It's not a controversial statement by any means. — Baden

I didn't say it was.

But you don't want to talk to anyone who describes it as such? It's not a judgement but an observation btw.

Anyway, it's cool. We both said our piece.

But you don't want to talk to anyone who describes it as such? It's not a judgement but an observation btw. — Baden

Have a good evening/night. :halo:

:up:

argument ["masu" not sure what it means] of Vladimir Putin, — boethius

Une massue = a big club

Un argument massue = a sledgehammer argument ?

He's got a point there. The contempt paid to the South is coming back to haunt us. The whole western condescension, the hypocrisy, it's been palpable for decades. Villepin doesn't mention Palestine but there's been that as well.

Definitely so. He is convincing. He believes in what he says. His aura in France is that of a looser magnifique, a flibustering poet-diplomat. A bit passé now of course. — Olivier5

He's still a politician though, and associated the whole

In 2004, French judges were given a list by an anonymous source containing the names of politicians and others who, it was alleged, had deposited kickbacks from a 1991 arms sale to Taiwan into secret accounts at Clearstream, a private bank in Luxembourg. The most prominent name on the list was that of Nicolas Sarkozy, Villepin's rival for power in the UMP. The list was later shown to be fraudulent, a discovery Villepin kept from the public for 15 months at a time when the two men were vying for party supremacy.[17] Meanwhile, the source of the list was later revealed to be a longtime associate of Villepin's, one Jean-Louis Gergorin, an executive at EADS. Critics claimed that Villepin, perhaps with the support of then-president Jacques Chirac, had tried to defame his rival. Sarkozy, in turn, filed a suit against whoever was behind the creation of the Clearstream list. Villepin was eventually acquitted in 2010[18] (see #Clearstream trial below). — Villepin, Wikipedia

... A passage that paints Sarkozy as the victim--and maybe he was--but who later went on to get embroiled even larger corruption scandals involving kickbacks for submarines and just brief cases of cash from the Oreal fortune.

On 1 July 2014 Sarkozy was detained for questioning by police over claims he had promised a prestigious role in Monaco to a high-ranking judge, Gilbert Azibert, in exchange for information about the investigation into alleged illegal campaign funding. Mr Azibert, one of the most senior judges at the Court of Appeal, was called in for questioning on 30 June 2014.[153] It is believed to be the first time a former French president has been held in police custody, although his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was found guilty of embezzlement and breach of trust while he was mayor of Paris and given a suspended prison sentence in 2011.[154] After 15 hours in police custody, Sarkozy was put under official investigation for "active corruption", "misuse of influence" and "obtained through a breach of professional secrecy" on 2 July 2014.[155] Mr Azibert and Sarkozy's lawyer, Thierry Herzog, are also now under official investigation. The two accusations carry sentences of up to 10 years in prison.[156] The developments were seen as a blow to Sarkozy's attempts to challenge for the presidency in 2017.[157][158] Nevertheless, he later stood as a candidate for the Republican party nomination,[159] but was eliminated from the contest in November 2016.[160] A trial on this case, Sarkozy's first, started on 23 November 2020.[161]

In April 2016, Arnaud Claude, former law partner of Sarkozy, was named in the Panama Papers.[166]

On 23 November 2020, the trial of Nicolas Sarkozy started who is accused of corruption and influence peddling, for an attempted bribery of a judge. The trial was postponed until November 26, following a request from one of his co-defendants for health reasons.[167]

On 1 March 2021, a court in Paris found former French President Nicolas Sarkozy guilty of corruption, trading in influence in a wiretapping and illegal data exchange case involving a number of individuals like magistrate Gilbert Azibert and Sarkozy's former lawyer Thierry Herzog. Both men were tried with him and convicted as well. Sarkozy and his two co-defendants were sentenced to three years, two of them suspended, and one in prison.[168][169] Sarkozy appealed the ruling, which suspends its application. — Sarkozy, Wikipedia

... So maybe Villepin was just the best of a rotten lot, or too dumb or too arrogant (I think typical French attitude about him today).

Of course, it's not like Villepin is running the red cross or anything since leaving public office:

Soon after his exit from daily political life, on 9 January 2008 de Villepin returned to legal practice.[24] Since then, he has travelled on business to Iran, Argentina, Venezuela and Colombia.[24] Over its first two years, the bureau had revenues of 4,65 million euros and earned profit of 2,6 million.[24] Alstom, Total and Veolia and the Bugshan family conglomerate have all been clients.[24] His main client for a time was Qatar,[25] and he has a close relationship with Al-Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani and her mother Moza bint Nasser.[24] He advocated forcefully the Palestinian cause during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict,[26] at the request of the Qataris, and protested the French legal ban on Islamic facial veils for women in 2014.[27] De Villepin counsels the Qatar Investment Authority.[28] He is president of the advisory board of Universal Credit Rating Group, a Sino-Russo-American bond credit rating agency, and international advisor to China Minsheng Bank.[24] — Wikipedia

So ... maybe just a realist idealist, that was too naive or too clever with too much ambition for his own good (notably: he did get acquitted).

However, the above scandals were so massive and messy (leading to far more "all politicians are corrupt" kind of attitude in France -- and super charging the far right, who are generally at least not "corrupt", as they have no power), that the French generally just want to forget about them all: hence Macron could just waltz in and won the presidency with an entirely new party he invented literally the year before.

Is my feeling from when I lived in France, people just didn't want to talk about it anymore (even though I was still super enthusiastic).

Un argument massue = a sledgehammer argument ? — Olivier5

This makes a lot more sense, thanks!

I had heard it originally as Massoud ... so, like, maybe Massoud has some referencable anti-Imperialist argument? that Villepin would reference Putin as making ... but then I discarded that possibility.

The book sounds really good, thanks for the tip.

The whole Chirac crew were small time crooks, and they did many dirty political tricks. Chirac was long embroiled in trials then let go on account of his age. Also his faithful lieutenant Juppé took the blame for him. Coming to think of it, this 2003 riff with the US and UK on Iraq is the one good thing this administration did. (and it didn't even work but they gave it a brave try)

Sarko and co. were big time crooks, with several very serious judicial cases ongoing.

"New World Order"? If so, ye' can't be serious. — jorndoe

True, the term "World New Order" does get mentioned from time to time by our overlords, but it's not an established fact that it's anything more than something "cool" to say they made up drinking on the golf course one day. — boethius

Here's Biden announcing a "New World Order" led by America in Business Roundtable address:

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube

Was he just about to say "We're going to impose a New World Order", but slightly changed the phrasing?

In any case, maybe it isn't Russia who's behind the NWO agenda, after all ....

Exactly, difficult to say Villepin was somehow squeaky clean, certainly at least knew how things worked ... or then not that smart after all.

Even people who liked Villepin that I would talk to would always finish with ... well then there was all this fucked up shit.

Clearly I do.

I've discussed him issues far enough. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. — ssu

You're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.

The matter is the same as in the covid discourse: a simplistic side-taking prevails.

So there you hear from the troll. Starting from that Putin cannot be a dictator. Putin has a point in many things, according to him. And he tells what Putin has told very accurately. Only saying that what Putin says are facts.

Has it ever occured to you that he is just trying to be fair?

And when you never, ever utter anything negative or critical about someone, it tells who you are.

Again, you're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.

Secondly, some people still have a sense of shame and so they would not say about another person (what to speak of saying it to the other person), "He's a piece of shit", "He should be put down", "You have no soul", and things like that.

There was a time and a place when people considered it beneath their dignity to say such things about other people, what to speak of saying them directly to them. They believed that they would lower themselves if they said such things.

It seems there are very few such people left.

I feel disheartened to see what language is being used in this discourse (as well as in many others). It shows how low so many people have fallen.

Anyone wanting an example of the monumentally stupid consequences of the sort of pointless moral falg-waiving on this thread.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/970136

I think it's paywalled for non-academic access so briefly... Dr Caplan is suggesting

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.
Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.
The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

He's seriously saying that innocent cancer patients should be denied treatment because they're Russian

Of course we'd expect this kind of virtue-signalling bullshit from Caplan, but still...

Was he just about to say "We're going to impose a New World Order", but slightly changed the phrasing? — Apollodorus

Why I mention that the elites literally say this ... even after it has the reputation for being their conspiracy.

But does it represent some coherent plan ... or is it just a flex to use the expression?

However, I don't view "conspiracy research" as irrelevant, just that (from my point of view at least) it's more a journalism activity than philosophical or political project. As Noam Chomsky says about it, that they already got caught red handed starting a massive war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilised the whole region, and faced no consequences, what more do you need?

Of course, where I disagree with Chomsky is simply that the truth of whatever machinations the elite are up to is valuable for it's own sake, so I wouldn't say it's as irrelevant as Chomsky argues. However, plenty insane scandals have been revealed already by many credible journalists over the decades (Iran Contra, obviously Iraq, French shit we've been discussing) ... and it doesn't change anything in itself these scandals coming about.

The whole cathartic "and then the politicians went to jail / reported to the president" trope at the end of nearly every political thriller for decades ... until it was simply so unbelievable that they had to start changing that genre to way more mirky, if there's any moral point at all.

And indeed, the whole "conspiracy theorist" trope is literally documented as a FBI fabrication for propaganda purposes ... so, should beg the question: why?

However, be that as it may, there are forums dedicated to the topic. On a philosophy forum you may simply find it more efficient to either use facts that are supported by some journalist or institution that most here would likely accept, or then just use the word if rather than assertions to make your argument (people can then look into the premises on their own time).

I think it's paywalled for non-academic access so briefly... Dr Caplan is suggesting

All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it. — Isaac

I don't get this part. Cease all research generally speaking? Or just in Russia?

By the time when the multilayered Clearstream affair hit, lots of folks started to unplug from the judicial sagas, that developed mani pulite style in the 90's. That's because at this point, the judicial cases were becoming part of politics, used to throw suspicion on political opponents. The original Clearstream list was genuine but as you quoted from wiki, some names were added by shadowy figures who shared various lists with the press... The press who wanted some scoop... The whole 'let's clean up the République project' became a kafkaïen nightmare, a game of smoke and mirrors overnight.

Since then, justice has scored some points, out of the media frenzy that marked those days.

Hence Macron now of course. But there are many other reasons. Like the French economic elite being tired of being ignored and milked. They support him 100%.

Cease all research generally speaking? Or just in Russia? — boethius

Sorry, yes, just Russia. I've added a bit to the quote I cited, which was unclear.

@boethius

Of course, now the zeitgeist has changed, Caplan's popularity weathervane has shifted. He now informs us ...

Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations

...oddly only a few months ago when arguing in favour of enforced consumer compliance over vaccinations he assured us...

The public health movement today is international. It is deeply concerned with the rights of the poor and those who have very few resources

Apparently not anymore, if Twitter says it isn't.

Tell us more about the West's racist "Jihad" against Poland, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria and Croatia. — Baden

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it.

You know what the slang term for Slovenes is? "Viennese horse stable keepers" (it's a succint phrase in Slavic languages).

Ever since I can remember, it's been beaten into us that we are inferior, an inferior race, and that only the British, the French, and the German are "proper people".

:heart:

I will say that the quips about Zelensky being an ex-comedian somehow a bad thing is dumb and classist. — StreetlightX

The previous prime minister of Slovenia (prime minister is the position with the most power in the country) was a former comedian. He wasn't in position for the full term, he was overthrown by the current government just before the covid crisis broke out.

He has proven to be a competent enough politician, but it's just hard to take him seriously, because everytime he begins to speak, I recall his comedic impersonations of politicians.

This has nothing to do with classism. It has to do with the justified expectation that a political leader should be an honorable and capable person.

I want more comedians, baristas, garbage people, dance teachers and brick layers in positions of power, as a general rule.

"Vote for us, and you will all have higher salaries!" is a slogan one of the current government parties here is using (the elections are in April). I used to think such slogans would be limited to dystopian science-fiction and caricatures in politology textbooks, and that no actual political party would ever say such a thing. But they do. And they come from the ordinary people.

What do the categories of people you mention above know about how to run a country?
And how could they fend against political extremism taking over?

If anything Zelensky's sense for the dramatic has been an absolute boon to Ukraine in this war, even if people are really so thick as to take it at sheer face value. But that's not Zelensky's fault.

It doesn't help that the war is presented as a video game.

And what came of those protests? Nothing.
— baker

Captive /.../ — FreeEmotion

It's not clear what your reply has to do with my question. The protests against the war in Iraq changed nothing, other than once more convicing people that protests accomplish nothing and are useless.

However, I don't view "conspiracy research" as irrelevant, just that (from my point of view at least) it's more a journalism activity than philosophical or political project. — boethius

That's exactly why, personally, I prefer to analyze it in terms of a conflict between geopolitical spheres of interests. The "conspiracy" may or may not exist but the conflict is generally acknowledged and beyond dispute.

Philosophy, after all, must be based on facts, otherwise it's just idle speculation. And the more facts are available for analysis, the better. US dominance of international organizations especially in the fields of security, trade, and finance, for example, is not disputed by scholars. See US Hegemony and International Organizations, Oxford University Press (2003), etc.

Unfortunately, the facts are disputed and denied by the ignorant (or disingenuous) who scream "conspiracy theory" the minute you suggest that at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West.

And that is when hysteria, hype, and agit-prop begin to be substituted for rational debate, and meaningful discussion becomes impossible, no matter what forum you happen to be on.

This, of course, is facilitated by the media and its political masters or collaborators. Take Zelensky's claim that the end of the world has arrived or that Russia is trying to exterminate the Ukrainian people in a "final solution", for example:

They are saying these words again — ‘the final solution’ — in relation to us, the Ukrainian nation ... it was said at a meeting in Moscow ...

From there to "Putin wants to take over the world" is not far .... :smile:

Tell us more about the West's racist "Jihad" against Poland, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria and Croatia. — Baden

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it. — baker

The British have traditionally been racist towards the Irish too, e.g. the phrase 'That's a bit Irish' means 'That's stupid'. That doesn't amount to a Western Jihad against the Irish. And a NATO jihad against NATO members, such as Poles, would be a bit self-defeating wouldn't it?

That's exactly why, personally, I prefer to analyze it in terms of a conflict between geopolitical spheres of interests. The "conspiracy" may or may not exist but the conflict is generally acknowledged and beyond dispute. — Apollodorus

We definitely agree on this point. Different political structures will manage their interests in their own idiosyncratic way.

Indeed, the only reason we have the concept of "conspiracy" in the sense of some large scale political thing going on, is because we have the concept of democracy, and they are incompatible.

No one's claiming Xi is some paragon of transparency and openness and just an "noraml guy" you'd just want to have a beer with.

Unfortunately, the facts are disputed and denied by the ignorant (or disingenuous) who scream "conspiracy theory" the minute you suggest that at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West. — Apollodorus

No argument with you there. Which is exactly why I don't join in the "conspiracy theorist" smearing as it's a double edged sword ... even if I didn't find even the most outlandish conspiracies theories entertaining and at least interesting exercise to work out exactly why I disagree, and did want such discourse "banned", what goes around comes around.

This, of course, is facilitated by the media and its political masters or collaborators. Take Zelensky's claim that the end of the world has arrived or that Russia is trying to exterminate the Ukrainian people in a "final solution", for example:

"They are saying these words again — ‘the final solution’ — in relation to us, the Ukrainian nation ... it was said at a meeting in Moscow ..." — Apollodorus

Super weird to use the wording "again" ... as if we can actually exorcize all our Western demons and cast them into Putin.

Was he just about to say "We're going to impose a New World Order", but slightly changed the phrasing? — Apollodorus

Why don't you tell? It's your theory.

In any case, maybe it isn't Russia who's behind the NWO agenda, after all .... — Apollodorus

Tell what "the NWO agenda" is exactly.

Actually, spamming this (already-spammed) thread might be too spammy. Though, I suppose, if you have something material, then do tell (in some thread).

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it. — baker

Not necessarily. I think a certain degree of objective observation and honesty is sufficient.

There is no doubt that that derogatory terms are often used with reference to Slavic people. Take English "Polack" or German "Polacke" for Polish people, or German "Kanake" for South-East Europeans in general, for example.

Polack - Wiktionary

Having said that, Slavic peoples sometimes use derogatory terms for each other, which probably adds to being looked down on by non-Slavs.

Unfortunately, the facts are disputed and denied by the ignorant (or disingenuous) who scream "conspiracy theory" the minute you suggest that at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West. — Apollodorus

You were accused of conspiracy theorizing by me for actual conspiracy theorizing not for suggesting that "at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West". Most of the posters on this thread, including me, would agree with that. It was one of the first points I made here. But damn, it's a pain keeping up with your self-victimization fantasies.

And the Brits call the French Frogs, and the French call then Roastbeef. Cry me a Dniepr river.