So to be fair in our comparisons, we shouldn’t compare the level of political polarization in Belgium or the Netherlands to the U.S. as a whole, we should compare them to states in the U.S. with comparable average lived density, like Massachusetts, Illinois or California. What we find by doing so is that such highly dense U.S. states are no more polarized than their European counterparts, because like those counterparts, a large percentage of their populations are relatively urban and therefore reject strong social conservativism. — Joshs

It's a good point to look at the US as separate states as there's obviously a huge difference between Massachusetts and Wyoming and Alaska.

Yet I'm not so convinced about this. Urbanization might be too general as there are obvious differences between income levels and prosperity between urban dwellers. A place like Massachusetts, which is basically deep Democratic territory, has still it's Republican places:



Now even if we take a large city, we would have similar differences between the rich and poor places. And do notice that especially in Europe in many countries the conservatives haven't gone with the populism similar to Trump.

It's also shrunken some differences. For instance, I've heard the sentiment expressed, and even seen it in op-eds, where bourgeois Americans (or Europeans) claim they have more in common with and feel closer to (more kinship with) other bourgeois from Dubai to Hong Kong then with their fellow citizens outside their socio-economic context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This might be actually simply globalization, when we all watch the same movies, follow the same TV series and sports and listen to the same music and buy basically the same stuff. Urban life is quite similar as you can go to a McDonalds or a Starbucks everywhere around the world. Few customs are just different, as in the climate. Being a farmer is different way different from that life of an urban consumer. What is a total world apart is when someone is still a subsistence farmer, which means absolute poverty basically.

The dissolution of custom and culture brings with it its own tensions, since there is no longer a "binding together" of ends and identity. To some extent, this is papered over by making pluralism and the destruction of custom its own goal. But this cannot go on forever. Eventually there isn't much left to transgress or destroy except for liberalism and pluralism itself. I think that's pretty much the stage we have gotten to. Once that sort of "call to activism in service to liberalism" is no longer an option (because neoliberalism has won) only the pleasures of epithumia—i.e., sensible pleasures, wealth, and safety—are left to support liberalism. Hence, those seeking thymos (honor, recognition) or any higher logos (as against the emptiness or "decadence" of an epithumia culture) will end up turning against liberalism. I think you can see this in "Woke" and the "Alt-Right." — Count Timothy von Icarus

If people think that the present is dominated by liberalism / neoliberalism, then naturally their critique is against this. But here it should be remembered that what isn't important is the grievance, which everybody can see, but what is purposed to solve it. You will have the "Woke" answer as you will have the "Alt-Right" or the "Populist" answer.

Liberalism or neoliberalism don't eradicate identity. The Swiss have still an identity, even if the country is very liberal and made up of many ethnic groups. Common identity is eradicated by the juxtaposition of us and them. The evil rich, the hostile foreigners and the nasty migrants against the good common people. A juxtaposition of populist and the nativist.

I think the dissolution of custom and culture is hastened when the political field is polarized and there's not much if anything that everybody believes. If the political establishment is incapable of finding any general agreement where they stand for a common cause as "team nation", the destruction of a common idea and citizenship is a true possibility.

I could notice just how different Finnish politics is from US politics. Naturally there's a heated debate about income distribution, taxes and the role of the government in both countries. Yet that is simply normal political discourse. Yet when the Pandemic hit or when Putin assaulted Ukraine, the Finnish ruling administration and the opposition got behind a common policy in no time, which was accepted by the vast majority of the people (in both cases). Especially the discourse during the COVID-pandemic was totally different: in the US the Pandemic just increased the political polarization, which has lingered on still until today. This actually didn't happen in Finland (or Sweden, which went it's own way during the Pandemic).

Rallying around the flag in a time of crisis is very important for social cohesion and for a nation to function properly.

You’ve got it backwards. The polarization wasn't the result of the make-up of the political parties. It was due to the fact that one part of the country, the cities, moved more rapidly into a post ‘60’s economic, social and intellectual way of life than the slower changing rural areas. As a result, people needed to change what the political parties stood for in order to reflect the growing cultural divide. They have now done that. — Joshs

Do notice that this has been an universal transition that has happened in all Western (and other) countries. Yet not all countries have suffered similar polarization. The usual stereotypes in jokes of the city dwellers and rural folk doesn't result in such dramatic polarization. For example, in my country clearly derogatory terms of poor people, like white trash, were used in the 19th Century, but disappeared from use in the 20th Century.

In US politics there was a quite unique event of the two political parties switching their traditional base as the Democratic Party left the traditional white southern voters and the Republicans took them eagerly under their wing. Also the divide from the Civil War era is something notable even today.

60 years ago the republican party was socially moderate , fiscally conservative , supportive of the U.S. as the world’s policeman, and over-represented by wealthy, educated voters. It is now the populist party, is dominated by the poor, lesser educated and working class, is isolationist and socially conservative. — Joshs

The radical transformation of the Republican party is something that has happened quite recently. Perhaps one thing was that the Republicans started fearing that the demographic transition where white Americans lose the majority and minorities would stay loyal to the Democrats made them to choose populism. Or simply Trump and populism took them and they have carried on with the flow.

It’s not the two-party system that promotes toxicity and lashing out, it’s the polarized cultural environment pitting urban against rural. For decades the two parties were quite cordial toward one another and there was much across-the-aisle compromise and consensus. — Joshs

One may then ask, where did the polarization come from? I think one reason is that people are simply dissatisfied about the political establishment and thus many have eagerly taken on populism. And my argument is that the two political parties aren't doing anything to limit the polarization. On the contrary.

Not all is political, I agree. Universally there is this divide between the urban and the rural, but in the US it's especially nasty. The hostility especially against the poor is very telling, as if it's OK and not bigoted for white people to talk in a derogatory manner especially about poor whites. How hillbillies, crackers or white trash are talked about even publicly is quite astonishing.

I have made some polls in some forums, and it was revealed that people who value democracy and liberalism are more prone to agree that the bitcoins are not "ponzi schemes". — Linkey

Notice that everything called to be a "ponzi scheme" isn't one. Social security systems aren't ponzi schemes, even if they will have problems if the younger generations are far smaller than older ones for a while. And governments having the ability to tax their citizens don't make the currency a ponzi scheme.

In a functioning democracy with liberalism is naturally good for cryptocurrencies. And so is when you have institutions that look out for swindlers and other criminals.

Yet we just have to remember that private currencies have been quite nasty earlier in history: think if your employer would give your salary in his made-up company currency, which would be accepted only in the company store and you could rent a place to live only in the company owned flats? How independent would you be? Transparency, convertibility and few legal foundations are what even a cryptocurrency needs. The ultra-libertarian view that no rules are needed and the market itself just works is only a theoretical (and ideological) idea which is has nothing to do with reality.

Is the thumb being lifted from the scale? — NOS4A2

Or is put on the other side now, like with Melania suing Hunter Biden for 1 billion dollars? :lol:

(Might be quite indeed the Melania was handed down from Epstein to Trump. Who knows.)

You seem a little hostile about this. What I told you is just a fact. — frank

Then please refer then to the facts. Have links to studies proving this. Really, I honestly would find that educational and informative for me.

American labor has been competing with foreign labor for decades, and that was by design. It was to cripple American labor unions. It worked. — frank

This is the crucial thing that people get wrong: globalization and income distribution don't go hand-in-hand. German auto industry has been very competitive and produces more cars, yet the labour unions have been very and still are powerful in Germany. The labour policy has been different!

Higher Wages in Germany:
German auto workers are among the highest paid in the world, with some sources citing rates over double the average American auto worker's wages.

Lower Wages in the U.S.:
American auto workers, including those at German automakers' U.S. factories, generally earn lower wages.

Profitability:
Despite higher labor costs, German car manufacturers have historically been highly profitable, indicating that high wages don't necessarily negate profits.

The real problem in the US is in income distribution, not globalization. A lot of issue simply suck in the US, starting from you health care system, and naturally your politicians blame foreigners, because why not? Yet the obvious fact is that not in every Western industrialized country the politicians only work for the billionaires and the rich. Oligarchs won't help the ordinary citizen, they don't think that they have any obligation to do so at the first place.

Ok. I agree. Identity politics makes caricatures of everyone. I hate it. — Fire Ologist

It's not only Identity politics. Political discourse has dramatically changed after people have taken up to use social media. The role of mediators, like newspapers were before aren't there and politicians communicate directly through social media to their followers. This has created a quite toxic environment were people can lash out the way they would never do if publicly they would meet the actual people. Then there's those obnoxious algorithms that simply choose on your behalf just what "news" you get. The most radical views get more traction etc.

I think it was the historian Neil Ferguson who has compared the present change to the invention of the printing machine, which created a huge information revolution ...and also bloody religious wars. Once the monopoly of the Catholic Church was broken and people could read in their own language the Bible, then the role of the priesthood was diminished. At first one might think this was a totally positive change, yet the bloody religious wars fought afterward showed not everything was positive.

And the last issue is American political discourse itself, which promotes and encourages toxicity and lashing out. The two-party system creates an environment where there is no reason to be diplomatic or try to reach out to the other side. In fact, it usually seems that the main argument that both sides give for voting for them is that the other side is so dangerous and will destroy everything good in the Republic. If politicians had to form coalition governments, the discourse wouldn't be so hostile.

I would hope so. That is probably true for many on the left, but I think most leftists think implicit biases and unconscious cultural influences lead non-woke people around by the nose, and that underneath it all, non-woke people want to oppress women and are homophobic and don’t see non-whites as equals. I think many woke people talk this way. — Fire Ologist

I think this more about echo-chambers and people hearing everywhere dog whistles. And it's more that many leftist think that they themselves are attacked by the MAGA crowd.

How else does one think the AE Sweeney ad is anti-woke? — Fire Ologist

But just who is really talking about this commercial? I think the most influential commentator is Donald Trump, who was enthusiastic that Sydney is a Republican. Notice the discourse. Remember the huge discussion about taking the knee with Colin Capernick? It was actually a green beret named Nate Boyer who in my mind smartly advised them to take the knee rather than sit on the bench, which indeed would be quite offensive. Only when Trump got involved on this, then the issue took a life of it's own.

The AE Sweeney ad is 100% Culture War stuff that political parties use to get their supporters interested in politics. The vast majority don't care shit about foreign policy matters or monetary policy decisions, but a thing like talking about some ad, be it Bud Light commercial or a jeans commercial, and the level to comment about them is far lower.

The whole Culture War thing is intended to make us even dumber.

Some points:

- Cryptosceptics aren't in authoritarian countries, on the contrary, authoritarian countries are prone to have problems of inflation and severe limitations on holding wealth in other assets / foreign currencies than the fiat currency of the state. Hence many authoritarian countries people are far more aware of the perils of a fiat currency and love cryptocurrencies.

- The primary argument of cryptosceptics is that there's no actual difference between the fiat currency and a cryptocurrency in the trust in the value of the currency. That there's an finite amount of bitcoin... can you be sure about that? How would a normal person notice a "fake" or "excess" crypto? There has been a collection of swindlers operation in the crypto sphere already.

- Notice the difference for example to gold. The crypto believers argue that actually gold is similar, that it's priced so valuable only because people think it's rare and valuable. Let's think about this for a moment. Let's assume that a kilo of gold (now worth about 106 000 USD) would be priced let's say 10 cents per kilo and hence gold would be far cheaper than copper (which is priced about 9 USD per kg). If so, you bet the inert metal would be used everywhere, starting for example having your home plumbing made of plastic having a golden interior or even the plumbing been made of pure gold. Wouldn't have to renovated for I guess hundreds of years as it gold doesn't rust when in contact with water.

Yet since there isn't so much gold around for everybody to use in ordinary house construction gold, then it cannot be so cheap. The metal does have genuine uses, not just to be a wealth asset.

- And finally, many cryptosceptics are very pessimistic about the state of individual liberties in the present: governments can simply ban the use of cryptocurrencies and when this is made globally without any loopholes, it won't work. The idea of net being a bastion of liberty is extremely naive and even dangerous according to them. Just think if government would make a law saying that holding cryptocurrencies or use of cryptocurrency in any transaction will get you a minimum 10-year jail sentence, would you hold on to your "wealth"? Just change your holdings into the official safe cryptocurrency.

Racism is a deeper problem than white America and white Europe admits.
Homosexual people are not properly respected, ostracized from many institutions, mistreated, harmed and killed, just for being homosexual.
Women still need to fight for equal rights in many situations.

I say all of that and I mean all of that because of the vast reaching influence of wokism. — Fire Ologist

Is it really so?

Because I would think many people, also who are politically in the center and on the right, were agreeing with the above far before the term "woke" was used.

I think many on right, starting from libertarians, would agree with those statements. Above all, does saying the above somehow clash with values upheld on the right, starting from things like private ownership or family values? I would say that it's the leftist distorted caricature of the conservative right that portrays the right being against equal rights for women and against homosexuality. Well, when those topics were first discussed in the 19th and 20th Century, naturally there were conservatives at the time who were for sticking to the old ways, but then again, those times the left was truly for disbanding capitalism at every level and striving for socialism and only disagreeing inside of itself on how socialism would be achieved.

Is the left now preaching the leftist mantra of the 19th Century? Nope, not at all. It's main objective would be just to curve the excesses of capitalism at this stage. In the similar fashion the views on the conservative side have changed. Hence it simply is time for us to put these travesties aside and really look what in general the political sides are saying, not to cherry pick the most outrageous comments that one can find and try to represent these as the common goal of that side. Because when we do so, then we fall into the trap of thinking that people are either "woke" or then "MAGA".

A year ago, if I wanted to start a shower curtain business, my only option would be to make high end ones for a niche market. I couldn't compete with imports to make regular ones.

Now, with tariffs, I can. I can hire workers, reinvest profits to expand into faucets, and eventually bathtubs. I hire more people, reinvest, and the next thing you know, there are fewer fentanyl addicts in my community because there are good jobs for them. — frank

Are you actually in the shower curtain business?

No. Your whole issue is a thought experiment. Yet if you would link to an article on how the shower curtain business is actually making great advances again in Michigan (or where ever), then there would be more credibility to your argument.

You don't want to see this because you're totally bound to anti-Trump. — frank

That simply is a lie.

I've praised the American president when there is a reason for it. Hiking defense spending to 5% in NATO is one of those things that wouldn't have happened with Trump and which is a good thing. If the US economy fires up to spectacular successes, I will admit it if that happens. This is the this stupid American way of just putting people into pro- and against camps. Sticking to your party line in a country where the both parties are at fault of this mess, that I don't get.

It doesn't once occur to you that autocracies start with giving the people what they want and need. You've rendered yourself blind. — frank

Rooting now for autocracies, Frank?

On a philosophy forum? Or being ironic?

Autocracies give for themselves. The people are only a tool for them to get what the autocrat, the man in charge, wants. And the first thing, every time, is to maintain the power of the autocrat. The way to do that is hinder every institution that could weaken (or oppose) the power of the autocrat. Hence democratic representation, separation of powers, democratic institutions and so on are an obvious threat to the autocrat and his power. Only fools believe in the idea of the benevolent autocrat who will solve the problems what republic has. But there are ample amount of these kind of fools in every country.

It is not a failure in reasoning to be afraid of nuclear weapons. — boethius

But it is to think that nuclear deterrence doesn't work is wrong.

Nuclear powers keep their nuclear deterrence as the last defence and WILL NOT escalate recklessly with another nuclear power. Just look at Pakistan and India. These nuclear armed powers have now had two military conflicts under their belt when both sides have been armed with nuclear weapons.

In fact, the posturing between NATO and Russia here is a case example: The US / NATO got through the message that if Russia would use tactical nukes in the conflict with Ukraine, NATO air power would attack Russian units and targets in Ukrainian territory. Notice what here was absent: any attack on Russian strategic bases like in the Kola Peninsula etc. Such attack would be actually a huge escalation. The declared limited conventional response was credible enough, even if using nuclear weapons would severely undermine Russia's war (as China wouldn't like this escalation).

I myself have assumed that if Russia really would want to send a message with nuclear weapons, likely they would simply make an underground nuclear test at Novaja Zemlya. This would be observed, would create a panic and a media frenzy, but wouldn't lead to a military response from NATO.

Seems Zelenkskyy played his hand very well in the Oval Office meeting. Media is reporting that he even got a laugh out of Trump - very difficult thing to do, and probably as significant as getting a sign-off, given Trump's character. — Wayfarer

Quite funny when Trump didn't find at first the Finnish President who was sitting in front of him. Trump starts to show his age.

But yes, the Ukrainian president as Ukraine has the backing of Europe. Will that be enough, we'll see.

But the end game here has nothing to do with Trump. US was never going to risk nuclear war over Ukraine — boethius

Lol.

Putin won't risk nuclear war over Ukraine. His nuclear rambling has already paid well off for him.

And this has to do everything with agent Trumpov and how mesmerized he is with Putin. At least now Trump says something negative of Putin, but he still claps for the dictator.

The only legitimate militaristic pro-Ukraine stance would have been sending Western troops into Ukraine to "standup" to the Russians beside their Ukrainian "friends". — boethius

The good pro-Ukrainian stance would have to give them everything they needed right from the start and then also to take seriously the threat that Russia poses and truly start building up European military industry right from the start. To be afraid of Putin's nuclear rattling was the failure. This game has been played in the Cold War already, hence full commitment on your ally fighting the enemy is the correct thing to do.Trump's increase of military spending to 5% has been one of the good things that idiot has done.

Will it, really?

Is it the mythical "domestic manufacturer" whose situation will improve when global trade / foreign competition is stifled?

Well, when it comes to a lot of things, like coffee production, there simply isn't that "domestic growers/manufacturers". But perhaps MAGA people simply hate trade and think they would be better off without the rest of the World. Unfortunately human history says this is totally wrong: trade is the thing that creates prosperity. To forget the billions of consumers and focus on the 300+ million Americans isn't going to create more prosperity.

And how about the American consumer? Fuck him or her.

It's noteworthy that where this Trumpian idea was very much used as a guideline was with many African states. After colonization, they opted for socialism and high trade tariff barriers to "get their domestic production" up and running. Well, all they did was create some (if any) small companies totally dependent on the trade barriers with no way of competing with in the real world. Socialism and state monopolies were of course one thing, but the idea of trade barriers was the same. The whole issue of the "trade barriers to protect your domestic industry" only has worked in history when the true objective has been to get the domestic industry ready to compete openly with global market, hence they haven't been permanent. Otherwise it turns into rotting cancer.

Trump is opting for the rot.

And who cares about the tiny export sector, like farmers, who are going to really feel how Trump's policies hinder them.

Rubio is now saying ‘both sides have to make sacrifices.’ As if Ukraine has not sacrificed enough already. — Wayfarer

As if Putin has made ANY sacrifices towards peace...



On the contrary, Trump is making things quite easy for him!

The problem is, any time anyone gay, non-binary, disabled etc does anything now, it gets labelled as "woke".
Are they supposed to just hide? Like they've had to do for most of the history of Christian and Muslim countries? — Mijin

One has to understand that the whole discourse about anything that involves especially sexual minorities has been hijacked by the politically driven culture war rhetoric. The whole culture war rhetoric spreads simply like a cancer and it dumbs down everything. Just like anything involved with feminism, DEI etc. And this goes both ways.

Referring to "woke" is a sign of this just as if someone argues that some Trump administration policy is "nazi". Or the American Eagle jeans campaign being nazi or whatever.

Try to have a reasonable smart conversation when people are just looking for dog whistles everywhere. It's very hard.

The US economy isn't slowing down, though. Not yet anyway. — frank

The US economy usually grows at around 1.3% in the first half of the year. It makes up for that in the last half. But yes, we're waiting for the full effect of the tariffs. So far, it's not as expected. It's actually a lot closer to what Trump predicted. — frank

Frank, one should remember just how GDP growth is calculated. Imports are subtracted from the equation, meaning that as imports to the US fall and as they now have fallen off a cliff, GDP grows.

Like the first quarter contraction wasn't indicative of a coming recession, the second quarter expansion is not a sign of a booming economy. Both readings have to do with Trump's tariff policy and the reaction to it. In the first quarter, it was a steep increase in imports in anticipation of upcoming tariffs that drove the GDP decline. As imports are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, a surge in imports actually hurts GDP growth, even if only in the short run. Conversely, imports declined at an annual rate of 30 percent in the second quarter, which in turn boosted GDP growth.

see U.S. GDP Growth Bounces Back as Imports Plummet

Now just ask yourself, is truly a huge drop in imports something that makes Americans better off? How about then having absolutely no imports of anything, starting from no coffee from abroad, no foreign cars etc? This would (with everything else being the same) also increase the GDP.

What's the irony of intelligence services simply doing their work?

A sex offender like Trump can easily have 'kompromat' here and there.

So Ghislaine Maxwell got a sweetheart deal, can go off from prison to work, something similar that Epstein himself got the first time in Florida. Well, Trump wished the convicted sex trafficer well and here we see what that well wishing in actuality means in Trumpland.



Trump really has taken the corruption and criminality down to Third World level in the US. That Trump was introduced to his showcase wife by Epstein seems to have hit a nerve too in the White House.

:rofl:

Great one.

Let's see how the talks in Alaska will go.

Not very hopeful as Trump is a very lousy deal maker, and there's still the possibility that Trump pushes Ukraine to a lousy deal and gives everything on a platter to Putin. Not likely, but still a possibility.

Wouldn't be the first time anyway ... — jorndoe

But wouldn't hit the soft spot anymore. Europeans don't take anymore the bullshit tactics as they did earlier.

Good point. If one coherent (whatever that means) interpretation can be produced it seems likely innumerable can be. This will call the legitimacy of all of them into question. There might be advocates of each of them.

This is one logical outcome. However I still intuitively feel that no coherent (whatever that means) translation can ever be produced. — hypericin

The largest outcome naturally is that we aren't alone as a 512-page book with obscure writing doesn't accidentally form just by accident in the universe. The real problem simply is that there's no way of knowing just what "the book" is about or what it is meant for. It can look like to us as a book, but that is the only thing we understand. We can just guess and this makes cracking of any code difficult.

Indeed we had to have the Rosetta stone to finally crack the ancient hieroglyphs. Even before we could assume what they were telling: praising the greatness of the Pharaohs etc. What else do you write in Temples etc? In this case, people would be having argument on just what is the whole function of the "book".

It looks like the military has joined the fray against the drug cartels, just as you predicted. — NOS4A2

Trump is a president that will do what he says.

Hope the US military will collaborate with Mexico, or it will be something like the US going after the Taleban in Pakistan earlier. The worst outcome is if the White House demands something "flashy" to come out of the operation or takes control over the operations, then the US can have another fiasco at their hands.

(BBC) Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has rejected the idea that the US might invade Mexico after news reports suggested Donald Trump had authorized the use of military force targeting drug cartels deemed terrorist organizations in Latin American countries.

“The United States is not going to come to Mexico with their military,” she said during a daily news conference on Friday. “We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion. It’s off the table, absolutely off the table.”

* * *

Well, we just saw Ghislaine Maxwell being put into a minimum security prison after Trump's personal lawyer (now top DOJ official) went to talk to her. How convenient.



The Epstein case won't go away. More and more, I think it's really looking to be one historic conspiracy as the link to Israeli intelligence (or part of it) seems realistic. Otherwise Epstein's rise to have the ties that he had would be difficult to understand. And because both parties are involved and the US-Israeli connection is so delicate, likely the thing will be swept under the rug (as it has been now for years). Or then anyone referring to the link is accused to be an anti-semite racist.

I'm not sure how wokeness is different from an agenda of conserving grudges, as if we lost the momentum and are now losing all the gains from the Civil Rights Movement. We've landed back in the 1960s and the only way forward is to demand corporate virtue signaling. I'm detecting a lack of underlying meaning. — frank

What the Civil Rights Movement in the US fought for or labour laws in my view isn't anything to do with woke or wokeism. Just as isn't the shortly lived protests against Israel's actions in Gaza. The proponents of DEI surely might see them as the continuation or those that continue to further these past political struggles, but in fact they are not.

The US has a real political crisis with Trump's actions and is on the road for an fiscal, monetary and economic crisis ....sooner or later.

To effectively critique wokism you have to understand its philosophical underpinnings. — Joshs

The problem with this is that basically "woke" and "Wokism" is defined by those who reject the whole thing. It already is a critique. Many of those then accused of being "woke" never have thought to be "woke" and don't understand what is meant by it. Hence starting to look at the underpinnings is a bit difficult.

For example, Zizek isn't in my view at all woke. Yes, he may be close to post-structuralism in some views, but basically he is just a leftist intellectual who obviously totally clear about the negative aspects of Marxism-Leninism as he was born in Yugoslavia.

Wokism is just a collection of leftist overreactions and eccentricities. That's the actual punchline.

Anyway, when wokism is officially attacked by the Trump administration, the whole issue is beyond stupidity just like with the so-called culture wars. Good luck having an intelligent discussion about the culture wars.

I just love the now Trump is fighting with Rupert Murdoch.

I feel good for the Americans who don't like either of the two political parties running the US. With a hideous sex scandal involving TWO Presidents that represent both parties, It's so hilarious to see how the partisan hacks are incapable of discussing ALL the Epstein client list.

The thing that is different now is the mobility of capital. Companies or not beholden anymore to some place or community, but can shop all over the world and force favourable conditions from governments who are put into competition with each other.

So yes things tend to oligarchy, the question to me seems what kind of oligarchy. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, the current globalized economy gives a rise to oligopolies.

What Economists love is a Perfect Market with Perfect Competition, which is extremely theoretical and basically only used because of the mathematical easiness of the model. Monopolies usually happen only by a state or government creating a monopoly. A Duopoly (market controlled by two companies) is rare if not nonexistent. Yet an Oligopoly, few large companies and corporations controlling the vast majority of the global market is the absolute norm.

Just pick any industry or service and you will find few giants ...and then local regional small companies. This happens both because of sovereign states are in trade packs, but also because one company/corporation cannot simply control all the markets everywhere. Natural monopolies don't emerge in reality. As the size of a corporation grows, so does all the inefficiencies of a large organization with bureaucracy, red tape, etc.

Once we understand that a globalized economy turns production and services to a market controlled by Oligopolies, then we can understand that the situation gives rise also to oligarchs assuming we have capitalism.

Perfect Competition is only a theoretical device, when you just look at what it would take to have a perfect market and perfect competition. Oligopolies are far more difficult to model.

You disappeared for a couple weeks there. — NOS4A2

Last time I wrote was two days ago, so couple of weeks is a bit of an exaggeration.

And having a summer vacation...

Did you finally find a little angle to exploit? — NOS4A2

Well, what do you think Patel and Bongino are doing to the credibility of the FBI with the turns and whims in the Epstein case?

Tzeentch finally discovered QAnon — frank

Lol, :snicker:

Well, QAnon is the classic way that every actual conspiracy is made so bonkers that no sane person can believe it. From starting that Epstein had ties to intelligence services to then believing in flat Earth. When you can link the two, then you can say everybody thinking that Epstein had ties to intelligence services is a Flat Earther. Right?

Let's just remember pizzagate... and the pizza place with the basement that wasn't.

Assuming it is true, it would explain a thing or two.

For the record, I think it is more likely true than not. — Tzeentch

I agree with you. I think it might very likely truly be true, the World is simply such a crazy place.

And years ago I remember one US media (I think it was saying that this is the last scandal that actually people want to be opened up, because it's of a bipartisan nature. With possibly two US presidents from opposing parties involved in the sex ring, this isn't something that either the establishment or the staunch partisan defenders of MAGA or DNC want to hear.

But ah, FBI Director Kash Patel and former podcaster and FBI Deputy Director Bongino are indeed making my FBI forecasts to be true (that Patel will really damage the FBI). First Trump attacks Iran, then this. :smile:

(CNN, Sat 12th July 2025) Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino has told people he is considering resigning amid a major clash between the FBI and Justice Department over the continued fallout from the release of the Jeffrey Epstein memo, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

This comes after a heated confrontation with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the handling of the case earlier this week.

The infighting over the case came to a head during a Wednesday meeting, which included Bongino, Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, the sources said. Bongino and Patel were confronted about whether they were behind a story that said the FBI wanted more information released but was ultimately stymied by the Department of Justice, they said.

It's so nice to now to watch the comments on the Epstein issue the present FBI director Kash Patel made when he was just the author of Trump children's books:



I'm just waiting when @NOS4A2 will come here to enthusiastically defend Trump. :lol:

A farce — jorndoe

Nope, reality of the Trump presidency. Which is something like a tragicomedy.

(the Standard, 16th July 2025) The family of disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell has said new evidence such as “government misconduct” could be used to challenge her imprisonment.

The 63-year-old was found guilty in December 2021 of luring young girls to massage rooms for paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein to molest between 1994 and 2004.

She was sentenced to 20 years in prison at the federal court in the southern district of New York (SDNY) in June 2022.

The US government has faced a backlash from President Donald Trump’s support base following words from Attorney General Pam Bondi that there was no evidence Epstein had a “client list”.

Just last year Maxwell lost the appeal against her sex trafficking conviction. But this year... it's the Trump administration, and Trump FBI, Trump DOJ.

So now when Trump is saying there's no Epstein client list, will Ghislaine Maxwell walk free and have evidence dropped?

Talk about where Trump & friends put the FBI and DOJ.

Yep, now it's time for the usual actions of the Trump administration.

And this is just his first year. I start to anticipate that we really can have the big "dollar crisis" during Trump's second term. Just have Trump being similar as he has been now for a year or two, with similar "Liberation Day" and TACO stuff going around.

In reality there's going to be just one thing that will really put Trump to a tight spot: the bond market, the absolutely crucial lifeline for the US government of selling treasuries. A lot has to be rolled over this year, and the debt will rise even with the additions of few trillions that the "Big beautiful bill" will give. (Which btw people won't feel the positive aspects as the tax cuts are basically extensions of earlier tax cuts)

As of July 03, 2025, total gross national debt is $36.22 trillion.

Debt held by the public is $29.03 trillion.
Intragovernmental debt is $7.19 trillion.

Assuming the average daily rate of growth over the past three years continues, the U.S. will reach $37 trillion by approximately December 02, 2025.

At that rate, an increase of another trillion dollars would be reached in approximately 194 days.

I would urge people to notice if the intragovernmental debt starts ballooning, or the treasury holdings held be the Federal Reserve. That would be a bad sign.



But just as long you can use the credit card, no worries...

You're right, I don’t consciously compute every problem I encounter. But that doesn’t mean computation isn’t happening. Much of the problem-solving is outsourced to unconscious brain processes. - So while I don’t deliberately compute everything, my brain is constantly computing - just not in a way that feels like "doing math". — Jacques

But this doesn't at all counter my point of there being uncomputable mathematics and hence uncomputable problems. Or to put it another way, undecidable problems where an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which an effective method (algorithm) to derive the correct answer does not exist.

So, while machines and organisms differ in origin and complexity, their internal workings are, in a deep sense, physico-chemical systems, and thus comparable under the lens of natural science. — Jacques

Again, this isn't at all an issue of vitalism at all or how related in a deep sense physico-chemical systems are. That isn't the question, the question is purely logical and of logic.

Here's where this goes wrong, and I'll try to make my case why it is so:

While subjectivity may not be computable at present, I assume it is in principle — Jacques

I don’t see why subjectivity, or anything else a human brain does can’t be modelled. — Punshhh

These two comments are quite close to each other. I reason that the thinking is the following: everything what either we or computers do is computation or can be modelled as computation, hence there is a correct model. Hence subjectivity isn't a problem (@Punshhh) or we could perhaps find the correct model in the future (@Jacques).

Here it is extremely important to notice just how negative self-reference works and how it creates a limitation and how it is related to subjectivity.

We could start with the observation: you can freely write anything you want, there is no limitation on what you write (yes, an administrator can ban you for some writings but that doesn't limit what you at first can write).

With negative self-reference we can show that there indeed is a limitation on what we can write, because we cannot do the following thing:

Write something that you never will write.

And obviously that is none of us can do: anything we write will instantly be part of what we have written, hence we simply cannot write something we don't write. Us writing them creates the "ownership", or the subjectivity, to the matter. It is something that we have written. And naturally we can reason that there is a set of writings, that we will never write.

The solution to this problem isn't just to assume a fourth person that could do this (who could write what we never write). For him or her (or it if it's a computer or AI) the limitation stands too on what they produce.

If you have understood my point so far, then one question could be: OK, what's the big problem here? Surely we can avoid this kind of logical trap.

The question is can we avoid this with every important question we would like to model or compute?

Because once any computation or model has impact to what the outcome is or what the correct model would be, the possibility of negative self-reference emerges. And many of the most important questions we have the models/computations can really have an effect on the outcome. Some can be handled and taken into account, but negative self-reference cannot.

Hope this will clarify my point.

While it's true that most people might share your opinion, it's worth noting that several prominent thinkers have argued that the brain—or even the human being as a whole—can be understood as a kind of machine. — Jacques

Do note the "as a kind of machine". Yes, we can talk for example about molecular machines in our body, but there still is a difference between living organism and an artificial motor human have constructed. But yes, we can generalize, so I also agree that we can talk about motors.

While subjectivity may not be computable at present, I assume it is in principle, given that the brain - a physical system effectively functioning as a (non-digital) computer - somehow gives rise to it. — Jacques

Wait a minute.

Do you understand the Turing's Halting Problem and the Church-Turing thesis?

First and foremost, there is uncomputable mathematics. Not everything in mathematics is computable. Period, end of story. Do not assume that everything is then computable ...in the future or anywhere.

You are making a mistake if you just assume that subjectivity may not be computable at present (and here the emphasis on computable), but in principle it could be. Well, if you put it that way, you are basically arguing that Turing is wrong (and actually Gödel with his incompleteness theorems too). Non-digital computer doesn't make actually any sense, if by digital you mean something relating to computers or to electronic technology that uses discrete values, generally zero and one. It would be like talking about unhuman humans (there are plenty of inhuman humans, but not unhuman humans). And discrete values don't have anything to do with this problem.

Do note that computation is a specific way to solve problems, the process of performing calculations or solving problems using a set of well-defined rules or instructions, following algorithms. We don't compute everything if we are presented with a problem. Or do you really compute every problem you find?

I’ve come to the conclusion that most media portrayals of AI developing "its own motives" are based on flawed reasoning. I don’t believe that machines—now or ever—will develop intrinsic motivation, in the sense of acting from self-generated desire. - I also reject the idea that humans possess some irreducibly mysterious cognitive abilities. Qualia, intuition, consciousness—they are all real phenomena, but I see no reason to believe they’re anything but products of material data processing. The brain, though vastly complex, is just a physical machine. — Jacques

Machines and living entities are a bit different (as I assume you know), but let's accept the very broad definition here and ignore the obvious physical differences between man made machines and living organisms.

Yet do notice the logical difference: AI is still a computer (or a network of computers) and acts like a computer, it follows algorithms robotically. A human can indeed understand the "algorithms" he or she is following, and then change them and have initiative because we can act as a subject. A computer cannot: it has to have in it's algorithms clear instructions how to deal in a situation where a human would use initiative, imagination etc. Yes, indeed AI can mimick humans very accurately, but it isn't thinking as we are, it's computing/calculating.

This idea reminds me of Turing’s Halting Problem: the impossibility of writing a general program that determines whether any arbitrary program halts. Turing showed that such a program would lead to a logical contradiction when applied to itself. Similarly, a human trying to model the human mind completely may run into a barrier of self-reference and computational insufficiency. — Jacques

I'm starting to think it's because we haven't understood simply how general the limitations what Turing's Halting Problem are to us. Computation is objective, but once you put in an element that is subjective into the equation, namely that the Turing Machine should take into account the actions of itself, we have the halting problem. When that self-reference is basically negative self reference, it's impossible to do this, hence the famous result.

Let me give you the most easy example of this:

Try to do the following: Write a reply to my post that you never will write.

Now obviously you cannot do it. Anything you will write obviously won't be in the category (or the set) of things that you will never write in your lifetime. Are there replies that exist that you won't write? Yes, obviously there are these kinds of replies as you don't live forever. Hopefully you can notice the negative self-reference in the above statement. Yet do notice also the subjectivity. Perhaps a friend of yours could fairly accurately describe what kind of reply you will give. For him or her, the modeling (of what your reply will be, if there is one) can be objective. But once it's you, there's no way out of it.

This similar problem came to discussion with @Sam26 in his [TPF Essay] Wittgenstein's Hinges and Gödel's Unprovable Statements where I brought up the difference with the objective and the subjective. I'll rewrite what I said in that thread:

Everything is about objectivity and subjectivity, actually. It's not merely a psychological issue, but simply logical. We can easily understand subjectivity as someone's (or some things) point of view and objectivity as "a view without a viewpoint". To put this into a logical and mathematical context makes it a bit different. Here both Gödel and Wittgenstein are extremely useful.

In logic and math a true statement that is objective can be computed and ought to be provable. Yet when it's subjective, this isn't so: something subjective refers to itself.

Hence between a computer (be it AI or whatever) and a human being, the logical difference might be more clear when we think of the difference from viewpoint of subjectivity and objectivity. A computer computes and cannot act as a subject, make decisions itself and go against the algorithms and "do something else" what isn't in the algorithms whereas we can understand our reasoning (basically our algorithms) and then come up with something new from them.

Yet note just how fixated we are with the false view that everything can be described objectively. The standard counterargument would be that we humans indeed are similar to computers, but the "algorithms" we use are somehow on a hidden layer of "meta-algorithms" that we cannot describe. Yet what this is basically just insisting on the view that everything can be modeled objectively and we just assume this meta-algorithms of us...without any explanation why. Yet there doesn't have to be at all any kind of "meta-algorithm" at all, it is just that subjectivity isn't computable.

When you think of it, this is like a cat going around a cup of milk that is too hot for it to drink as subjectivity (at least to me) brings up the question of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness, learning, etc. Yet here to model these "problems" by showing that they are indeed mathematical and logical is beneficial.

I'm not entirely familiar with the halting problem, but your wording suggests a mistake in your reasoning. It may not be possible for some program A to determine whether or not itself will halt, but is it possible for it to determine whether or not some equivalent program B will halt? If so, even if I cannot model my own mind, I may be able to model your mind, and if it's reasonable to assume that our minds are broadly equivalent then that will suit our purposes of modelling "the human mind" in general. — Michael

Math and logic are precise. There you cannot wiggle your way off just by assuming something. Otherwise we can always just assume a "black box" that gives us the correct models to everything and not think about it more. I can also assume to have a "black box" that gives me a solution to every math problem. The problem with this thinking is that I have no specific answers, naturally.

And anyway, If not familiar to the halting problem, please look up this site about Self-Reference and Uncomputability. It shows how the halting problem (and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems) are tied to self-reference and uncomputability. Let me remind you that one outgrowth of the Halting Problem was the Church-Turing thesis, a vague definition for computability. Computers literally compute.

And anyway, the problem here is that basically both you and @Jacques are part of the universe and you cannot just assume to look at the whole universe outside of it to get that truly objective viewpoint needed. Just look what physics turns into when measurements start having an effect on what is measured.

So now the Elon/Donald breakup has gone to the point where Elon is saying that he will create a new political party, the America party.

(Reuters) A day after asking his followers on his X platform whether a new U.S. political party should be created, Musk declared in a post on Saturday that "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom."

Yet what's the credibility after the failure of DOGE to make any true impact (other than canceling USAID)? Quite laughable. At least the guy is as distracted as ever from actually running his companies, so I guess Tesla will continue to plummet.

Russian imperialism 1.01, the short version covering the past and the present:



Noteworthy comments from the interview:
-Empires fall when they try to bring on some kind of a democratization process or democratic reforms.
-The present Russia has now an expansionist regime which is more dangerous than during the Cold War when Soviet Union was basically just defending what it had in Europe behind the Iron Curtain and where the rest of the World was the playground for Superpower competition.

General hostilities in the region have come up before:

Researchers home in on origins of Russia’s Baltic GPS jamming (— Defense News · Jul 2, 2025) — jorndoe

For Putin's Russia, there is no line were actual hostilities start from their side, but just something that can be stretched as far it can be. Yet we have to understand that Putin has said that it is in war with NATO. And this guy usually means what he says.

I think we're talking past one another. I don't think Trump has any particular policy regarding the middle east. — frank

It seems so. We agree on this.

Perhaps the policy of Trump is be in the limelight at all times and make people/countries react to your actions?

- It has successfully controlled Middle-Eastern oil to such an extent that it allowed the US to take the world economy hostage via the petro-dollar. — Tzeentch

You have a strange idea of hostage situations, but anyway.

Very typical to totally forget and sideline here the House of Saud, which is very crucial to the whole thing. The House of Saud, once a British protectorate, then made good relations with the rising Superpower and finally made Saudi-Aramco purely Saudi owned, without a clash with the West as had happened with Iran. That the Saudis went with the dollar when Nixon got out of the gold standard was very crucial for the US. Even if there is hostility towards the US in the country (starting famously with Osama bin Laden), the partnership that hasn't any ideological or cultural ties has continued as a real example of realpolitik.

You, and many others, are operating under an assumption that the 'forever wars' had some envisioned endpoint of permanent victory. They did not. Talk of 'spreading democracy', etc. was just the figleaf.

Causing chaos and destruction was the whole point - except in those countries that willfully kowtowed before Washington and basically assigned themselves voluntarily to vassal status. — Tzeentch

This is the typical anti-American rant, that doesn't at all grasp the reality of how expensive wars are ...especially when you end up losing them, just like Vietnam or Afghanistan.

If this would be such an incredibly successful foreign policy towards a region, then wouldn't it then be better according to you that the US would have to bomb or occupy West European countries in order to "prevent regional powers from rising through classic 'divide & rule' strategies, and by destroying any West European country that started showing signs of prosperity and a sense of independence".

Oh, the US would be so better then...

Yet on the contrary, the US was OK with European integration and an EU to rise. Forget the Marshall Plan? Why was this so good according to your "divide & rule"? And this makes the US far different from classic imperialist countries like Russia.

In truth in the long run "divide & rule" is a constant uphill battle and a perpetual drain on the economy and resources of any country/empire. Thus after exhausting the prosperity in these quite mindless wars, then empires falter.

It's irrelvant. — Tzeentch

It's not irrelevant.

How did the Warsaw Pact countries then show their gratitude towards Russia after being former "allies" of the Soviet Union? Of course, these countries were no "allies" like NATO members are as the basic objective for the Warsaw Pact to exist was to reinforce the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. And in this role the Warsaw Pact acted very well in 1956 and in 1968. So them joining NATO when they had the opportunity just shows this. Putin's disastrous policies afterwards have just shown they were 100% correct and invading neighboring countries has just reinforced other European countries to see what kind of a danger Russia is.

US power in the Middle-East would be waning anyway as a result of the shifting balance of power, but the key here is that none of those enemies are capable of inflicting a real cost upon the US. — Tzeentch

The Taleban couldn't inflict a real cost upon the US, but it won the war and the US lost, just like in Vietnam. That's a fact. My basic reasoning here: when you have to bomb a country, you have already lost a lot, namely peace. Being in a dominant position and having peace is the true measure of success.

If you have to bomb, occupy countries and there is true resentment of your occupation (like in Iraq), that's not success. It isn't the worst defeat, but it surely isn't success. All I'm saying is that this train wreck cannot be described as an success in any way.