police state if the Constitution and the institutions it upholds like the Presidency and the whole body of law, would be stepped over to dismiss what one group thinks as a danger to some belief in how things should be interpreted or done in their country.
However, sane people in all walks of life - whether they be spies, or journalists, or academics, or scientists, or philosophers - are duty bound to oppose evil when they see it.
Even more fundamental: we define only our selves when we define our enemy, our evils as well.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv,
DQ: However bad the system might be, however fragile the economy or however corrupt the establishment, it makes no sense to address these problems by putting in charge a crazy person who lives in a fact-free environment. How does that solve anything? What kind of dark, twisted, distorted convolutions of mind do you have to go through in order to view that as a solution? It’s insane.

Jup: I look at it as a consequence, not a solution. I myself have emotional reactions to some of the things going on, but nowhere near the kind you are evidently having about Captain Queeg a.k.a. the Donald. Overall, my attitude to this whole mess is that of a self-styled 8 year old chemist studying the effects of commercial oil of vitriol upon salty water, cookie crumbs and baby crows.
There is some emotion involved in my responses, although not as much as you may think. I know that whatever happens in the future, I will be secure in my wisdom.

The core of my response to Trump is not really centered around Trump himself, but on the millions who are supporting him. Or more accurately, it is centered on the millions who are suddenly wanting to tear down the entire liberal establishment without giving thought to what will replace it. There is an assumption on their part that Trump is a kind of Saviour who knows what he is doing - which, given his character and history, can only be described as wishful thinking.

I am reminded of the Iraq War in which the Americans went in with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime without giving any thought to how the place should be organized afterwards. The result of this incredible lack of foresight was years of spiraling chaos and untold misery which has devastated the country and is still continuing today without any sign of abatement. Despite it occurring less than 15 years ago, it seems that not a single lesson has been learnt from that fiasco.

I wonder how many of Trump’s supporters are aware of what life was like before the middle of the 20th century, before the liberal establishment took hold. It was, for most people, pure hell. Europe was racked with wars for centuries, most countries were ruled by tyrants who terrorized their populace and persecuted minority groups, workers had few rights and their wages kept them below the poverty line, the health system mainly catered for the rich, freedom of speech was stifled, corruption was everywhere, life-spans were short. The liberal establishment was the progressive movement’s gift to the world, a gift that guaranteed everyone’s rights and helped raise everyone’s standard of living (not perfectly, of course). And now, in a gigantic act of jumping the shark, Westerners are suddenly wanting to get rid of this great structure. It is, to all appearances, a collective act of suicide.

In my opening post, I referenced Mao Zedong and the disasters that resulted from his fact-free policy making. This is the same scenario that we are all staring at now. The tearing down of a long-standing structure that has helped us all, a structure that defers to facts, expertise, scientific modelling, respect for individual rights, etc, and replacing it with seemingly nothing whatsoever apart from crazy decision-making based on feelings and gut instincts and the emotional hatred of other groups of people. I shudder to think of all the violence, suffering, cruelty and death that will inevitably unfold from this madness. And for what? The whole thing is so unnecessary.

So at root, I guess that what I am experiencing at the moment is the same stomach-churning horror that intellectuals, poets and artists have all experienced down throughout the ages over the blind stupidity of their fellow man.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote: What's an example of a truth that he has uttered?
He is right about the fact that immigration laws need to be enforced.
He is also right about the outsourcing of industry being a problem.
These aren’t truths. They are political opinions.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: - "The southern borders are a route for drugs (eg heroin) and other criminal trafficking."- Even someone like this liberal Puerto Rican professor supported Trump strongly on this and that article exposes how idiotic all mainstream papers were reporting it (and never retracted of course).
Here is a good example of how Trump’s incoherent and henid-like speech can be interpreted in lots of different ways, allowing his supporters to project whatever they want onto them and to use them to falsely discredit his opponents. As that article stated, Trump said:
  • “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”
Now does Trump mean that all Mexican immigrants are rapists? Or all Mexicans? Or some Mexicans? Or some immigrants? You could read any of these interpretations into his words. And of course, people do.

This is the Trumpian way. Say something ambiguous and then sit back and allow some people think you said one thing and another group think you said another thing, and then when you are criticized for any one of those things deny all responsibility for having said it at all.

- "72% of refugees admitted into U.S. are from a list 7 countries: SYRIA, IRAQ, SOMALIA, IRAN, SUDAN, LIBYA & YEMEN." - numbers back this up in a general sense although no one from Libya and Yemen, both would make sense security wise to screen or block.
And yet no one from any of these seven countries has instigated a terrorist attack on American soil since 1980. So in the larger context, Trump is here twisting a fact in order to mislead people and ramp up his fear campaign.

- "There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals."
Okay, I’ll give you that one, although Politifact is not convinced about the second half of that claim.

It is said that a monkey banging randomly on a typewriter would eventually produce a coherent sentence, just by way of chance. So I concede that Trump is bound to say the occasional thing that happens to coincide with reality.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Just to stay with current events (never a boring day with Trump!) here's another insight into Trump speech patterns:

Trump during a rally:
  • "You look at what’s happening,” Trump said. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden,” the president said. “They took in large numbers, they’re having problems like they never thought possible,” he said. -- source
So instead of saying: "you saw last night on TV what's happening in Sweden", he referred, indeed perhaps in some autistic, jumbled style to his mainly Fox watching audience to "what's happening last night in Sweden". He refers often to the latest broadcast on Fox in his often unscripted speeches by the way. Some people outside such context are then, as usual, left to puzzle back the pieces together.

The problem is of course the Words of the President are expected to be more precise especially if they sound so ominous! However in my view the following line of the speech itself explains exactly what was happening in Sweden: they took in large number, they're having big problems. It's hard to imagine why it needed some extra explanation for the rest of the world. That the world of media and online commentators, reading along with a fragment, erupts into some merry go-around about the single remark is as well a demonstration about the state of the anti-Trump discourse in the world and its own neurotic disorder. Although I'd qualify the disorder as ideological blinders and added distorted amplification of the media echo well.

And the case of Sweden itself: Fox probably reported it as dark and dangerous as possible but the stated problems are factual, real and are changing the political landscape as we speak. All the puzzled and funny reactions are from a vocal soon to be minority, as there's an explosive rise of anti-immigration parties like the Sweden Democrats, not unlike the movements in other wealthy European countries, where such parties already have become relevant and even leading in polls for years and will re-define European politics in the years to come. In that sense Trump falls exactly in line with what's happening in Europe although he has his own unique confused branding going on of course.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just to stay with current events (never a boring day with Trump!) here's another insight into Trump speech patterns:

Trump during a rally:
  • "You look at what’s happening,” Trump said. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden,” the president said. “They took in large numbers, they’re having problems like they never thought possible,” he said. -- source
So instead of saying: "you saw last night on TV what's happening in Sweden", he referred, indeed perhaps in some autistic, jumbled style to his mainly Fox watching audience "what's happening last night in Sweden". He refers often to the latest broadcast on Fox in his often unscripted speeches by the way. Some people outside such context are then, as usual, left to puzzle back the pieces together.

The problem is of course the Words of the President are expected to be more precise especially if they sound so ominous! However in my view the following line of the speech itself explains exactly what was happening in Sweden: they took in large number, they're having big problems. It's hard to imagine why it needed some extra explanation for the rest of the world.
On the contrary, it was yet more of his henid-style. “They took in large numbers, they’re having problems like they never thought possible” - this could mean anything. It could mean that Sweden is having difficulty integrating its immigrants. Or it could mean that the basic logistics of dealing with a sudden influx of people are a challenge. Or that they can't find translators. Or they are having difficulty housing them. Or simply that they have dark skin. Who knows? As per usual, Trump is just throwing out a vague statement that sounds ominous, while remaining bereft of content.

Doing a quick google search, I see that attitudes towards immigrants in Sweden are mixed, much like any other Western nation.

The problem is of course the Words of the President are expected to be more precise especially if they sound so ominous!
You make it sound as though those of us who expect this are at fault.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:On the contrary, it was yet more of his henid-style. “They took in large numbers, they’re having problems like they never thought possible” - this could mean anything. .... Who knows?
More sloppiness than henid-style. Last night's Fox documentary and nearly all reporting on the immigration issues of Sweden provide the context. This is the same pattern as many other statements of Trump: they are referring to issues he assumes his audience knows or at least heard enough about to relate to. It's pretty bad in terms of conveying a new message, but not uncommon when preaching to ones own choir. They know the songs by heart!
Doing a quick google search, I see that attitudes towards immigrants in Sweden are mixed, much like any other Western nation.
But that was not my point. To say it's "mixed" is an understatement. The virulent anti-immigration parties are by far the largest parties in polls right now already in France and my own country. In Sweden they crashed the scene as runner-up a few years ago and might start leading in the near future. All as reaction to an increasing stream of incidents and influx of immigrants from Northern Africa and the Middle East.
The problem is of course the Words of the President are expected to be more precise especially if they sound so ominous!
You make it sound as though those of us who expect this are at fault.
And you make it sound as if I'm "misunderestimating" the significance of jumbled speech patterns :-)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:The core of my response to Trump is not really centered around Trump himself, but on the millions who are supporting him. Or more accurately, it is centered on the millions who are suddenly wanting to tear down the entire liberal establishment without giving thought to what will replace it. There is an assumption on their part that Trump is a kind of Saviour who knows what he is doing - which, given his character and history, can only be described as wishful thinking.
That is certainly a cogent point, but it's also one I have made myself and therefore not what I am criticising in your arguments. The issue is that the liberal establishment is hollow of substance and integrity, and Trump has filled the vacuum. The liberals can learn from their defeat, however the vast majority of them evidently have no intention of doing so (which is why they were booted out of power).
I wonder how many of Trump’s supporters are aware of what life was like before the middle of the 20th century, before the liberal establishment took hold.
You mean before fossil-fuel based industry took hold with war machines acting as catalysts, allowing massive surpluses of food and electricity which made previous forms of oppression obsolete. Similarly, 19th c industry and European immigration replaced slavery in the northern US. The oppression of black people in America was not in and of itself the reason why white Americans killed each other.

Do you think the British *wanted* to give us independence? The Indian princes, landholders, businessmen etc. supported England *massively* during WW1, because they knew their fates were bound with that of the Raj. People like Nehru and Gandhi were of the same stock and mindset - the limousine liberals of their day. After WW1 the British still had the armies and ships required to keep the Raj together. That wasn't the case post-WW2.

Did the Dutch *want* to part with their oil-rich East Indies holdings? The French with N Africa and Indochina?

The liberal and progressive movements are/were the products, not the engineers of their eras. People are reasonable when the consequences of being unreasonable are mitigated or removed.

What sort of rationality needs a tea cosy? The sort that is sustained by "more". More health, more comfort, more jobs, more welfare...or else this cutaneous parasite of irrationality dies out. Being a parasite, it cannot love the world on its own terms. Symbiotically it functions as a lens for its host - a lens through which to stare goatishly at a world devoid of meaning yet ripe with prospects of "more".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:I wonder how many of Trump’s supporters are aware of what life was like before the middle of the 20th century, before the liberal establishment took hold.
The 19th century in Europe was gold for philosophy though! Philosophy seems to thrive when things are starting to race up towards a peak, or, at times, also, another type, during the descent from the peak, going down, catching that last deep red glow of the setting sun, so rich and heavy! Therefore I expect still three or four great philosophers of life to rise, before another turning of the wheel, the coming glacial of value.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:The liberal and progressive movements are/were the products, not the engineers of their eras. People are reasonable when the consequences of being unreasonable are mitigated or removed.
And once we'd establish social-economical positions and attached views (of what's good and what works) are caused by various external social-economical and cultural-ideological factors and never just as some end product of rational deliberation, the question rises what really lies behind the rise of those parties engaging in vital opposition against the various stated forms of cultural decline and the decreasing security situation (the incidental carnage of war acts brought to our foot step).

My first attempt at a theory would be that these movements are the result the dissolution of the old political landscape. Historically there was first a rather long period of religious wars which then ended as a balance of power in many European countries. Something called in Dutch "verzuiling" -- a word meaning a socio-religious compartmentalization of society. Each had his own sphere of news, friends, schools and even for a while TV slots managed by separate organization with its own member base from that compartment. Now this all has been dissolved mostly and people are looking for a new contract, a new structure but society is not supplying that kind of structure at all. No clear enemies, not even your own safety bubble. And there's mostly confusion. And in that space new spheres are developing with again, a bit more hidden this time, various socio-religious traits. Such movements create their own bubble of news and political processes. In the end a form of identity politics.

There's way more to be said about it. For example the ideology of the "progressive", the target of the "counter" after all. Only when we understand that, we can start to understand why there's such a surge in opposition against it and why it's often such a chaotic, fantasy-ridden type of opposition. But this is more social theory and cultural analysis than philosophy. And it's messy! A lot of typing and reading too. But I'm curious if there's any interest in these things around these realms. As thought exercise at least!
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But perhaps the following describes my ideas a bit better. Quite recently I watched the latest documentary by Adam Curtis called "HyperNormalisation" (and here a Youtube link). It's a visual introduction to various topics including a state of affair, like in the old Soviet Union, where "politicians and citizens were resigned to maintaining a pretence of a functioning society". It should be no surprise I believe we already past an actually functioning society or economy. It's kept going only by a belief it is, which would explain the reaction to anything or anyone introducing doubts or sudden changes going against the holy status quo. The response will be first ridicule, then strong, even violent opposition, which is the phase I see happening now.
Finally got around to watching this sprawling film. Here are my impressions:

Overall, I found the tone of the film to be dark, sensationalist and manipulative. The hipster amateurism, the gratuitous footage and the over-the-top creepy atmosphere made the whole thing painful to watch. At times, I thought I was watching the Blair Witch Project, instead of a serious documentary. This dark sensationalist tone seems to be a common feature of these kinds of alternative films and alternative websites, such as Breitbart. People easily become addicted to this sort of darkness, much like how people become addicted to horror films. It stimulates fear, which produces adrenaline; it helps crystallize who the enemies are, which provides a focus for the pleasures of revenge.

As for the content of the film, it is constructed out of many falsehoods. Even the very premise upon which the entire film is based is false. From Wikipedia:
  • The term "hypernormalisation" is taken from Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation, about the paradoxes of life in the Soviet Union during the 20 years before it collapsed. A professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, he argues that everyone knew the system was failing, but as no one could imagine any alternative to the status quo, politicians and citizens were resigned to maintaining a pretence of a functioning society. Over time, this delusion became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the "fakeness" was accepted by everyone as real, an effect that Yurchak termed "hypernormalisation".
It is simply untrue that people back then were unable to imagine an alternative to the status quo. They were generally well aware of what the West had to offer, for example; there was a strong counterculture which prized Western culture and its various goods, such as Beatles albums and the like. Scientists and intellectuals were still trying to escape the country in the 1980s and defect to the West. So there was nothing passive going on there. As for their “acceptance” of the fake reality constantly beamed out by the authorities, the film made no mention of the fact that the Soviet populace had long been ground down into submission by the terror of the state police.

Thus, to equate our current problems in the West to the situation in 80s Soviet Union is complete nonsense. Speaking as an Australian, most people here are living their own lives, pursuing their own interests, and more or less ignoring what the politicians say about anything. They are happy to reject politics as an irrelevance. That politicians are liars is something that everyone everywhere has known since the dawn of time. It is by no means a recent development, as this film tries to pretend.

Another major lie is the idea that humans have only recently retreated from the complexities of reality and sought refuge in simplified worlds. This too has been going on since the dawn of time. You only have to look at the Christian regimes in the Middle Ages to see examples of people inhabiting simplified, fake worlds and rulers creating scapegoats and fake enemies. Does the film-maker, Adam Curtis, think we are idiots or something? The film also pretends that the modern Islamic threat somehow originated in 1975 with the feud between al-Assad and Kissinger, and makes no mention of the way the British arbitrarily carved up the Middle East after the first world war, for example, nor the Christian crusades during the Middles Ages which often focused on exterminating Muslims.

The film only began to get interesting and relevant when it touched on the current issue of fake news, Facebook algorithms, the sustained campaign by Russia to sow confusion, and Trump’s wholesale dismissal of the concept of truth - after all, this is the genuinely new development of recent times. But the film didn’t go into it in any real depth.

To sum up, the film was essentially a parody of itself. It presented a simplified version of reality, one that was supported by an arbitrary selection of misleading facts, and thus became just another expression of hypernormalization itself.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

The Politico article by Molly Mckew that Dan posted a few days ago made the claim that the West is already at war, a claim I have encountered elsewhere in my travels around the net. It is a war conducted by hostile anti-West forces, spearheaded by Russia, which aims to undermine belief in the validity of the liberal establishment - or to phrase it more accurately, in the validity of modern Western civilization.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this claim has a lot of merit. If we look at the posts of Diebert and jupiviv in this thread, for example, we can see that there is a consistent pattern of being pro-Russia and pro-Putin, as well as a consistent pattern of bending over backwards to excuse or overlook Trump’s outrageous behaviour. It is quite striking to behold. And what's interesting is that it is by no means an isolated example, but rather a pattern that is repeatedly extensively throughout Trump’s fan base. A large percentage of Trump's supporters are pro-Putin. I confess that I had never thought to bring up the subject of Russia in my past talks with Kevin, but I have the uneasy feeling that if I did, he too would be expressing pro-Russian sentiments.

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, and so it makes me wonder just how extensively the Russians have involved themselves on these sites. How much of Breitbart is driven by the Russians, for example? How involved were the Russians in the Gamergate affair? Have the Russians, with their well-honed KGB techniques, been exploiting the various grievances that Westerners have with their lives and “turned” them against the very idea of Western civilization itself?

One of the striking features of Trump’s campaign and presidency has been his grovelling attitude towards Putin and Russia. Up until now, I had assumed that this was because Trump and Putin had known each other behind the scenes for years and had come to some kind of mutual arrangement in the lead up to last year’s election. But now a different possibility presents itself. It is plausible that being the bullshit artist that he is, Trump had become attuned to the love for Putin that already existed amongst his support base, a love that has been nurtured over time by Russian operatives populating the alt-right and far right sites, and that he has simply been amplifying it for his own political purposes.

Could it be that one by one Westerners are being “turned” by Russian operatives through on-line propaganda techniques aimed at eroding belief in Western democracy? Are we in the middle of a serious war which threatens our modern civilization, a war that has already claimed many victims, some of whom are on this site? I would love to hear what others have to say about this.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

David Quinn wrote:Could it be that one by one Westerners are being “turned” by Russian operatives through on-line propaganda techniques aimed at eroding belief in Western democracy? Are we in the middle of a serious war which threatens our modern civilization, a war that has already claimed many victims, some of whom are on this site? I would love to hear what others have to say about this.
The issue of Russia is rather fascinating, as Russia has an extensive history of being seen by Westerners in a convenient way that is politically useful. That is because the culture of Russia has been a blend between the European and Asian continents and is a reminder of the deep past when invading hordes entered Europe from the East. If Russia is weak, as it was during World War I, then it is seen as a source of communism that will begin there and destroy the West. When Russia is perceived to be strong, as during the Space Race era and nuclear arms race, then it will take over the world and must be stopped due to the Domino Theory in places such as Vietnam and Cuba. If Russia is weak, such as during the collapse of the Soviet Union, then it is a source of oligarchies and Russian Mafias that will destabilize Western economies. When Russia is perceived as strong again in recent years, then it is the source of manipulating the US election, conquering its neighbors, supporting Syria, etc. etc. It seems that Russia is so powerful, that it is always the key factor in manipulating Western democracies.

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.

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).

What I see from within the West is that a large group of people who live in the West want to irrationally throw a monkey-wrench into the system for its own sake. In other words, they want to destabilize their own elite institutions out of sheer boredom and resentment. They are physically comfortable, there is no threat of invasion and there is no direct political repression. But they believe that they want more or that they want something different, or as Nietzsche said, they want to live in the memory of some nostalgic past. The alt-right accuses the anarchists of being foolish for wanting to throw a Molotov cocktail at the government yet the alt-right themselves are saying that they want it all to burn. That’s in spite of the fact that they have no assurances whatsoever that they will benefit from chaos nor that they have any plans that are concrete to rebuild the past. They think that they can “burn out” of society the elements that they don’t like through the ensuing strife but that is typical thinking of people who don’t think things through to their logical conclusion. If my suspicions are correct, then Russia is merely one of the current symbols being used to create the narrative for this resentment driven by individual egos dissatisfied with the realities of life. (Eric Schiedler)
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

By the way, today in the United States we are celebrating President’s Day. It is a national banking and government holiday being celebrated by protests around the country against the sitting President. What a day, indeed.

Diebert,
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:There's way more to be said about it. For example the ideology of the "progressive", the target of the "counter" after all. Only when we understand that, we can start to understand why there's such a surge in opposition against it and why it's often such a chaotic, fantasy-ridden type of opposition. But this is more social theory and cultural analysis than philosophy. And it's messy! A lot of typing and reading too. But I'm curious if there's any interest in these things around these realms. As thought exercise at least!
I only know your position on these matters through your posts here on GF. Please consider what follows as my view, as I've been able to apply reason to it.

This line of thinking, cultural analysis and social theory, is perhaps best characterized by the career of Slavoj Zizek, if only because he is one of the most prominent of this type. 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. Not that I’m accusing Zizek of having affairs. So, back to Zizek himself.

In recent months, he has repeatedly spoken about his utter indecision and inability to perceive things behind the current “nexus”. His theory and model tell him that in the current phase of the dialectic, we are moving away from liberal capitalistic democracy into….well, what he can’t say but only guess at the possibilities. This is coming from a man who has dedicated his entire life to speaking about and writing thousands of pages of discussions about these structures.

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. 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.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

GetoriksII
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by GetoriksII »

Hello David,

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. Like any shrewd con-man, Trump emotionally manipulates the collective unconscious, and tells nine truths followed by one devastating lie that goes unnoticed.

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.

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.

(The message board will not let me post any links at this time, nor will it even let me properly spell last names. I will attempt to edit this post and list the authors in another 24 - 48 hours when I am past the new account filter.)

"The tyranny we impose on others, we will eventually impose on ourselves."
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David, thanks for watching the whole thing!
David Quinn wrote:Thus, to equate our current problems in the West to the situation in 80s Soviet Union is complete nonsense. Speaking as an Australian, most people here are living their own lives, pursuing their own interests, and more or less ignoring what the politicians say about anything. They are happy to reject politics as an irrelevance.
Which shows you have not understood the finer points of the comparison since you're literally defending the equation.
To sum up, the film was essentially a parody of itself. It presented a simplified version of reality, one that was supported by an arbitrary selection of misleading facts, and thus became just another expression of hypernormalization itself.
That sounds true enough. Although in my view the film does at least try not to simplify too much. It uses a certain view on the danger of system theory and I recognized a few, slightly post-modern social theories lurking in there. The irony is indeed that generating more hypernormalization of "simulacra" is not even preventable at this stage. It can only be shown.

To me his series of video is interesting although I don't agree on each and every point or scene. Which is normal and healthy I suppose.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:People easily become addicted to this sort of darkness, much like how people become addicted to horror films. It stimulates fear, which produces adrenaline; it helps crystallize who the enemies are, which provides a focus for the pleasures of revenge.
Compare with the following from the next post:
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, and so it makes me wonder just how extensively the Russians have involved themselves on these sites. How much of Breitbart is driven by the Russians, for example? How involved were the Russians in the Gamergate affair? Have the Russians, with their well-honed KGB techniques, been exploiting the various grievances that Westerners have with their lives and “turned” them against the very idea of Western civilization itself?
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.
Speaking as an Australian, most people here are living their own lives, pursuing their own interests, and more or less ignoring what the politicians say about anything. They are happy to reject politics as an irrelevance.
This is probably because the "more" narrative can be sustained for the time being over there. The consequences of irrationality ("pursuing their own interests") can still be mitigated or removed, thereby preventing overt reaction. Australia hasn't shared the fate of other post-peak economies like Argentina or Venezuela because it is the coal and iron miner to China. But, like Argentina or Venezuela, since 2000 Australia has seen galloping internal oil consumption, relentlessly declining local production and a steep rise in imports. It is understandable that the government has coped with this by becoming inept.

In fact, I could say the same things about most Indians. I have never discussed Islamic immigration, Sharia law or barkhas with any of the Muslims I know personally. They are happy to pursue their own interests and ignore Modi's religious nonsense. My other friends, colleagues, relatives etc. are likewise happy to pursue their own interests and ignore politicians. None of this changes the fact that they are all extremely deluded and attached to political fantasy/insanity of various flavours. Most women in the west, I imagine, don't call themselves feminists. As long as the prevalent system is to more or less to their liking, people won't be interested in how or why it exists.

The only country which seems to be pulling away from the "more" narrative gracefully is Denmark, which has responded to its oil production peak (around 2000) by lowering consumption. Incidentally, it also seems to have experienced less of a decline in religion. Kierkegaard as national guardian spirit?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote: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. 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. And most of my postings here are about pointing out how the mirror looks like for people on the Trump fear train.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Something called in Dutch "verzuiling" -- a word meaning a socio-religious compartmentalization of society. Each had his own sphere of news, friends, schools and even for a while TV slots managed by separate organization with its own member base from that compartment.
Because these spheres were held together by a common, overarching narrative that seemed to work out well for everyone. No one was being openly oppressed, technological innovations in media/entertainment were acting as diversions, healthcare and welfare worked, pensioners and would-be pensioners were getting paid, etc. Debt wasn't an issue because it's ultimately just a number reflecting trust in continued prosperity and growth. When that trust wanes, you have schism. Then someone like Trump comes along and *everyone* becomes optimistic - and so on until this cycle of prosperity=>tolerance and compassion=>fear of collapse=>intolerance and rebellion=>prosperity stops turning.

If the rationality of the public is dependent upon the prosperity phase of that cycle, then the best solution is to turn it as slowly as possible. Make do with less, while rejoicing in what you already have. The liberals haven't done that. They wanted more welfare, more insane ideologically-driven policies, more entrenchment of power in government and corporations, more smug hypocrisy about that same entrenchment, etc. and now they are reaping the rewards. :'(
Locked