Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Aug 22, 2016 12:26 am

It's hard to discuss American politics since it might have stopped being politics a long time ago and became something else. But whatever it's now, the rise of Trump as candidate is hard to ignore as it upsets a lot of people. Seemingly united a large vocal crowd dismisses the campaign as some horrible aberration. The most interesting accusations are those of misogyny, racism, verbal violence and some full-blown narcissism and grandiosity. And yet Trump invokes as well widespread admiration with how he keeps going against political correctness, the usual establishment and how he appears to put a bomb underneath some of the illusions which kept the West going for so long

Perhaps some members want to share their perspective on this new reality TV show?

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trump

Post by jupiviv » Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:54 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's hard to discuss American politics since it might have stopped being politics a long time ago and became something else. But whatever it's now, the rise of Trump as candidate is hard to ignore as it upsets a lot of people. Seemingly united a large vocal crowd dismisses the campaign as some horrible aberration. The most interesting accusations are those of misogyny, racism, verbal violence and some full-blown narcissism and grandiosity. And yet he invokes as well widespread admiration with how he keeps going against political correctness, the usual establishment and seems to put a bomb underneath some of the illusions which kept the West going for so long

Perhaps some members want to share their perspective on this new reality TV show?
It's basically a choice between a megalomaniac who nevertheless claims to do things that won't lead to WW3 vs. a psychopath who does. Although, when I heard Trump say he will impose a 45 fucking % tariff on China, I thought to myself - "that's a better casus belli than Putin's invasion of Crimea/Ukraine".

I'd elect Trump purely out of my gratitude to him for helping to expose the true nature of democracy. Of course, if *I* were running then unlike the Donald I'd set out manifesto in plain English:

https://youtu.be/Mt4xRTafwaM

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:34 pm

Trump understands at least two things very well: the debt-credit game and branding. It might provide also a window into his long-standing motivation to take a shot at the White House. Considering his personal wealth is likely only a minute fraction of what he claims, since most of his value lies in potential brand value and future debt restructuring, any successful run for president and four years of some relative success (leaning on top advisers) would balloon his fortune to eclipse his own overblown estimates. He'd retire from office as an actual multi-billionaire: a personal fulfilment of his oversold illusions.

Or in other words, the presidency as means to realize his dream image as actuality. And it's not like he's not been trying this for decades. His source of power.

The question however is if this is a problem. As motivations go it's not that different from those all who were running for office: a bunch of illusions or selling out strategies, all a degree of whoring one way or another. At least Trump aims, barely cloaked, for personal success and materialization of his core illusion. And since Americanism stands for the inherently impossible realization and actualisation of the illusive self, the notion of making "America great again", should be perfectly aligned with chasing personal ambition and the story of Narcissus. With this Trump is clear as water, which at some level is refreshing in the increasing muddy game of politics.

With camp Clinton, this all has been completely turned into a simulacrum of the above. Meaning that near to all liberal politics serve now to hide the truth that it has no bearing with reality at all. Under the hood one can still spot a bunch of personal ambitions and delusions, some peddling of money, influence and power but it's not used for the aims of money and power, which is nothing but personal ambition and illusion of (or to) self. And as such power and money flows will show up to be entirely dysfunctional upon investigation. Within the liberal camp, one can trace the application of power becoming its own anti-thesis: liberation turns into imprisonment, investment turns into financial black holes, humanitarian projects turns into mass murder and secret weapon deals. All personal ambitions here turn unavoidably into personal damage and humiliation (as the Clintons amply have demonstrated already). This is all build-in here! Simply because only the language of power is used and some of its constructs. But underneath it's pure rot, pure destruction: the illusion pretending to be real as stated in the campaign " America is already great". The self is already being assumed and as such real ambition, like Trumps billions which still need to be realized or some "American glory" in need of restoration or fulfilment, all must look surely like crazy or unneccesary ideas when seen through the typical liberal made-in-Atlantis optics.

The fascination for a character like Trump is then to some extent based on the remains of original Americanism: the naked, personal ambition coated with a truck load of staggering braggadocio. That hits a note with the people who feel the managed, articulate, unreal world of Washington does not represent anything. Which of course it doesn't and the current economical dominant class operates on the insane notion that something has been already realized instead of having become lost or was never there to begin with. They've lost this sense of bravado and cynicism, both of which you can find back hyper-amplified, near indistinguishable from nonsense within the Trump campaign (but hey, this is not and never was about fact-as-truth). The difference itself is real enough and like all such true exposition arising, it cannot be put back in the bottle once given so much room to play out: it will do its destructive, unsettling work until, like all divided houses, one or more towers must fall. And it would be about bloody time!

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trump

Post by jupiviv » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:48 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Considering his personal wealth is likely only a minute fraction of what he claims,
That's certainly one of the "facts" about Trump being peddled by the MSM, but Forbes estimates it at around 4 bn. I doubt his net worth is below 1 bn, considering that his dad's net worth was ~300 mn (in the 90s).
since most of his value lies in potential brand value and future debt restructuring, any successful run for president and four years of some relative success (leaning on top advisers) would balloon his fortune to eclipse his own overblown estimates. He'd retire from office as an actual multi-billionaire: a personal fulfilment of his oversold illusions.
Yes, Trump won't do what's necessary for the long term health of the economy because it will inevitably involve curbing the casino practices of the finance/speculation sectors, where Trump's wealth is derived from. He may bring back the jobs (which is a good thing in itself) but he'll do nothing to prevent the consequent real estate explosion. So while Trump may use the US economy as a casino, this may also help its citizens to a certain extent. There's nothing wrong with greed if it helps people, right? "Everybody wins".
Within the liberal camp, one can trace the application of power becoming its own anti-thesis: liberation turns into imprisonment, investment turns into financial black holes, humanitarian projects turns into mass murder and secret weapon deals. All personal ambitions here turn unavoidably into personal damage and humiliation (as the Clintons amply have demonstrated already). This is all build-in here! Simply because only the language of power is used and some of its constructs. But underneath it's pure rot, pure destruction: the illusion pretending to be real as stated in the campaign " America is already great". The self is already being assumed and as such real ambition, like Trumps billions which still need to be realized or some "American glory" in need of restoration or fulfilment, all must look surely like crazy or unneccesary ideas when seen through the typical liberal made-in-Atlantis optics.
The problem is that no one *wants* to work if they get to live at a suitable standard of living. That is the democrats' Trump card - free shit in exchange for votes and indifference to the party elites' corruption. Another "everybody wins" scenario, in the short term at least.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:51 pm

jupiviv wrote:That's certainly one of the "facts" about Trump being peddled by the MSM, but Forbes estimates it at around 4 bn. I doubt his net worth is below 1 bn, considering that his dad's net worth was ~300 mn (in the 90s).
Well, what's a "fact" these days. Certainly around Trump nothing is what it seems. Some educated guesswork, including any amount of pending debt and mortgages it's quite possible that it's mostly verbal billions.
New York Times wrote:"Three people with direct knowledge of Donald's finances, people who had worked closely with him for years, told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million. "
But in this economy, in these verbal, symbolic times, perhaps it's real enough? To be honest, a low number just fits neatly my own theory that Trump is driven by actualization of his own projected wealth and image. And it's not like I'm condemning it. Actually I was trying to favor it over whatever the message of the Democrats is. Some possible confirmation of what I speculated earlier about: Here’s Why Trump’s Presidential Run Has Been a Bonanza for his Bank Account

Brilliant if true!
There's nothing wrong with greed if it helps people, right? "Everybody wins".
It's about the energy and drive of people in the end. Any "long term" projections are bound to be religious in nature.
The problem is that no one *wants* to work if they get to live at a suitable standard of living. That is the democrats' Trump card - free shit in exchange for votes and indifference to the party elites' corruption. Another "everybody wins" scenario, in the short term at least.
My theory is that for Trump such analysis does not even exist. He thinks in "low energy" and "high energy" situations and people. He believes in super-charging everything. If greed does that, fine. If wanting to make America great again then great! If people get energized with human space travel, he'd be all for it. And as social theory it might be more realistic than the "fulfilment of need" humanitarian efforts of the Democrats. If illusion used to fuel the greatness of America, what do you need to make America great again? Right. Of course it needs something better and crazier than even Trump could deliver. The only purpose I see Trump having is taking apart the party body he invaded with that fragment of intuitive realism he has. All in all he's the ghost of America past, showing a range of laughing mirrors.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trump

Post by jupiviv » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:14 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Certainly around Trump nothing is what it seems.
Around *anybody* campaigning for any kind of position in any government. Unless of course they get caught. We have a saying here - "deceit is a noble science, unless you get caught."
Some educated guesswork, including any amount of pending debt and mortgages it's quite possible that it's mostly verbal billions.
Not verbal billions, but billions backed by bullets and bogus! Like I said, Trump won't do much to roll back the casino status the US (and of course global) economy has achieved, except perhaps where it endangers itself by becoming too apparent. The question is can this be sustained and for how much longer, with what contingency plan in case of failure, and what effect on mankind if *all* goes to crap? I myself don't possess the knowledge or even ability to answer any of those questions in more than a vague manner. Despite conspiracy theories of Jews/Reptilians controlling the central banks, the main reason so much of the economy is phony is because a large number of people are happy to keep it that way without having the integrity to admit it.

I agree that Trump's products/properties will soar in value, thus making him an "aspirational" figure. Meanwhile, I just watched an episode from the new X-files which made about as much sense as the US election. Another saying we have here is - "a potato peddler shouldn't concern himself with shipping routes." I, and you as well no doubt, are simply too powerless to have much *real* information about these things. By real information I mean information obtained through actual observation and analysis of the *original* evidence.

Nothing has really changed in that domain. It's all still rumour and hearsay and you still have the royal bellman vs the adventurous parochial vicar shouting their respective narratives from their respective breteches. Except that much of it's travelling at ~2.13*10^8 m/s, and there's *much* more of it. "Hai evr1 just stormed jerusalem & found d ark of d covenant!" is as fundamentally iffy as "no means no" or "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

Maybe the Patriarchy is trying to stop Hillary from using her and Bill's unlimited reserves of grrl powrr to rid the world of all sin, and that business with the emails is a false flag conspiracy towards that same end. Maybe we should give Women/America/Muslims/Socialism/Libertarianism/White Pride/Black Lives a chaaaaance. Or maybe it is, like the X-files (the old and the new series), *all* crap despite some superficial *resemblance* to cogency and truth. Obviously I am of the latter opinion, but I'm still a potato peddler who has no business stealing the X-file on the MSC Valeria's itinerary because even were I to pull it off I'd essentially be none the wiser.
The problem is that no one *wants* to work if they get to live at a suitable standard of living. That is the democrats' Trump card - free shit in exchange for votes and indifference to the party elites' corruption. Another "everybody wins" scenario, in the short term at least.
My theory is that for Trump such analysis does not even exist. He thinks in "low energy" and "high energy" situations and people. He believes in super-charging everything. If greed does that, fine. If wanting to make America great again then great! If people get energized with human space travel, he'd be all for it.
He like a lot of other rich Americans thinks that a penalty kick is the same thing as a free kick from midfield. It is an abject refusal to admit that no amount of enterprise and petty innovation will fill the gap in actual productivity/demand. The jawbs just aren't there for a lot of American people unless they are prepared to accept a significant decrease in living standard. "They took muh jawb" because "they" are willing to work longer for cheaper wages. And even "they" won't have many of those jobs in the near future because a major part of the demand for what they produce is hype and fantasy. In other words, the "gap" isn't really a gap but simply the reality.

The same goes for welfare. The jobless white people supporting Trump now will start explicitly supporting the alt right/white nationalist movement when they realise that many jobs simply aren't coming home (either because they don't exist or because they don't want to do them). "They" - albeit a different "they" - will now be blamed for taking muh EBT.

We live in an economy where a woman can earn millions of dollars by dressing like a whore and strutting around on a ramp. And that same woman can go around campaigning for saving the whale, rainforests or children with most people not batting an eyelid about it. Also viewed as the same would be someone earning money from being owed money by others and calling that "God's work" because it also makes money for those who owe him their money. I don't care how much "hard work" leads to someone getting these "jobs" because they don't even need to exist! The majority of people in the comfortable classes are so far removed from the actual necessities of life that some biological self-destruct mechanism is making them consume and pamper themselves to death.

200 years ago these "jobs" would have been viewed as obscene, cynical and preposterous, and relegated to backrooms and back-alleys (which they were). Not just for religion/patriarchy/whatever else but because not doing so would prove fatal to the survival of *everyone* involved.
And as social theory it might be more realistic than the "fulfilment of need" humanitarian efforts of the Democrats. If illusion used to fuel the greatness of America, what do you need to make America great again? Right. Of course it needs something better and crazier than even Trump could deliver. The only purpose I see Trump having is taking apart the party body he invaded with that fragment of intuitive realism he has. All in all he's the ghost of America past, showing a range of laughing mirrors.
It seems to me that the "fulfilment of need" efforts as you put it exists side by side with the supercharged enterprise efforts in US society. So what you have are bureaucrats/activists who won't do their jobs because they want a glittering career, and CEOs who enact ridiculous policies in their companies to appease the former. In short, everybody has his hand in the other guy's pocket.

Excuse the diatribe but I felt the need to record my thoughts.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:44 am

So, okay, where were we? O yeah, Trump. So he managed to hold on to most of the votes while Hillary couldn't. The Donald did even better under the minorities he supposed to have insulted than his last republican predecessors. What surprised me most is not the amount of nonsense which came out of Trump but the amount of nonsense written by big media outlets of what more they thought was coming out of his mouth.

But enough about the spectacle of elections. What should we expect? Any potential infusion of reason? The new secdef dude, James Mattis, at least seems somewhat of a serious Stoic philosopher and avoided the most violent war of all: family life! So that's good I suppose. No chicken hawk there.

The most defining choice will be the pick for secretary of State. Everything important is defined internationally. Or least until now. That's where the greatest changes can be initiated so the pick might tell us a great deal like if there's a part-time reasoning brain behind all this or if it was all pandering to sentiments. Don't hold your breath. We do live in the end-of-politics time after all.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:09 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What surprised me most is not the amount of nonsense which came out of Trump but the amount of nonsense written by big media outlets of what more they thought was coming out of his mouth.
You were surprised? Anyways, it's doubtful whether he would have won without Assange torpedoing Hitlary during the final weeks. Also, the reopening and closing of the investigation into her. That last move was probably an anal countermeasure on Comey's behalf when a Trump win became a material possibility.
But enough about the spectacle of elections.
Yes let's leave poor Hitlary alone. After all, "she has been through enough"! Lol...
The new secdef dude, James Mattis, at least seems somewhat of a serious Stoic philosopher and avoided the most violent war of all: family life! So that's good I suppose. No chicken hawk there.
I'm sure the combination of power and lack of sex/marriage produces great leaders. After all, look at our very own Modi! My only hope is that Mattis' tenure manages to bring about a real-life situation approximating this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
The most defining choice will be the pick for secretary of State. Everything important is defined internationally. Or least until now. That's where the greatest changes can be initiated so the pick might tell us a great deal like if there's a part-time reasoning brain behind all this or if it was all pandering to sentiments. Don't hold your breath. We do live in the end-of-politics time after all.
So far, his choices are all/mostly neocon insiders. You don't reach that financial *and* political status without being a creature of the swamp. Some of those insiders may disagree with the *way* neocon/deep-state originated policies are implemented, but not with the principle behind them. For example, the military/ex-military guys like Mattis who criticise the ME wars only disagree about who the enemy is and how the war is being fought.

There are many people in the US who are both explicitly opposed to the prevailing policies of either side of the political establishment while also being qualified for cabinet positions. If Trump was really serious about change he would right now be engaged in a bitter struggle with the "edgy" insiders he has appointed to have the former sort of people appointed instead.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:50 pm

jupiviv wrote:You were surprised? Anyways, it's doubtful whether he would have won without Assange torpedoing Hitlary during the final weeks. Also, the reopening and closing of the investigation into her. That last move was probably an anal countermeasure on Comey's behalf when a Trump win became a material possibility.
Relatively yes, since there was already so much to work with! And yet more out-of-context fantasy was required. Anyway yes Comey. He's in my opinion just covering his own ass, some internal issues for FBI in combination with any ambition he might have in future administrations. Also in the light of future revelations. While they might have found a lot of unethical stuff going on, it doesn't mean it was illegal after they deliberated on it for a while. Or that it would need a long legal process to make that case. So in that light the decision made sense: you act against immoral or unethical behaviour with the means you have but at the same time the legal swamp of the whole matter was acknowledged. So I think it was not done to influence politics, it was done to walk the fine line inside the agency.
Yes let's leave poor Hitlary alone. After all, "she has been through enough"! Lol...
No I said the elections. The process was not that interesting and I'm not even sure which factors would have changed anything. The persons wouldn't have changed by some different strategy. Of course a lot of people like to believe to be that "factor"...
If Trump was really serious about change he would right now be engaged in a bitter struggle with the "edgy" insiders he has appointed to have the former sort of people appointed instead.
Well, you cannot introduce a host of inexperienced outsiders to run it all. It's about the key positions. And I do think the picks are so far interesting and well thought out to at least bring about a little different perspective to the machine.

But who are we kidding? The system works in one mode and any romantic idea that a true factor of change could rise up without being crucified and killed in public is naive. Trump gets a chance because he's still firmly mainstream deluded on America.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:04 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Relatively yes, since there was already so much to work with!
Relatively yes, since there was already so much to work with!
Trump pretty much said whatever he (correctly) believed his fans would like to hear. What the MSM at least could have done was point out the inconsistencies in and reversals of his opinions on several issues instead of relentless ad hominem, but the MSM probably thought the average whatsapping Joe can't spare the CPU cycles to handle that sort of news. Much easier to grab some pussy.
While they might have found a lot of unethical stuff going on, it doesn't mean it was illegal after they deliberated on it for a while.
You're assuming they actually *tried* to find something, and I don't believe so. And again, why did reopen and then close the case all within a few days just prior to the election as opposed to reopening it *right now*?
No I said the elections. The process was not that interesting and I'm not even sure which factors would have changed anything. The persons wouldn't have changed by some different strategy. Of course a lot of people like to believe to be that "factor"...
I know, but I wanted an excuse to use that quote! Anyways I have to disagree that the election was uninteresting. Politically, it was a shift in the unicorn fart dominant narrative from left to right, as I've pointed out before. The US (and world) has entered the Age of Schism, which is already here in spirit because the Age of Information has removed the barriers of what can be believed to be true.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H L Mencken
If Trump was really serious about change he would right now be engaged in a bitter struggle with the "edgy" insiders he has appointed to have the former sort of people appointed instead.
Well, you cannot introduce a host of inexperienced outsiders to run it all. It's about the key positions. And I do think the picks are so far interesting and well thought out to at least bring about a little different perspective to the machine.
We'll see, but my guess is the different perspectives would be revised and even crazier versions of the extant ones.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:00 am

A word about the Donald's appointments - at this point it seems he's just going to be replacing leftist cronies with libertarian and/or conservative ones. The swamp lives on. The rationalisations from Trump fans (calling them supporters/voters just doesn't feel right) is truly inspired and rivals that of the embittered SJW fat girls over Hitlary's loss. From "they're real smart so they can fix the problems" to "he's just setting them up and will fire them first chance he gets and elect the real, non-swampy cabinet he's had up his sleeve all this time".

Thoughts?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:45 am

jupiviv wrote:A word about the Donald's appointments - at this point it seems he's just going to be replacing leftist cronies with libertarian and/or conservative ones. The swamp lives on. The rationalisations from Trump fans (calling them supporters/voters just doesn't feel right) is truly inspired and rivals that of the embittered SJW fat girls over Hitlary's loss. From "they're real smart so they can fix the problems" to "he's just setting them up and will fire them first chance he gets and elect the real, non-swampy cabinet he's had up his sleeve all this time".

Thoughts?
Well, quite a few Ayn Rand fans and a lot of military brass so far. But it's a business cabinet with one main geopolitical goal (I suspect) and that is pulling Russia closer to the US with future China in mind. Good old Putin was playing that poker game already for a while: flirting with China as response to the cold Western shoulder. But China is not the natural partner for Russia at all! And everyone, including Trump knows it would be best for Russia to look westwards again. So here the contour of the "new" deal arises. Probably in the works for a while already, in some corridors here and there. And look at the Defence and FM positions! Could it be more Russia oriented already?

Makes you wonder if there's a core of truth to the idea that the Kremlin actually worked with Trump team, or some CEO network in the background, knowingly, to target the "swamp" in advance. Not that I care either way - it would be a poetic kind of justice if the USA got "regime changed" for a change!

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:15 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But it's a business cabinet with one main geopolitical goal (I suspect) and that is pulling Russia closer to the US with future China in mind.
Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia won't risk the Chinese alliance over some honeymoon cuddling with the US. Besides, Europe won't stand for it (absent the widespread success of alternative Russia-friendly movements and breakdown of the EU). We're at a point where only one thing can be stated certainly - the delusion of an infinite world with infinite resources and infinite opportunities to exploit those resources won't be dismantled within the pop consciousness in the near future.
But China is not the natural partner for Russia at all!
What determines natural partnership? Russia has resources and China industry, they have a love-hate 20th century history together and their current political systems are fairly similar.
Makes you wonder if there's a core of truth to the idea that the Kremlin actually worked with Trump team, or some CEO network in the background, knowingly, to target the "swamp" in advance. Not that I care either way - it would be a poetic kind of justice if the USA got "regime changed" for a change!
If the CIA have actual evidence why haven't they shown it yet? In any case, the fog of information is too thick to make head or tail of this unless you are intimately involved (perhaps not even then!)

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:41 pm

jupiviv wrote:Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia won't risk the Chinese alliance over some honeymoon cuddling with the US.
Short term, for sure. But various tough internal problems for China are on the horizon. And I suspect Russia does know it.
What determines natural partnership? Russia has resources and China industry, they have a love-hate 20th century history together and their current political systems are fairly similar.
There are major differences still though. With natural I mean, looking at the borders: religion, culture, overall history and geography. And the partership is of course with Europe but that won't happen if ties with the US do not seriously defrost (and the regimes in Eastern Europa flip).
If the CIA have actual evidence why haven't they shown it yet? In any case, the fog of information is too thick to make head or tail of this unless you are intimately involved (perhaps not even then!)
The problem with that is that it's no different than any other political deal around elections. Some say therefore that certain agencies (cabal) actually rejected both candidates just as much and worked against them (by e.g. leaking and false witnesses on both). That would mean they are working to invalidate this whole election, still. Anyway, just a theory. In the end it's more likely nobody knows what they're doing.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:44 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia won't risk the Chinese alliance over some honeymoon cuddling with the US.
Short term, for sure. But various tough internal problems for China are on the horizon. And I suspect Russia does know it.
Just to add to my reply, there's little doubt to my mind that Russia is working very hard for quite a few years now to weaken:

- the current EU block, to exploit the frictions and fissures already there: to assist in widening them
- the US-EU ties, to exploit various issues EU countries are developing with US policies, expose and amplify the process
- the NATO stronghold on Europe by forcing the issue of who the alliance needs to protect and against what price.

This is a longer term game here but the tactical elements appear to be:

- leak and expose as many "dirty" secrets and open failures of US politics and EU, US-EU or NATO policies around the world for public consumption
- strengthen ties with all key nationalist or right-wing political forces abroad, especially when already in power (eg Turkey)
- project Russia as a capable, internationally involved world power by creating maximum ambivalence about capabilities on hacking, missiles etc.

The desired end result is the retreat of the US as global hegemony ("empire"), a divided Europe which will increasingly cooperate again with Russia as "big neighbour" and a very definite "multi-polar" world where not two players are behind a chess board (like the Cold War) but dozens are. This is the environment where Russia economically and politically can thrive. Perhaps also the only one, thinking of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. Then again, the world is larger now with less geographical restrains. However, culturally this is not really the case, cultures are always geographically bound and Russia is culturally still very conservative and even reactionary. Hence my belief that their long term game is becoming again a major European power first and foremost.

Well at least they have a plan and the means to do it. Personally I do not think it will work because of the changing nature of the nation-state and cultural decay on the medium-longer term. The reactionary, even fascism-like attempts you can see to uphold or re-invent the nation and "national culture" are to me signs it's in fact radically changing and generally people begin to panic deep down, looking for something to hold on to. As a result, most of this will remain rhetoric and endless but pointless strategic moves without any end game ever arriving. The game will just shift to another board all together in such cases leaving the old set-up hollow and irrelevant but dangerous until abandoned and cleaned-up (like chemical waste dumps).

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:24 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Putin or whoever is in charge in Russia won't risk the Chinese alliance over some honeymoon cuddling with the US.
Short term, for sure. But various tough internal problems for China are on the horizon. And I suspect Russia does know it.
Just to add to my reply, there's little doubt to my mind that Russia is working very hard for quite a few years now to weaken:

- the current EU block, to exploit the frictions and fissures already there: to assist in widening them
- the US-EU ties, to exploit various issues EU countries are developing with US policies, expose and amplify the process
- the NATO stronghold on Europe by forcing the issue of who the alliance needs to protect and against what price.
It certainly passes the "cui bono?" test, but we must also keep in mind that the US deep state (whoever him/she/shim/it/they are) harbours a deep anathema towards Russia-China. If they were trying to do so on any large scale, it would result in exposure to the public by the minions of the aforementioned deep state and consequently some form of NATO vs Russia-China(?) hot war.
- leak and expose as many "dirty" secrets and open failures of US politics and EU, US-EU or NATO policies around the world for public consumption
- strengthen ties with all key nationalist or right-wing political forces abroad, especially when already in power (eg Turkey)
- project Russia as a capable, internationally involved world power by creating maximum ambivalence about capabilities on hacking, missiles etc.
Again, such extensive operations wouldn't go unnoticed and would give NATO a good casus belli for *real* conflict and not just one-upmanship. Trump used the Russian relations issue during his campaign to bolster his popularity, just like everything else he talked about. It is unlikely that he or his cabinet are pro-Russia in any deeper sense. Neither are most of Trumpists and even less so the mainstream Republican party. So these actions would be very risky and liable to backfire.
The desired end result is the retreat of the US as global hegemony ("empire"), a divided Europe which will increasingly cooperate again with Russia as "big neighbour" and a very definite "multi-polar" world where not two players are behind a chess board (like the Cold War) but dozens are.
I think that will happen, or rather is already happening, naturally. Why interrupt an enemy who is destroying himself? My guess at this point is that everyone is in "wait and see" mode. It certainly won't be a long wait.

Anyways, happy Christmas and Jew Year to all! Pray to Jesus that in 2017 everything might be made great again, otherwise Hitlary will cook your soul!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:54 pm

jupiviv wrote: we must also keep in mind that the US deep state (whoever him/she/shim/it/they are) harbours a deep anathema towards Russia-China. If they were trying to do so on any large scale, it would result in exposure to the public by the minions of the aforementioned deep state and consequently some form of NATO vs Russia-China(?) hot war.
Exposure is slowly becoming meaningless simply because there's so much of it. Often missing the needed context and detail to make true sense of it. The media and consumers are getting into a state of "information overload". In such world it becomes possible to enhance and quicken this erosion of trust in these "exposures to the public". Perhaps it doesn't even need any encouragement here but it could be tempting for certain agents to hasten it like for example feeding Wikileaks with more sensitive documents on top of everything else they're receiving. It's an area where I can see many possibilities to confuse the world: find a large, painful,but documented error of world leaders or surrounding elites and just file it all for the world to see. And then again. And again. The consequence of this would be, amongst other things, that any further "exposure" of enemy plans would only add to the growing confusion and public debate, eroding trust in various alliances, established political entities and government agencies.
Why interrupt an enemy who is destroying himself? My guess at this point is that everyone is in "wait and see" mode. It certainly won't be a long wait.
Yes, also in the game of chess a good tactic, especially if you're playing a talented but cocky player: just wait for them to have a plan and wait for the mistake. Then make your move and see the opponent position implode unto itself. A sound strategy of chess: not to have any plans at all, just counter-move and aim for balancing it out, being thorough and attentive with each detail.
otherwise Hitlary will cook your soul!
Funny! In a way you are locking her back up in the kitchen then.. :-)

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:40 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Exposure is slowly becoming meaningless simply because there's so much of it.
Yes, this is because we're in the Age of Schism. Public trust in established, tangible sources of information is disintegrating rapidly. And it is *not* being replaced by trust in the various "alt" phenomena. The alt-media and alt-right are fragmented opinion-wise and I would imagine far *easier* to mislead and proselytize than mainstream sources. Instead of a few big sources of information with definite and identifiable biases and coherent motives for lying, we're now being placed in the hands of several such sources with a myriad of possible biases and motives for lying.
The media and consumers are getting into a state of "information overload".
I would say information override (as in method overriding vs overloading). They use the information to reinforce their own delusions, and since usually a lot of people share the same delusion and nowadays are able to let each other know about that fact fact at light speed, the reality check provided by the social ostracism of dissenters has disappeared. So credibility becomes a matter of chance and circumstance. If your position fits the events and mood around you, then you're a great sage. If not, just be patient. I see no other reason why people like Milo can be so popular.
Why interrupt an enemy who is destroying himself? My guess at this point is that everyone is in "wait and see" mode. It certainly won't be a long wait.
Yes, also in the game of chess a good tactic, especially if you're playing a talented but cocky player: just wait for them to have a plan and wait for the mistake. Then make your move and see the opponent position implode unto itself. A sound strategy of chess: not to have any plans at all, just counter-move and aim for balancing it out, being thorough and attentive with each detail.
I assume you're talking about the Petrov opening? It is indeed intended for "black" but usually results in draws. Which is just as well!
Funny! In a way you are locking her back up in the kitchen then.. :-)
Would you trust Hillary with your food after watching this? The last and most important question of 2016 - wtf did Hitlary expectorate into that glass?

Current best answer: "she's altering the pH levels to be acceptable for reptiles to drink".

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:09 pm

jupiviv wrote:Yes, this is because we're in the Age of Schism. Public trust in establishe, tangible sources of information is disintegrating rapidly. And it is *not* being replaced by trust in the various "alt" phenomena. The alt-media and alt-right are fragmented opinion-wise and I would imagine far *easier* to mislead and proselytize than mainstream sources. Instead of a few big sources of information with definite and identifiable biases and coherent motives for lying, we're now being placed in the hands of several such sources with a myriad of possible biases and motives for lying.
Melt-down of knowledge and our various models of "how the world works" in the human realms. Especially modernity has become possessed with a cultist idea of infallibility of knowledge, the "truth" inside information, always almost there but never fully arriving. It's as these truths hide themselves on purpose, the moment the mob closes in, it morphs into something else! Of course that's only how it looks and the hiding is possibly ours alone.
I would say information override (as in method overriding vs overloading). They use the information to reinforce their own delusions, and since usually a lot of people share the same delusion and nowadays are able to let each other know about that fact fact at light speed, the reality check provided by the social ostracism of dissenters has disappeared. So credibility becomes a matter of chance and circumstance. If your position fits the events and mood around you, then you're a great sage. If not, just be patient. I see no other reason why people like Milo can be so popular.
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.
I assume you're talking about the Petrov opening? It is indeed intended for "black" but usually results in draws. Which is just as well!
Just generally with chess -- if winning would be the goal, it's in many cases better to capitalize on errors resulting from ambitious adventuring of the opponent than it would to have some grand plan. Not the same as just eying a combination.
The last and most important question of 2016 - wtf did Hitlary expectorate into that glass? Current best answer: "she's altering the pH levels to be acceptable for reptiles to drink".
Funny! I see some people mention she had taken some cough drops earlier, clearly visible, that she wanted to get rid off. Alternative would be to swallow or chew them to bits. Spitting out in the glass would be a way to dump them. That sounds like a reasonable explanation but I didn't check the evidence.

It's a nice example how this exaggerated online attention to minute details lead to all forms of magical thought. It's really interesting as it would turn the audience into lizards, zombies and vampires, ruling the world from the arm chair of critique and know-it-all. No wonder the politicians became estranged from them over the last decades. The problem is the limitation of knowledge, the warping view of media and the idiocy of "intelligent agencies". But that's our world now, our "habitat". Perhaps it's time someone shatters the glass of the terrarium. Or did someone do it already? And they don't know it yet?

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:35 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Yes, this is because we're in the Age of Schism. Public trust in establishe, tangible sources of information is disintegrating rapidly. And it is *not* being replaced by trust in the various "alt" phenomena. The alt-media and alt-right are fragmented opinion-wise and I would imagine far *easier* to mislead and proselytize than mainstream sources. Instead of a few big sources of information with definite and identifiable biases and coherent motives for lying, we're now being placed in the hands of several such sources with a myriad of possible biases and motives for lying.
Melt-down of knowledge and our various models of "how the world works" in the human realms. Especially modernity has become possessed with a cultist idea of infallibility of knowledge, the "truth" inside information, always almost there but never fully arriving. It's as these truths hide themselves on purpose, the moment the mob closes in, it morphs into something else! Of course that's only how it looks and the hiding is possibly ours alone.
I would say the *consequences* of acting upon that already ingrained idea are amplified beyond all sense and reason by the conditions imposed/offered by modernity. People have always accepted delusion and falsity provided it made them happy and/or others believed it. Nowadays the sheer quantity of delusions combined with their communication at light speed and the reduction or total lack of bad consequences for believing them, has created an environment where one's own honesty and wisdom only needs to stay afloat upon others' hypocrisy and error in order to be heeded. Of course, there are always a few who willingly drown.
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.
I see more a similarity with what Weininger calls "Judaism". "Inner ambiguity, I repeat, is absolutely Jewish, simplicity is absolutely un-Jewish." True feminisation would actually take us even lower, i.e., unabashed identification of feelings with facts - that is still, at least in principal, generally discouraged. What we really have, in the broadest sense, is truth as means rather than end-in-itself.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:30 am

jupiviv wrote:I see more a similarity with what Weininger calls "Judaism". "Inner ambiguity, I repeat, is absolutely Jewish, simplicity is absolutely un-Jewish." True feminisation would actually take us even lower, i.e., unabashed identification of feelings with facts - that is still, at least in principal, generally discouraged. What we really have, in the broadest sense, is truth as means rather than end-in-itself.
Simplicity is a treacherous term. One doesn't arrive "simply" at simplicity since compounding and elaborating, creating ever more complex intrigues, has been the default tendency of the mind, so far, possibly because of addictive elements of such application itself. But just axing everything, grinding it all to bits is not simplicity either. That's just the calmness that nihilist destruction offers us.

True simplicity, from the philosophical perspective, comes with a difficult, winding path; learning to shed what is not needed anymore to home into the essential without having to believe in any essences, souls, beings or things. After all, it's "Judaism" and all metaphysical magic schools before and after which are doing nothing but that: boiling all gods down to one "real" entity, invoking a "soul" where a multitude of inner drives, angels and demons appear to dwell, or in its latest incarnation to assert eternal or "absolute existing" laws, books, things, objective worlds inhabited by mechanical creatures and entities looking for salvation and peace by endless tuning the "environment" so these beings can all prosper and develop into better beings (teleology). But yes, Judaism is a pure expression of this but I suspect Weininger's use of "inner ambiguity" is contrasted with the simplicity of belief in terms of identity: what do you think you are? What is your past and what your future? Judaism peddles and debates internally many complex stories on their origination which many Jews don't believe in at all and surely there's never been much concern about a next life of any kind. This has become a trade-mark of modernity for sure: the transnational world citizen, disembodied and doubting everything but himself or the inner circles or subcultures, the "cult" one happens to grow up in.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:56 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I see more a similarity with what Weininger calls "Judaism". "Inner ambiguity, I repeat, is absolutely Jewish, simplicity is absolutely un-Jewish." True feminisation would actually take us even lower, i.e., unabashed identification of feelings with facts - that is still, at least in principal, generally discouraged. What we really have, in the broadest sense, is truth as means rather than end-in-itself.
Simplicity is a treacherous term. One doesn't arrive "simply" at simplicity since compounding and elaborating, creating ever more complex intrigues, has been the default tendency of the mind, so far, possibly because of addictive elements of such application itself. But just axing everything, grinding it all to bits is not simplicity either. That's just the calmness that nihilist destruction offers us.
Simplicity must be arrived at simply, or else not at all. And of course, definition is key. I define "simplicity" as the natural state of mind when delusions are wiped away. That isn't simple in the sense of taking no effort or thought, and yet there is nothing complex about wanting *only* that. A delusion is an incomplete thought which the thinker, for whatever reason, doesn't want to complete. The beginning and the conclusion of any complete thought is the thinker's relation to it, i.e., his being. Sum, ergo cogito. Delusions become wisdom when the thinker relates himself to them.

This is the central (and most revered) problem of the "human condition". If an artist - even vaguely through music or painting - can depict this transformation, then he is a "genius" by Weininger's definition. It's always about the many experiences and events in the stew of life boiling down to a simple belief or thought that seems to resonate through all nature, and certainly in art it is always about either love or death. In music it could be the return to a single melody after variations, and the best examples of this in my view are Bach's sacred cantatas. In literature we have Hamlet, who wishes to turn everything inside out because of one death until he finally believes in the uniformity of Providence. In philosophy we have the axiom/s underpinning any worthy doctrine.

The act of relating oneself to a thought cannot itself be thought about or reasoned about. Once done, it is done for all time. If not yet done then never will it be. Either one stands or falls with the thought or traps it (and oneself) within a gilded cage of ignorance.
But yes, Judaism is a pure expression of this but I suspect Weininger's use of "inner ambiguity" is contrasted with the simplicity of belief in terms of identity: what do you think you are? What is your past and what your future? Judaism peddles and debates internally many complex stories on their origination which many Jews don't believe in at all and surely there's never been much concern about a next life of any kind. This has become a trade-mark of modernity for sure: the transnational world citizen, disembodied and doubting everything but himself or the inner circles or subcultures, the "cult" one happens to grow up in.
I can't speak with any authority about actual Jewishness, but your closing sentence is well put. As psychological category Weininger hits it on the head as usual.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:14 pm

Some interesting take on things Trump, includes even a Gamergate reference.

Trump Diary 9 - Waggish - David Auerbach.

The core idea here is the development of both overculture and underculture, almost touching the marxist idea of class warfare, but perhaps too heterogeneous to really classify as such. But the distinction is there: the overculture being perhaps easier to identify as geared toward the national and international, a more uniformist, universalist outlook perhaps?
  • the elite overculture by its nature is one culture that speaks with select controlled and constrained voices
The rest of the article explores the idea of the overculture attempting "to coopt these new underculture groups for political gain and profit" and of course, failing to do so.

As for the gamergate reference
  • I believe this is an accurate description of 2003. What subsequently happened, however, was that some of the tribes and village societies outside the elite found ways to make themselves heard, loudly, on the national and global level. It’s those tribes of the underculture that are relevant to this piece: specifically, those which are politically mobilized on either the left or the right. Less politically mobilized segments, such as the extremely poor or the disenfranchised (southern minorities, for example), remain of less concern. Gamergate, likewise, is so politically conflicted and muddled that it lacks any real voice, despite being held up anachronistically as some supposed alt-right progenitor.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:46 am

And the march of Christian derangement from the White House continues: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/charmai ... i-abortion

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Mon May 01, 2017 7:29 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Some interesting take on things Trump, includes even a Gamergate reference.

Trump Diary 9 - Waggish - David Auerbach.

The core idea here is the development of both overculture and underculture, almost touching the marxist idea of class warfare, but perhaps too heterogeneous to really classify as such. But the distinction is there: the overculture being perhaps easier to identify as geared toward the national and international, a more uniformist, universalist outlook perhaps?
More bad goodies vs good baddies drama porn, as I see it. The alt-right (i.e. local/ethnic/nationalist) movements are effectively just loosely organised PR campaigns. The "sell" is the pretense that the elites are terrified of allowing/conceding failure, that what they are doing is anything other than witch doctoring to begin with, like the Federal Reserve teasing a .25% rate hike like a fucking Game of Thrones season finale and then pretending that it's significant. Likewise, you have the fake cultural "war" over "real issues" that are no more real than any other issues in developed/developing world politics, viz., ready-to-eat mental tofu snacks.

On the surface it's all "SPARTA!" while in reality it's "awwww, but you *do* matter!" Explains the superficially pro-male, anti-feminist bent of these movements.

However, movements are not identical to the people in them. The mute, bluntly sensible reality of ennui and misery driving people to these movements can't be vanished with sound and fury. And of course, some pockets of clarity regarding said reality do exist. For example, in the realm of anti-feminism we have the MGTOW (men going their own way) movement, which rejects feminism and conservatism in favour of celibacy, VR cum silicone hobbit torso -based masturbatory systems or non-romantic sex. They even have their own version of Geraldo now:

Single mother solipsism part 1
Single mother solipsism part 2

Post Reply