Minerals makes sense. Not oil. — frank

Actually trade makes far more sense that 19th Century imperialism.

Just look at Iraq. You would assume that because the US invaded the country, installed a government, that US Oil Companies would dominate the country. Well, even if they indeed are there, they hardly can be said to be dominating the place.

Largest oil fields where foreign companies are partnering to drill oil in Iraq :

1. Rumaila BP UK
2. Rumaila CNPC China
3. West Qurna Field Phase 1 Exxon US
4. West Qurna Field Phase 1 Shell UK
5. West Qurna Field Phase 2 Lukoil Russia
6. Majnoon Shell UK
7. Majnoon Petronas Malaysia
8. Zubair ENI Italy
9. Zubair Occidental US
10. Zubair KPRRM UK

So in the largest ten oilfields by production, there's TWO US oil companies. In the next ten oil fields, all are non-US companies.

Hence the idea of of going into a country and de facto colonizing it simply doesn't happen anymore. It's a hugely naive and delusional idea.

What has Trump here actually done? He has rattled his sabre and intervened on the sea. Then he has asked Maduro to leave the country. Maduro didn't budge. So, that's it. What then?

Occupying a large country that has 30 million people is a huge task, which doesn't make any sense.

Come and See (Idí i Smotrí): a 1985 Soviet epic tragedy film directed by Elem Klimov. Klimov had to fight eight years of censorship from the Soviet authorities before he was allowed to produce the film in its entirety... The starring were two talented kids called Aleksei Kravchenko and Olga Mironova. The flim mixes surrealism with a bit of existentialism that we used to watch and read in Russian arts. — javi2541997

One of the great warfilms ever.

I’ve heard of “Come and See.” It sounds brutal and disturbing. — T Clark

Oh, this surely is that. A real anti-war film.

Have to say that this film is the warfilm that made me the most impact when I saw it as a child. After seeing it, I felt sick that I had so made model airplanes from WW2 on my bookshelves. Well, that feeling of pacifism brushed off after a day or so...

Come and See genuinely is one of great war films, the surrealism makes it as mesmerizing as Terrence Malick's "Thin Red Line" from 1998, but is far more unpleasant. "Come and See" shows just how horrible the war in the Eastern front was when the enemy civilians were "Untermenschen" to the Germans. A true masterpiece from the Soviet era.
.

What has been totally obvious for everybody for a long time is now started to be said quite openly:

(CNN 19th Dec, 2025) Denmark has labeled the United States as a potential security concern for the first time in an annual report released by one of its intelligence agencies, offering more evidence of the increasingly fraught transatlantic alliance between Europe and the US.

The report, compiled by the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS), warns that the US “uses economic power, including threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer rules out the use of military force, even against allies.”

That assessment forms part of the service’s wider analysis that “great powers increasingly prioritize their own interests and use force to achieve their goals.”

It's now only a matter of time when European politicians will start openly speaking to their voters in a similar way. Usually a National Security Strategy paper interests only the policy wonks, but now this is reaching quite wide in the European media.

If the U.S. can’t anymore sell arms to Europe, they might start to sell them to countries like India, Argentina etc. — Punshhh

That would an absolute disaster. The last thing is to refrain from selling armaments and support to countries that can perfectly make the aircraft and weapons themselves. Of the 20 largest military spenders in the world half are NATO members. And the effects of Trump can already be seen: Canada is thinking about shrinking it's order of F-35s and replace the order partly with Swedish Gripen E fighters. France doesn't buy American weapons and the UK and large EU countries are totally capable making every kind of weapon system America has. The choice is for Trump to push them to do this or not.

What also has to be remembered that many NATO countries have designed their armed forces for NATO. No Nordic country or Benelux country is preparing for a possible NATO neighbor attacking them. That's btw Article 1 of the NATO charter, something very important and mainly forgotten (except perhaps with the case of Greece and Turkey). No other alliance has the kind of integration and interoperability as the NATO countries. India, poor Argentina or even the Gulf States militaries are designed a) for internal security missions and b) to fight their neighbors.

Hence when people float ideas of other alliances (or organizations like BRICS being military alliances), they totally forget this. What basically exists is an axis of Russia-North Korea-China with the Russia North Korea alliance being a classical military alliance. But did these countries come to the help of Iran? No way.

Also there will be chaos if the U.S. has to move their troops out of Europe. Trump could order that with a click of his fingers at any time. — Punshhh

The Congress is already pushing back at this development:

(Fox News, Dec 8th 2025) Congress is moving to limit the Pentagon’s ability to pull forces out of Europe and South Korea, easing concerns among allied governments.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, finalized by House and Senate negotiators and released Sunday evening, keeps force presence at roughly its current levels in both regions. It states that the U.S. cannot reduce its forces in Europe below 76,000 without submitting an assessment and certifying to Congress that such a move would not harm U.S. or NATO security interests.

What has to be understood (and what many Americans are incapable of seeing in their hubris) is that Trump is actually weakening American power. The idea that the US could change it's allies to vassals and change NATO to become more of a Warsaw Pact is simply a ludicrous idea, which even the vast majority of Americans want. This all is just serving the interests of who genuinely see the US as a threat, namely China and Russia. But especially Russia is all too happy of this self immolation. Putin can naturally promise deals in the billions for Trump on this. It's peanuts for Russia achieving it's objectives.

Maybe Marxism could be valued by someone who has compassion, but is it really based on compassion? — frank

Certainly not. An ideology that depicts a "class enemy", with Marxism the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, and preaches about a violent revolution to overthrow these, is certainly not compassionate. One has to understand that there's a huge void between the socialism that Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) and modern social-democracy talks about.

Anyway, I would pool together all ideologies that start from the reasoning that societal problems are being caused by a certain group of people, be they jews, muslims, the liberal-elites or capitalists, and then continue to argue on that the eradiction of these people is the answer to build a better world, to be extremely dangerous ideologies that just create more problems. They all should be resisted at all costs, be they from the left or from the right. One should judge individuals if the commit wrongdoing, but not accuse groups like ethnic minorities altogether. These ideologies and movements don't have any amount of compassion in them.

Many people in the US won’t like the idea that the president, pretty much on his own has defected to the other side. — Punshhh

At least reading this paper, he obviously has done it. This strategy paper is really gives on a platter what Russia wants:

a) Stops NATO enlargement (even the possibility of it)
b) ends transatlanticism
c) attacks the EU and sees the EU as basically a threat

Those above are the primary objectives for Russia. Without the EU (or anything similar), Russia is stronger to any individual European country. And the Russian response is very enthusiastic:

(The Guardian, 7th Dec 2025)The Kremlin has heaped praise on Donald Trump’s latest national security strategy, calling it an encouraging change of policy that largely aligns with Russian thinking.

The remarks follow the publication of a White House document on Friday that criticises the EU and says Europe is at risk of “civilisational erasure”, while making clear the US is keen to establish better relations with Russia.

“The adjustments that we see correspond in many ways to our vision,” the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said on Sunday. He welcomed signals that the Trump administration was “in favour of dialogue and building good relations”. He warned, however, that the supposed US “deep state” could try to sabotage Trump’s vision.

That really the EU is the threat can be seen from example the statement of Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary of state on X:

My recent trip to Brussels for the @NATO Ministerial meeting left me with one overriding impression: the US has long failed to address the glaring inconsistency between its relations with NATO and the EU. These are almost all the same countries in both organizations. When these countries wear their NATO hats, they insist that Transatlantic cooperation is the cornerstone of our mutual security. But when these countries wear their EU hats, they pursue all sorts of agendas that are often utterly adverse to US interests and security—including censorship, economic suicide/climate fanaticism, open borders, disdain for national sovereignty/promotion of multilateral governance and taxation, support for Communist Cuba, etc etc. This inconsistency cannot continue. Either the great nations of Europe are our partners in protecting the Western civilization that we inherited from them or they are not. But we cannot pretend that we are partners while those nations allow the EU’s unelected, undemocratic, and unrepresentative bureaucracy in Brussels to pursue policies of civilizational suicide.

The statement coming from a high official of the Trump administration should make it clear what is the target of the US.

And it should be noted, just how utterly different this is from even the 1st Trump administration. There obviously the paper were still be written by "adults in the room" like McMaster.

In essence we need to treat the US as China, Hungary, Belarus, and Russia, as a dictatorship that acts just like they do. — Christoffer

Err... how do we treat those various countries? Hungary is part of the EU, China is an important trading partner, the only one which is truly ostracized is actually Belarus.

Would it simply be better to simply to assist the Democrats in the US? Assist every group that opposes Trump?

* * *
CORRECTION: Earlier I wrongly stated the quote from the past NSS was from the Biden administration. Naturally the 2017 NSS was made by the 1st Trump administration (and I've corrected it). This just underlines how radical as nothing else before this paper is.

Since Trump has moved so hard in this extremist direction, there will be an equally powerful reaction. Politics and sociology works within the same entropic form of energy dispersion. With a lot of powerful actions comes an equally powerful reaction. — Christoffer

This is what I also anticipate. Already the commentary is hardening: not with the leaders that have to meet Trump, but with other politicians and political commentators. Likely the outcome will be that EU will take a more central role with a NATO that has become more European. "Coalitions of the willing" is what we will have, just as we now have with the European countries assisting Ukraine.

It might be hard to see in all of the stupid noise we experience today, but I can’t shake the idea that this is a temporary dark point, and we’re letting all these christo-fascists, right wing extremists, and Putinists blow their load all in one go, making them deeply unpopular in the future.

When people get fed up with the current status of things, they want change. And if most things look bad today, people want to change most things. — Christoffer

How did we get rid of nazism? Or Fascism in Italy? Why weren't there really were no "Werewolf" units fighting for the Third Reich after the surrender in 1945? Because the whole Nazism thing had been a total, utter disaster for Germany and everyone knew it.

An ideology will die only if it will end in a total failure that nobody cannot deny. But if the end isn't so catastrophic, many people will remember the positive aspects. The next three years of Trump will likely be similar as this year, yet likely it won't end up in a TOTAL catastrophe. And hence I think that the MAGA movement will just shed it's skin as populism is so tempting as an ideology to many. Those damn elitists!!!

Let's take the example of Russia.

We have to think just why Putin sees the fall of the Soviet Union as this greatest misfortune ever to happen. The reason why Soviet Union collapsed so utterly and quickly (that it left also us Finns simply dumbfounded) is because the leader of Russia itself, Boris Yeltsin, hated Gorbachev and wanted Soviet Union to be destroyed. The Putsch didn't kill him. It would be as the English would have had enough of the whole UK stuff and wanted to be independent. Scotland wouldn't object to that and Whales and Northern Ireland wouldn't (and basically couldn't) then uphold the mantle of UK by themselves. That's what happened with Soviet Union.

So when there were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet flag was hoisted down (meaning it wasn't the ultimate catastrophe), many Russians have also positive feelings about the Soviet Union and the Empire. Obviously the economic planning didn't work, but anyway, Yuri Gagarin, the Great Patriotic War!

And so it is with these right-wing extremists and MAGA people. I'm not sure they will go away. It might not be so temporary.

If it only would be so.

Yes, the US is a very divided country, yet Europeans won't forget that Americans have now two times elected Trump as President. That tells something about the US. And it seems like the part of the paper on Europe was written by JD Vance (or someone similar thinking). Many commentators do note this: this isn't just going to go away when Trump is out of the picture.

Yes, there are other inconsistencies in the paper, like bragging about having huge "soft power" when you have closed down USAID and the Voice of America. Or that the US has to lead basic scientific R&D when the administration has cut severely R&D. Or no mention of North Korea. Or bragging about ending conflicts that either weren't armed conflicts or are still underway.

Many will see this paper stating the US being the ally of Russia against Europe. That's not going to happen, there's a vast majority of Americans who do see the traditional stance of the US beneficial, yet Trump is the one who calls the shots.

Our views are too far apart to have this broad of a discussion, but I've got the following offer: if you have a small, bite-sized subject where you believe our views differ in interesting ways, point it out and we can go into it in detail. — Tzeentch

Fair enough, @Tzeentch. I'll keep that in mind. Interesting also are the subjects that we would agree on.

For me the Fermi paradox loses a lot of it's argumentation, when one takes into account that the first radio signals we have ever sent to space have reach only a tiny spec even in our own galaxy. Add then the fact that radio signal get weaker when the ranges get longer.

The Trans-Atlantic partnership and NATO should have died in 1991, and replaced with something that did not give Washington the amount of leverage over European affairs as it ended up having. — Tzeentch

Luckily NATO didn't go away, because Russia chose the irrational and destructive path of imperialism and clinging on to a lost empire and not the obvious solution of transforming and adapting to the post-empire situation as UK, France or Spain had. It had the CIS, could have been a stabilizing force, but then came Putin the gambler who saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as an unfortunate accident that could be repaired. Countries like Sweden and Finland would have been all too happy to enjoy their situation between the West and Russia, but Putin's bellicose actions forced them to use the NATO option.

Brussels is one giant Trans-Atlanticist lobby, and the European Union will likely suffer a severe crisis of legitimacy when the Americans stop greasing pockets. — Tzeentch

?
On the contrary.

First of all, Brexit showed every EU member just how much it sucks to go outside the common market. The disaster that faced UK hasn't gone unnoticed in other countries. There's no 'wonderful freedom' and economic bliss out there as an non-EU member, which many EU critical parties have now understood. Other countries aren't so rich as Norway and Switzerland. And if the bellicose actions of Russia have brought NATO countries together and NATO back to it's roots, the vilification of the EU by the US will just strengthen the lines in the EU. Of course they are those clinging on the Trump train, but they are few and have to understand that there's no advantage in having that "special relationship" with Trump.

Washington's intention is to embroil Russia and Europe in a war with each other, the rotten seed for which it has diligently started sowing since 2008. — Tzeentch

Quite a conspiracy theory. In truth Trump is eager to get those big bribes for those lucrative contracts that Kirill Dimitriev is dangling in front of him. It's similar to the promises of a Trump hotel earlier, now just the money is in the billions. The Trump regime is one of the most corrupt administrations (if not the most) that has ever been in power in the US.

The EU is an undemocratic, untransparant abomination (the document is completely right about that) that is then unlikely to be capable of the far-reaching reforms that it requires to become a viable independent European super state. — Tzeentch

Now your confusing. What do you want? An European super state? Jeesh, how undemocratic would that be! First and foremost, EU contrary to it's name is a de facto confederation of independent states and good that it stays so. It will be always a loose confederation and the what I abhor are the lunatic and utterly damaging ideas of it becoming a federation like the US. That will never happen and good so. That we have EU elections is enough, because I don't want the EU to challenge anymore than now the authority of the state Parliament. Yes there should be more transparency, but that's a minor issue.

Europe and Europeans on their part are geopolitically completely and utterly ignorant, as evidenced by the war-fueling rhetoric of European leaders (who are just towing the Washington line) — Tzeentch

What line are you talking about? The Washington line above sees Europe itself as the obstacle for the surrender peace in Ukraine! Obviously they aren't towing the Washington line. Did you read the National Security Strategy paper???

A geopolitical storm is coming, and it will be insitgated by the US as it senses it is losing global control to BRICS. — Tzeentch

BRICS is even a more loose group than the various G(pick a number 7 to 20) groups. China and India have had border wars and really aren't allies at all (especially when China is the closest ally to Pakistan). Brazil and South Africa have their own problems and have few things in common with China or India. The US can loose it's place a the sole Superpower, but look at the facts @Tzeentch, nothing will replace it. There's just this huge void left, which will create a giant vortex of various players trying to carve their place in the post-US world, but nothing and nobody will replace the US. And "the fall" of the US isn't going to be so dramatic. It won't be the sole Superpower, just the largest Great Power around.

Whoopee.

For example, are suffering, injustice just logical things? Is it just logical that this world exists? — Angelo Cannata

Moral philosophy is important, I'm not denying that. So is also aesthetics or epistemology as a branch of philosophy. They obviously aren't covered by logic.

in my opinion philosophy needs to deal with topics more widely than just caring to keep itself in a strictly logical frame. — Angelo Cannata

Sure. My point was that already in logic there are these huge open questions in the role of subjectivity and how it relates to objectivity. And why do I make such emphasis on this? Well, even if our viewpoint is ethics/moral philosophy or aesthetics or a mixture of all the branches of philosophy, what we say has still to be consistent. If it's inconsistent, then anything goes.

I would say that being is a continuous event of contradiction between subjectivity and objectivity. It acts at all levels of existence and reality. — Angelo Cannata

I'm sorry to look at this from the viewpoint of logic, but in logic if you have a contradiction means something is simply false, not true. And I guess many here that say there's no contradiction think about it in a similar way.

I gather that in your view the relationship is more like opposites, ying and yang, something complementary, opposites, yet interconnected. Am I right?

Logic just wants to model these relations in a way that there is no contradiction, the statement is true, even if things are opposites etc.

I am aware that there are so many topics involved in the discussion I have opened. I am going to better explain my personal idea about the reason why the relation between subjectivity and objectivity is conflictual. — Angelo Cannata

When looking at your answers to others also, it's obvious that you aren't looking at the issue from a viewpoint of logic and subjectivity/objectivity being part of a logical system that we use to model reality.

Subjectivity introduces ways of thinking based on instinct, emotions, spontaneity, feelings, art. This works as a provocative challenge against minds based on precision, numbers, conclusions, schemes. I think this is connected with mechanisms of society. Society is essentially based on objectivity because it is based on communication. — Angelo Cannata

I think you have gone over the principal level and relate subjectivity and objectivity to the effects of subjectivity and objectivity.

In this way, wouldn't then it be more apt to talk about the conflict between the individual and the collective and individualism/collectivism? Works far better, when you refer to the society.

In the conflict between subjectivity and objectivity, the logical outcome for subjectivity is to succumb, because success itself, any kind of success, is by its very nature metaphysical, belonging to the realm of objectivity. — Angelo Cannata

Something that we really cannot put into a similar logical structure as objectivity and then use it as we do, doesn't mean at all that there's a conflict. Subjectivity is quite real. What we basically have is real ignorance in our understanding just how subjectivity fits into the logical system of ours. I think the main reason is that we simply don't accept there being any limitations to objectivity or that being true necessitates everything to be modeled objectively. Objective science, the scientific method, has been so successful that saying that there are limitations to this sounds as heretical, or anti-science.

Yet naturally subjectivity is apparent for us all every moment of our lives once we have as babies just where we end and where the reality outside us starts.

the very concept of explanation belongs to objectivity, therefore the explanation of my own and others’ subjectivity is possible only as an internal contradiction of objectivity. — Angelo Cannata

I wouldn't see it so. Let's take an example. Let's take the example of there existing "a beautiful painting". Now here we immediately understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus some will see some paintings as beautiful while other's won't. There simply isn't the painting that humanity finds "the most beautiful". Many people would find it difficult even to say that one painting they like is "more beautiful" then another. Simply we I would dare to say that the "objective" explanation would be that "What humans see as a beautiful painting is subjective". That means that there isn't this ability to do measurements as is usually possible with objectivity. And counterarguments like price people are willing to pay for a painting or holding a beauty contest for paintings is extremely silly and naive as it doesn't grasp the profound logical problem at issue.

Communication of subjectivity between subjects is done within contradiction, because on one hand it would be impossible, on the other hand it occurs due to the uniqueness of this world. — Angelo Cannata

I would argue that this "contradiction" isn't a contradiction, it's only that we attempt to think that subjectivity can be dealt with the totally similar logic as objectivity. It cannot be. With subjectivity you have inherent uniqueness, which you don't have with objectivity. Let me try to explain what I mean: even if a sociologist, a psychologist or a computer AI can argue that when asking the most beautiful painting there is from people, very many will say "Mona Lisa", this doesn't say anything about how all these people feel about the beauty of the painting. More like as they don't much about paintings, they'll say the one that is most well known, and don't think so much about the question than to just to give some answer. And here (please don't ban me!) I used my own thought, but when you give to the Google AI the question (what is the most beautiful painting in the world), it really does give the answer I anticipated:

There's no single "most beautiful" painting, as beauty is subjective, but Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa is universally considered the most famous and iconic, while other contenders for beauty include...

Please do not think that I'm trying to shoot your argument down here, actually I'm not doing that. I think that your view that subjectivity and objectivity create a contradiction actually does show just how little we understand of these kinds of basic questions. They obviously cannot go hand in hand with the present knowledge of these issues. Yet this contradiction doesn't mean that subjectivity, or subjectivity along with objectivity, are illogical, false. This isn't the case at all. It's more like we see a paradox, because we don't have the correct way to understand how subjectivity creates uniqueness and creates true limits to objectivity. But with help from you, I think we can solve the puzzle on this forum, right? :wink:

Again, then what is it? — Leontiskos

At least not a theorem. Or what you yourself say:

If you actually read Turing's paper it's pretty clear that he thinks machines can think, and that his test is sufficient to show such a thing, despite all the sophistical evasions he produces. — Leontiskos

Which isn't a theorem. To me, it's more like an argument, an opinion. I think this quote from Turing's paper shows this:

It was suggested tentatively that the question, "Can machines think?" should be replaced by "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" - The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. I believe further that no useful purpose is served by concealing these beliefs.

-See COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE

To my mind, this seems to be an opinion. The philosophical / logical problems of this has been famously studied for example with John Searle's Chinese room. And anyway, you still are talking about machines that simply follow orders.

I live in Canada and recently watched the Prime Minister pledge allegiance to the King of England and his heirs during his inauguration. Lawyers and judges bow or curtsy towards a picture of King Charles when they enter and leave a courtroom. Russia could only dream of such fealty. — NOS4A2

The English have indeed been the most successful empire builders starting from the incredible wisdom of creating the identity of being "British" to their multicultural isles. They've been so successful in this, that some English now question just what being English means anymore, compared to being British. Yet this is the prime example of how identities for different people can really be built from scratch. The English were successful in this, the Russian's weren't (or the EU, for that matter). The Russians came closest to this with the identity of being Soviet.

Furthermore, the English (now called the British) have been very successful in creating a British Commonwealth. Canadians are the best example. Yet when the English have used force, the result is relationship that the UK has with Ireland. Even if Russia desperately tried to mimic this with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), they utterly failed. The worst part came with Putin and his Russian reconquista. All that soft power that Russia had, for example over Ukraine, is now past history.

I am a US taxpayer. I have to file my income tax with the IRS every single year. — NOS4A2

Ah yes, unlike other countries, you have to pay taxes for the US even when living outside. My bad. But you do pay taxes to Canada and use the services of Canada, right?

Indeed, clipping the wings of European war-mongering might have benefited the entire world. — NOS4A2

After the millions of Europeans killed in WW1 and WW2, Europeans even themselves noticed how bad the constant infighting was. Yet the US has had a notable role in the integration of Europe also.

But this arraignment has allowed NATO countries to forget about their duty to defend themselves, to spend less tax dollars on militaries, and to spend the money they saved for their own benefit and no one else’s—and all while maintaining that air of European superiority. — NOS4A2

If there's peace and your own military is training with all of your neighbors militaries and the soldiers and officers know each other well and the countries have friendly relations, what's the need for a large military? The Dutch don't have to be prepared if the Germans or Belgium would attack them. Yet Israel obviously needs a large military. It wouldn't have such large military if it as good relations with it's neighbors as Nordic countries have. The size of the military is directly related to a) the threat posed by other countries or b) the role being a great power. If you aren't b) and there is no a), then why would you need a large army?

I myself am an active reservist and have spent now decades in the voluntary defense training here in Finland. I remember few years ago sitting down after the sauna with fellow reserve officers and NCOs who also have been working in the voluntary defense training for many years and asked them one question: "Who of them would have joined the military, if our neighbor in the east with over 1000km land border would be Canada?" None would have joined in that case the military. There naturally wouldn't be a reason for universal conscription and the tiny Finnish armed forces would be struggling with the same problems as the armed forces of Canada, or Belgium. Now, as one commodore put it to me, Finland has an abundance of men to fill it's military ...and a shortage of everything else. The shortage is because we face Russia as an existential threat.

—and all while maintaining that air of European superiority. — NOS4A2

Who, other than the French, do maintain that feeling? Nobody else. The core of continental Europe is France and perhaps the Benelux countries... and everybody else looks as being somehow out from the center or have underlying issues, like Germany.

Perhaps, but then what is it about? Turing was playing with the idea that machines can think, but even that question was largely avoided in his paper. — Leontiskos

Notice what I said: it isn't a theorem. It's not giving a logical definition.

It is not what a theorem is: a general proposition that is not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths. Basically logic, mathematics and science in general the structure of the reasoning process is based on theorems.

Turing Test is more like a loose description of what computers exhibiting human-like intelligence would be like. That's not a theorem, yet many people take it as the example when computers have human-like intelligence. With current LLMs, I guess we are there after 75 years Turing wrote about his test. Turing himself thought that this would take about 200 years.

I live in an insignificant little state and it's population is twice that of Finland. Could I see half my state become socialist? Sure, especially if it didn't have to defend itself. — frank

What would this "socialism" mean in this case?

Opting for something equivalent to the labour government of Keir Starmer in the UK?

Opting for social-democracy like in Sweden? This would be I think closest to what Democratic Socialists in the US dream of.

Or something closer to Venezuela, left-wing populism and authoritarianism? Because it will hardly be old-school Marxism-Leninism.

And just what that defend themselves means? Or do mean to defend the turn to left-wing politics? Remember that it was social-democrat lead administrations in Sweden and Finland that opted to join NATO and got rid off the last remnants of the neutrality doctrine. That leftist don't care about defense issues is a right-wing myth.

(These progressive social-democrat women decided that NATO membership was better than neutrality for their countries.)

Simply put it: The Turing test isn't at all a theorem about consciousness. It should be noted that even the Church-Turing thesis is a thesis, not a theorem, so that tells a lot about the idea of a Turing Machine. So there's a lot to do even with the basics of just what a Turing Machine is.

Conservatives are usually willing to let nature take care of social problems. They think that when we interfere with nature (due to an overload of compassion), we inevitably undermine a process that leads to social health and well-being. This process happens to be brutal, but conservatives are ok with that. This is because compassion isn't their driving value. — frank

That might be true for some Americans, but for example in my country (or in the Nordic countries in generals), this doesn't hold for the conservatives. They are totally OK and do appreciate the welfare state, but do point out that in order for there to be a welfare state, one has to have a well functioning healthy private sector and economy.

Absolute poverty, especially rural poverty has been solved and is non-existent, when just hundred years ago it still was around in my country. People don't live in the streets and beg for food or money. That's something that conservatives in my country value. Yes, they are full aware of the free rider problem and the negative aspects of a welfare state, but they understand that these are little compared to the negative effects of not having social security net. Yet the welfare state hasn't been just a leftist program as there has been a political consensus about it. This is something hard to fathom, if people think that politics in other places is totally similar to US politics and political discourse.

As you should notice, conservatism in Nordic countries is quite different from what it is in the US. Yet even in the US there's a difference between ideology and actual reality: when we actually look at what even the Republicans think about social security or Medicare/Medicaid, they actually are totally OK with these programs, even if the ideological think tanks oppose these. The actual policies implemented by Republican administrations show this.

Just one example:

President Bush enacted policies to help Americans receive the care they need at a price they can afford and also infused transparency and innovation into the health care system. The President instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs. The President also created tax-free Health Savings Accounts to help Americans take charge of their health care decision-making, and increased funding for medical research, which contributed to medical breakthroughs such as the development of the HPV cancer vaccine.

So is it really that conservatives are willing to let nature take care of social problems? Everybody is for themselves?

Trump says that Venezuelan aerospace is closed and now hinting on attacks on mainland Venezuela.

The ordinary issue would be now to attack Venezuelan air defenses and command centers. That would be the "conventional" way to attack a country (like in case of Libya/Serbia/Iraq/ran etc.

Now if it's really some drug labs ...some huts in middle of the jungle, then it's really peculiar, a real world "Clear and present"-movie. However, announcing the closure of Venezuelan aerospace hints that the US is anticipating going head to head against the Venezuelan air defenses.

Perhaps the Colombian president says what's the reality:

(CNN) Colombian President Gustavo Petro said in a new interview that oil is at the center of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign in Venezuela instead of the fight against narcotics.

“[Oil] is at the heart of the matter,” Petro told CNN in the interview, published Wednesday.

“So, that’s a negotiation about oil. I believe that is [President] Trump’s logic. He’s not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking,” the South American president, who last month was sanctioned by the Trump administration, added.

I have a theory that the driving force behind progressivism is compassion. Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it.

True? — frank

If you are a right-wing libertarian and believe in free market, rights of the individual and limited government making the best society possible, why wouldn't that also be compassionate? Libertarians believe that their way makes the society function better, so why wouldn't that be compassion too? There's no hidden sinister agenda behind to have some "social darwinism" to eradicate the people libertarians hate. Libertarians look at Switzerland and think it works just fine.

I think the real issue is collectivism and the role of the government that make progressives differ from others. Government, the state and legislation are there tools to address social problems and inequality for the progressives. Not the market mechanism and choices of the individual. I think this is the core in progressivism.

Europe has been fighting itself for thousands and thousands of years, and not even that long ago. Hell, they were doing genocide there not more than 30 years ago. The entire union is essentially a rogues gallery of states. It was Europe that invented fascism and communism, and spread them worldwide. We don’t even need to speak of the travesty of European colonialism. — NOS4A2

If you add Russia to Europe, which I would do, this is totally true. Russia is the most clearest example of European colonialism and imperialism. And the last pure example of it, I would add.

The real tragedy is that Soviet leaders did peacefully handle the collapse of the Empire, but then our famous KGB officer that was picked to lead Russia after Yeltsin thought this was the biggest tragedy of the 20th Century and sees that the Russian Empire is the natural state of Russia (and thus countries like Ukraine are artificial).

I never said it was a demand from Europe for the US to provide security, like what you and ssu seem to believe. — NOS4A2

Nobody has said that. What we try to say that the US has benefited from role it has enjoyed.

What I said was you all have been taking advantage of the United States taxpayer for far too long without developing any way to defend yourselves. — NOS4A2

Says the guy who isn't an US taxpayer. No, what you simply don't understand that the US has benefited from being the security guarantor, the Superpower. That most valuable thing that has come from this role has been the US dollar being the reserve currency. No other great power has enjoyed the situation of the currency they print being the universal reserve currency. If the US would have chosen again the "Splendid isolation" after WW2, the West would have gone with Bancor. It's pure insanity and total ignorance to believe that the role of the US dollar as the reserve currency would just somehow descend from Heaven to the US because it was afterwards the biggest economy.

The other perk from being that Superpower is that countries listen to the US, which they wouldn't if the US had no alliances.

But somehow you don't get the above and go on with the Trumpian populism.

This is a bit confusing and I would agree with @AmadeusD that this isn't support, actually.

It's basically window dressing and an attempt to avoid criticism from other Latin American countries that the Bush administration got for recognizing the Carmona government when ultimately the coup attempt failed (as the Presidential Guard then saved Chavez and he regained power).

A failed coup attempt with angry Latin American countries isn't something the US wants to be attached to anyway. But this I wouldn't call support of the Chavez regime.

The Chavez/Maduro regime has been on the naughty list for a long while and Chavez himself accused, naturally (what else would a genuine populist do), many times of the US being behind every opposition action against his regime there has been in Venezuela.

Now that they have become unreliable and untrustworthy their power will shrink, leaving a void for China to fill. — Punshhh

I'm not sure if China will fill anything in Europe, but it already has filled a large role in Asia and Africa. The issue really is that nothing will replace the Superpower US, it will just leave a huge void, which will create a large whirlpool. (Which actually, already has happened in the Middle East).

Europe will now re-arm and keep Russia at bay without help from the U.S. — Punshhh

Hope that this will happen. The other alternative is that some European will just "Finlandize" towards Russia, like Hungary and Serbia.

This was their project, not a demand from Europe for them to provide security. — Punshhh

This is the irony so evident in the ignorance and the obvious cluelessness of Trump supporters. The project was for the US itself. Yet I think past administrations are partly guilty of this because the whole foreign policy hasn't been marketed correctly to Americans, only basically with fear of enemies that "hate everything American".

American presence there is the only deterrent Europe has ever had, and the only reason NATO stands any chance. The problem is you all have been taking advantage of the United States taxpayer for far too long without developing any way to defend yourselves. And once that tit is finally pulled away their leaders start to cry while they scramble for answers. — NOS4A2

Drinking the Kool aid again, I see. — Punshhh

Yep. This is the Trumpian bullshit rhetoric people like NOS4A2 believe.

France and UK have their own nuclear deterrents, so they are out of the question here (France was even out of NATO for a while). West Germany has been quite supervised about just what kind of military to have. For example with my country, the US was long against us having surface to air missiles or any modern fighter aircraft. Perhaps just assuming that we would be a likely axis with Russia. So that's what the US actually offered us during the Cold War: no security guarantees, likely just tactical nukes on the Northern airfields in order that the Soviets couldn't use them.

Above all, because of the Superpower status and the alliances, the US has been in the leadership role enjoying all the perks that come from that because of the vast alliances it has. Without these alliances, the US president would be a totally minor person at the World stage and the dollar wouldn't have the position enjoys. Someone like the prime minister of Canada. China's economy is big too, but do we follow what the Chinese leader has lately said? Of course not!

This is the thing that many Americans are totally ignorant of and seem to be totally incapable of understanding. The dollar has it's reserve role because of political reasons, not because of economic reasons. Without the US having the Superpower status and it's relations it would be just the largest currency in a basket of currencies, but definitely not the reserve currency. The UK pound never enjoyed this kind of role before when the British Empire was at it's greatest. Such role is only understandable only because of political reasons. Yet this is something never told to Trump loving Americans, who are spoon fed the lie all the time that their Superpower status hasn't been very good for them, that it's been a sucker deal for them. That somehow because they just have the biggest economy, their currency is the reserve currency and thus they can just print more money without any worries.

NATO was never masculine. They can hardly move tanks between each other’s countries. — NOS4A2

Absolute nonsense. NATO passed with flying colors the role it had during the Cold War of creating a credible deterrence. Hardly can move tanks? LOL.

How about those Reforger exercises? Reforger 88 had about 125 000 men, all deployed to Germany from the US, France, Canada, UK, Denmark. The whole objective of the annual Reforger exercises was the moving of tanks into West Germany. And NATO is finally getting back to it's original role (thank God). Some countries unfortunately ran down their militaries (the 90's peace dividend), luckily that stupidity didn't reach my country. But that era has passed.

At any rate, I can’t wait to watch the EU bring out their counterproposal, which will invariably lead to WW3. — NOS4A2

You don't know or care about what the response is, which is obvious from referring to the EU, not the group actually active in the issue.

Anyway, many think that this peace-deal that Axios published was an intentional move by the Russians to humiliate Trump and harass Ukraine. Naturally Trump doesn't notice, but anyway, who cares. I think this will pass as an example how Trump caves in always to get a peace deal.

* * *

Well, I hope the country you are living in chooses to have Swedish Gripens, just like Ukraine. One absolutely cannot trust Trump and as Americans have now twice voted Trump into power, with the US there is a risk, unfortunately, of it being an untrustworthy ally/weapons provider... when the customer isn't Israel. So I think my country is taking a little risk when choosing the F-35. Not a huge risk, but still.

(CBC, Nov 21st 2025) The Liberal government is reviewing whether to proceed with a full order of 88 F-35 fighters from U.S.-based Lockheed Martin. It has been suggested that Canada could accept the first batch of 16 stealth jets and then pivot to filling out the rest of the order with Saab Gripens — or some other aircraft.

You may disagree, but I think that may be something related to, but different from, fundamentalism. — Tom Storm

Fundamentalism is an apt word here, as is zealotry.

Do you see much fundamentalism where you live? Here in Australia, it flickers in marginal spaces, largely due to the influence of American Protestant culture via social media and online communities. But it’s still a minor force. The default setting here seems to be a general lack of interest in God or religion. — Tom Storm

My country has had a novel way to eradicate religious fundamentalism: we have had state religion since our independence. And state naturally does something with far less enthusiasm as some voluntary churches desperately competing of having people. So I had religion taught at school, where I have to say thay two of the best teachers ever where also lutheran priests, who both also taught philosophy.

There are only few Christian sects especially in the North, and they fit the "deeply religious" stereotype, but political influence is minimal.

Sufficienly corroborable evidence. — 180 Proof

If you have sufficiently corroborable evidence, then the issue isn't about faith anymore, is it?

I think that many religions understand that they are an issue of faith, not something evidence, which is comes back to my point here.

Atheism is a pretty broad area. — Tom Storm

So is faith/religion and religiousness, yes.

I am a freethinker and atheist, but my form of atheism is simply that I lack a belief in God. I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, because I don’t have that knowledge. - I think it is a common view among organised atheists these days. — Tom Storm

Isn't that a level of agnosticism? I myself have been since my childhood an agnostic and feel quite happy about it.

The problem with most obvious forms of atheism is that they only critique the low-hanging fruit of fundamentalism and literalism, which is equally disparaged by many believers, including theologians like David Bentley Hart and Bishop John Shelby Spong. — Tom Storm

That's a very good point. But we usually tend to go with the stereotypes or the worst possible examples of some ideology or viewpoint and not accept the fact that a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable and informed people can have totally opposite world views from us.

Or then it's simply these times where the discourse is dominated by the algorithms, where two people with opposite views but with an understanding and respect where the other person comes from, is too boring. As if we would then yawn ourselves to death.

Literalism seems to be a reaction to modernity and a retreat into concrete thinking as a bulwark against changing culture. — Tom Storm

I think it's even more general than that. It's basic human nature, which you can see in even in philosophy itself, where especially the "puritans", "fundamentalists" and those who don't swerve of from the teachings of their great philosopher, be it the Karl Marx or someone else, will put themselves on the pedestal and proclaim to be better than others. If it happens even in philosophy, you bet it will happen in other human endeavors also.

No. Again: I claim that it is demonstrable that theism is not true (see links in my previous posts). — 180 Proof

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles"). — 180 Proof

?

Very difficult and confusing wording in my view. But I'm not very clever. What is "providing nonsubjective truth-makers"?

Yet notice the difference between "it can be proven" and "it is demonstrable, that something".

In Your math example:

(1×1=2) cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false"

one has to remember that you can give a proof that 1x1=1. At least you can refer to the axioms and an axiomatic system. Hence no need for the demonstrability of falsehood when you can give a direct proof.

Yet when the only thing you can give is an indirect Reductio ad absurdum proof, it actually isn't the same as an ordinary proof. It leaves open questions.

And anyway, my point was that to give a proof as in logic or science, one needs objectivity. Yet not all questions can be answered objectively as they are inherently subjective. Religion deals a lot on those subjective questions, like what is good and what is bad. Giving thus proofs in religious issues forgets the requirement for objectivity. And not only "proving God" forgets this, it actually goes against a lot of religions itself.

The typical atheist argument is that for example all the creation stories are, to put it mildly, quite far from our scientific understanding, hence everything in religion is quite dubious. The problem then comes when the same question is asked, what then is good and what is bad? The vague reference to humanity or something else hides that the problem isn't solved. It still is a subjective issue and an objective proof as in science/logic cannot be found.

In fact, if Russia invades again, they face destruction at the hands of NATO and the US.

10. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked; — NOS4A2

What bullshit is this "decisive coordinated military response", when a) you cannot train for this and Ukraine cannot be a member or anybody else (like Ireland etc.) cannot join NATO? The emasculation of NATO and Ukraine-NATO ties makes this totally ludicrous statement. Who the fuck will defend Ukraine, when NATO cannot be in Ukraine?

No matter. If this deal goes through, invasion would be illegal according to Russia’s own laws.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine. — NOS4A2

HAHAHAA!!! :rofl:

Wait... :brow:

...you are serious??? :worry:

You really believe the country lead by Putin, that has several times, actually, put into writing that it didn't have ANY territorial claims toward Ukraine or Crimea, to have no aggression towards other "artificial" countries like Ukraine? And then there were ALL the Minsk agreements. How much Putin valued those? What horseshit do you believe in???

Above all, read your history: Russia never attacks, it only defends itself. According to Soviet Union, my little country attacked the Soviet Union in 1939, just as the Baltic States wanted to join the Soviet Union in 1940. So the can easily have a hypocrite law that argues they won't attack anybody. Incredible garbage.

And do notice, this is just like Trump surrender deal with the Taliban. That peace-deal also said that:

4. A permanent and comprehensive ceasefire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan
dialogue and negotiations. The participants of intra-Afghan negotiations will discuss the date
and modalities of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire, including joint implementation
mechanisms, which will be announced along with the completion and agreement over the future
political roadmap of Afghanistan.

Which the Taleban cared shit about. They didn't even pretend to have talks with Republic of Afghanistan. Did Trump (or Biden) care about that? Of course not. But do notice the evident Trumpian issue on both of the peace-deals. Then in 2020 Trump announced the following in the Taleban surrender-deal:

A comprehensive peace agreement is made of four parts:

1. Guarantees and enforcement mechanisms that will prevent the use of the soil of Afghanistan by
any group or individual against the security of the United States and its allies.
2. Guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and announcement of a timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

Did he bring up this with the foreign forces, that by 2020 were by manpower a larger force than the US personnel on ground? Of course not! It was just a surprise for them... just like this brainfart. And the same thing is here, where Trump is just demanding actions not only from Ukraine, but European countries too.

South Vietnam, Afghanistan... seems next in line is Ukraine for the US. Or Trump is basically hellbent on Ukraine to be in that category.

Hopefully our leaders keep their calm and handle this as one of those Trump stupidities that comes out from the current White House like the US annexing Greenland and Canada. Trump seems to desperately want that Nobel-prize and one can just imagine what fortunes have the Russians promised to Trump.

(1×1=2) "cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false. — 180 Proof

Mathematics is totally objective.

Besides, my claim is that 'theism is Not True is demonstrable' – "not true" is not necessarily equivalent to "false" (e.g. non-propositional statements are not true and not false). — 180 Proof

I think I didn't understand this. Are you saying the issue is undemonstrable or undecidable?

At least now, I guess Trump's DOJ has had enough time to destroy all the worst things for Trump in the files.

* * *

Well, Axios has released Trump's "peace plan" for Ukraine. It's even worse than the surrender to the Taliban, which is now I guess the low point of American diplomacy.

From the proposal:

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

And notice that article 3. isn't about Ukraine, because there's articles 7. and 8:

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

So basically this is a wet dream for Putin. Trump will emasculate the strongest alliance that the US has had ...and Putin will also get Ukraine. This is at least on par (if not worse) than the surrender deal that Trump made with the Taleban (and it should be noted, Biden carried out to the end dutifully).

Why this thread is more apt to review this whimsical action from Trump than the Ukraine thread is that likely (and hopefully) this surrender purposal won't go anywhere.

What an incredible surrender monkey Trump is.

Exactly.
Above all, with a proof... or with God appearing to everyone and being part of physical reality, it's not essentially an issue of faith, of choosing your life choices.

Your not basically making moral choices to be "good" or to be religious, to have faith or not, or to be an atheist. You are then making simply practical choices, just like how you cope with the planet spinning on it's axis and circling around the sun and creating night and day and the seasons. Morality goes out of the question, just as it's not a choice for us to have night or day. At least when we are on this planet.

Thus, I think it can be demonstrated that theism is not true¹ even though other conceptions of divinity (such as e.g. acosmism & pandeism) are completely undecidable (agnostic). — 180 Proof

I would put it that basically matters of faith cannot be objectively answered and are hence truly subjective.

And when you cannot demonstrate that theism is true, you cannot demonstrate it's false.

In my view it cannot be proved and such proof goes against the whole idea of believing in God and against all Abrahamic religions.

When there's a proof, you don't need to have faith. Christianity, and Jesus Christ, say to take God into your heart. That doesn't mean to think it out, use reason and then you will find God. I assume all Abrahamic religions are similar in this case.

And lastly, just assume there would be this proof. It itself would then obviously quite powerful religious item. Why then need things like the Holy Bible and so on? God exists, so then just pick the correct God or the God closest to this proof. Hence the proof itself would be basically an idol and believing in the proof would be idolatry.

It's possible that Trump is trying to pressure Maduro into negotiations, like he does with the tariffs. The bully tactic he's known for. I think he actually likes Maduro, and wants to force him into alliance, or more likely allegiance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually Maduro would be totally open for talks.

(BBC) Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has said that he is willing to hold face-to-face talks with representatives of the Trump administration as US pressure on him grows.

Maduro made the comment hours after US President Donald Trump said he had not ruled out deploying ground forces to the South American country.

But here I think you have to notice that Venezuela is here on a totally different position than let's say the threat posed by Trump to Denmark (with Greenland) or Panama. Covert operations are already underway.

Perhaps Maduro should just try to attempt to bribe Trump. Give that Trump presidential library some oil wealth.

Seriously, the Swiss got their tariffs lowered by giving Trump lavish gifts including a beautiful gold bar. So some small percentage of that oil wealth and then just wait a couple years that Trump isn't in power so you can tell it was a joke. After all, how long did Putin and the Russians have Trump oogling for them for a possible hotel build in Moscow? And we all remember how enthusiastic Trump became, when Ukrainians offered mineral rights to him.

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities. — Astorre

We love the escapism.

It's an old genre of making criminals to be heroes and then trying to portray the story as a critique of the society. It's the old idea that criminals are forced into crime, because of the economy/society, not being people that actually like crime and voluntarily choose the lifestyle, do like violence for the sake of violence and are actual hideous people like psychopaths are. Usually they are forced to crime, not actively seeking crime and leaving a dull normal life they could totally chosen. And at some stage, they usually show that they still have morals, and aren't the psychopaths they often are.

For example mobsters have been portrayed as rockstars living a life different from us is the perfect escapism for us from our dull safe lives. This was totally obvious even before Coppola and Scorsese, from the films during the time when the US had really a Mafia problem. Only with the exception then that the "Cosa Nostra" remained hidden from the public.



Finally, there is punishment in the end, which is there to make actually the viewer to feel better. The main character has to die, usually with a violent yet glorious ending. Be it Breaking Bad, Scarface or in the gangster movies of James Cagney. Only in very few movies the criminal actually gets away with the murder and the lifestyle without there being any karma or justice. Just as only a few films are the police the actual gangsters, which they easily can be.

This all makes sense, when we understand the underlying reasoning: it's entertainment. A movie like Schindler's list isn't made to entertain you, but "Breaking Bad", "Scarface", "The Godfather", "The Departed", "Goodfellas", they all are there to entertain you. You won't feel bad afterwards. That's the issue here.

Just like with violence itself, people like it as entertainment. The Romans loved the Gladiator games, executions were flocked to see later in history. Quentin Tarantino says the truth about our love for violence: it's entertainment. It doesn't mean that we love actual violence. Not only is there this moral judgement in the end or the fact that the story implies the main character was somehow forced to crime, in the end they are all actors and it's fiction, even if based on a real story. Nobody actually died. Hence we can enjoy it as entertainment. Hence the real object isn't the main character, the real object is for the viewer to feel good afterwards and think the movie was worth wile to see.

It would be totally different if we would have just actual footage of people being tortured to death, being ripped apart into pieces by bomb blast with the viewer understanding that it isn't fake, that it's really innocent children or walkers passing by being killed. Naturally there that actual footage that criminals use to instill fear on others. Many wouldn't finish their popcorn, but throw up and be traumatized from the images.

As @Metaphysician Undercover noted above, the drug war has been more of an excuse to do something with totally different objectives, not the actual reason. To deal with something like the drug trade the military isn't at all the best options, but it's a flashy way to show off that you are doing something.

Yet here does lie a major problem: just what is the military objective here? Just how is it thought to be reached? If one assumes that with naval and air power regime change would be obtained, then that objective is very optimistic indeed. Likely any airstrikes will just reinforce the support of the regime. It's not at all obvious that even killing Maduro that the regime would collapse. What about the opposition? Basically I've noticed nothing done in that sector and when Trump is already hinting the willingness to have talks with Maduro, that willingness totally undermines the support for the opposition. And anyway, many of those people against the Maduro regime have already left the country.

Hence this is more like a show of gun diplomacy and if then some strike is implemented, the result will be similar as when attacking Iran. Trump will just declare that the strikes have been successful and the Maduro regime will continue just like the Iranian regime continued on. Any contrary finding will dealt with firings, so the success of a military strike is as obvious as that there is absolutely no inflation in the US under Trump now. :wink:

Now some might wish to argue that "... modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms". is not dead yet. But as this is only a virtual autopsy, and has to take place before the wretched corpse is buried for good and all, I can assume the death from various words and deeds of Western leaders, who find it convenient to pay lip-service to enlightenment principles whilst undermining them in practice. — unenlightened

Have ever leaders followed any principles in their actual actions? Grand speeches are different as are the high-minded reasons given for real-politik or de-facto imperial aspirations.

One could have written off also religion even at the time of Nietzsche, but religion and faith is still important even in this Millennium. So no need for the autopsy of religion either. Philosophical views and ideologies die only when they are thoroughly replaced, not when they are generally accepted, have achieved their main objectives and are old textbook stuff that no current university student gets excited about. Yet they aren't replaced, they just seem very bland as they aren't new ideas. What likely happens is that when the main objectives have been achieved and the thinking has been generally accepted, the orthodox believers come up with a next wave, which in the end is likely something hilariously stupid.

With liberalism it's I guess the libertarians with the most vocal being perhaps the anarcho-capitalists, who think that rights of the individual mean that everything collective is bad and everything can be handled by the market mechanism. And some of them come even to this forum to share their enthusiasm when their first "philosopher" they've read has been Ayn Rand. We now how that will go.

The death of Enlightenment and it's values is even more dubious. Not every Western country has a Trump administration chipping away the institutions that make Western democracies themselves and filling the void with corruption and a police state. I think there's a lot more focus on Enlightenment values because of what is happening in the US.

The left-wing populism of Hugo Chavez (which Maduro tries to continue) is quite similar to right-wing populism of Trump. Few do notice the similarity (or do want to accept the similarity), yet it is totally obvious.

Quite fitting to the moment:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I-2r-qJcxKc