I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the act against the "instrumentalization of migration", where Finland cut the rights to asylum seekers if pressured by a state actor (read Russia) allowing and assisting people to seek asylum in Finland? Well, as some Finns are quick to bow to direction where power is (and thus show their arse to the opposite side), someone wrote here that perhaps Finnish border laws are seen positively by the Trump people soon populating the political offices in Washington DC.

If you refer to what larger problems Finland has avoided (and have been issues close to constitutional law), then it's different. I think the real issues that Finland has avoided is authoritarianism and ethnic conflict. In the 1930's right wing extremism basically rallied up by fear of communism didn't result in authoritarianism that many Eastern European countries descended into, but the democratic system prevailed. In fact the 1930's saw the social democrats coming back to power (as the party's left wing had made the bid to join the Russian Socialist Revolution in 1918). The other notable thing that didn't happen is that there wasn't any ethnic conflict between Swedish speaking Finns and Finnish speaking Finns. The reason is obvious from this: the Swedish speaking considered themselves Finns and didn't relate or yearned for Sweden and only the far right talked about Swedish speaking Finns as being Swedish. Then also Sweden, which had for a moment occupied the Åland Island didn't at all have any desires for Finnish territory, hence the old country that we had been a province to accepted us as independent neighbors. And now the relations are very warm between the two.

This is an equivocation. — Bob Ross

It isn't. Nationalism simply includes ultranationalism and jingoism.

There’s no trolling intended: there are good forms of nationalism, imperialism, and supremacy. Liberals just get butt-hurt when people use the proper terminology, because they conflate it with the bad forms. — Bob Ross

And trolls just love to get others butt-hurt, it's the objective.

What??? Patriotism is not anti-democratic. I don’t know why you would suggest all forms of nationalism, like Patriotism, are against democracy. — Bob Ross

Read carefully. I was talking about Marxism, not patriotism. Marxism-Leninism starts with ideas of violent revolutions, class enemy and the attitude towards other political systems is not veiled in the thinking.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes
tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They
have a world to win.

Because it is the only set of values that separates church from state; gives people as many equal liberties as possible; has the right to bear arms; and is merit-based (or at least used to be). Any society which is missing some of things is not as good (I would say). Maybe we can disagree on the 2nd amendment; but the others seem obviously better than any alternatives. — Bob Ross

Seems you confuse American set of values with Western set of values. Forgot the Church of England? Nordic countries like Norway, Denmark have state religions, Sweden just cut the link in 2000 and in Finland the link to Lutheran Church is quite strong still starting from religion taught in schools. And only a few countries in the World don't permit citizens owning firearms. Then to say that meritocracy happens only in the West sounds quite strange too.

Trump was a criminal from his beginnings: imagine how the world would differ if he had simply been jailed for his crimes then.

And that leaves the question of what to do when law fails? — tim wood

Democracy or a Republic works only if the citizens uphold the values. Even in school I remember my philosophy teacher reminding us that there's no limit to what a Parliament can decide: it can jail redheads if it wants as it can change the constitution (with 3/4 majority votes, but still). Even for the US Constitution there have been 27 amendments.

The real problem is when corruption is basically made legal. Or where do you put it when Jared Kushner starts a private equite firm and gets an investment of 2 billion from Saudi Arabia? At least Trump is talking about Saudi Arabia very favorably. Naturally there's been the allegations of Hunter Biden, which just shows how usual this is.

Careful what you ask for. Clearbury is prone to designating anyone who asks for such as irrational, and then proceeding to ignore that person for engaging with the reality of the situation, rather than Clearbury's hypothetical situation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the "warning", but I'll see if Clearbury responds.

I think this is very typical for those that want to talk especially about anarchism. Anarchism sounds so interesting and refreshingly different from what they are used to in their own society. It's a wonderful blend of freedom and criticism of the societies of the present. However, even if daydreaming might be refreshing, any political ideology has to be rooted in actual reality and judged by what it's implementation really results in. Having premises like "actually we have to have a totally new kind of human being" should ring alarm bells for everyone.

I am familiar-ish with the sorts of case people make for the state. And to date I have been unimpressed by all of them. — Clearbury

The fundamental problem is where you start thinking of anarchism: you start from the individual, yet go for macrolevel solutions that effect communities and societies. Individual rights is a good starting point for a legal system, because the laws should be universal and equal. Yet in your example an individual interacts with another individual and that's your basis for anarchism. This is simply thinking that someone in an Ivory Tower purely thinking at a theoretical level can make.

First of all, people don't roam the land as individuals like siberian tigers or other large predators do. Humans live in groups and form families, groups, clans, societies. You can be all hyped up about the rights of the individual, think yourself as an individual, but you simply don't live alone and act alone. But this is just the start of the problems that this individualism has.

Think for a while of reality, of historical events on how people behave when there is de facto, no government or the government collapses.

When governments collapse, and there are dozens and dozens of examples of this, what is common in those situations?

What is common that then people immediately form groups that basically carry out the role of the government. The first thing is that they understand there's no police to call, then they protect themselves, their families and their property. They can be neighborhood watchgroups, vigilante groups or simply gangs. And they every time face the problem of who pays for the costs if crisis isn't very short. Because simply a few volunteers armed with baseball bats looking out for thieves won't cut it. The "few volunteers" have to have weapons and training, and all that adds to the costs of maintaining this service. And then you're back to square one: the "anarchistic" system has to demand some payment for the costs, hence taxes, and then comes all the issues of who just has power then in the system, and so on.

It's something quite universal:

or indirectly unjust in that it pays for what it is justly doing by unjust means: by taxation. — Clearbury

Here's my problem: are you willing to pay anything for services provided by others? If you need an electrician, is it OK for the electrician to ask for fee that basically feeds himself and his family? Or is that also unjust.

If you answered yes, you would pay for the electrician for his services, then where is the line where this payment becomes "injust", as the government does provide valuable institutions and services and the taxes go to the salaries of those that make them possible. It's again the problem above, something like "security" isn't cheap, it's far more costly especially when there isn't a large organization taking care of it... like a government.

Yeah but you have Stockholm syndrome. You like being stolen from and told what to do by a bunch of pencil-necks, the younger the better. — NOS4A2

You think so?

What can I say. Being happy that my taxes have substantially gotten lower from earlier times. As a young student I remember being taxed 72,5% and even the tax official didn't understand why it was so high (the max at that time). Luckily I was still living with my parents at that time. Now it's gone down, well below 50%. And then I got a free education to an university degree and don't have to pay for my children's education. My health care costs are low, even if I have had health problems on the way. The fact is that when people really get services for their taxes that they otherwise would have to pay, they are OK with it. Even the Republicans have pushed improvements to Medicare and such stuff and the majority of Republicans favour such entitlement programs as social security and Medicare, so don't get your ideological views to forget reality.

And they say I'm living in the happiest country in the World. Guess that makes everyone else's country suck for them a lot more.

If so, how susceptible do you think they would be to more leftist populist rhetoric? — bert1

In the US it's difficult to say as it's been a very long time since the US has seen genuinely leftist parties being popular.

The big transformation that has happened both in the UK, USA and in Europe is that the leftist parties (social democrats, labour etc) have been losing their voters to populist movement. This basically shows that they haven't answered to a segment of their voters. For example in the UK you had your own populist movement (Brexit) which was taken up with both a populist party (UKIP) and a wing of the conservative party. In his election win years ago the Brexiteer Boris Johnson admitted that he had gotten traditional labour votes, which just showed this drift. But then the conservatives and Boris fumbled it up and these voters went back to Labour.

Yes. We're in weird times. I haven't quite put the puzzle pieces together to understand what it means. I've considered the possibility that there's been a lot more lead in the drinking water than anyone realized. — frank

"Weird times" is an indicator that there is a genuine possibility of things getting really worse. I remember a letter written by my great grandfather to his brother in 1916. He had been walking with the local priest and discussed the political situation. The priest couldn't simply understand what collective insanity had taken over people in 1905 where my great grandfather had responded that those times could indeed come back. In two years Finland was in bloody a civil war.

For the educated and informed people the observation of "insanity taking over people" is an alarm bell, the canary in the coal mine dying. That means many people don't think the traditional politics (of the moderates) isn't working and drastic changes are needed.

ssu As for DNC populism, what would that look like? I associate populism with right-wing politics typically, but I suppose you could have a left-wing version that encourages victimhood and dependency, — bert1

Left-wing populism exists.

Best example of that in your continent was Hugo Chavez and the politics of Venezuela. It starts from basically dehumanizing your opponents and claim how super powerful these evil people of the elite are. Leftist populism would forget the woke humbug and DEI and simply focus on the working man, the real honest people that "make the true America". It's quite similar to the Trumpist rhetoric (no surprise there), but the politics is of course leftist. And that leftist rhetoric makes Republicans howl.

And that the real purpose: to make Republicans outrage. Outraging your opponent is the key to get the angry people enthusiastic about your cause. Populism nurtures hatred. It's about changing the Overton window in politics.

What has happened is that with the "New Left" thinking so much that all the woke nonsense is important, they've simply forgotten their own base, the workers and the less educated people. That's why the real divide in US policy goes by education. Well educated people still think they can get a good job and the system works for them. But if a blue-collar worker in the rust-belt, the whole system seems to have forgotten you totally. That's the people Trump went for an got.

If government personnel are discriminating against you because of something it shouldn’t discriminate against, then yes, the government is the enemy. It’s oppression. You’ll find that generally speaking the government is a common enemy of oppressed people, no conspiracy theory required. — NOS4A2

And the fact that you use the word "enemy" and oppression makes it totally clear that some government officials can be careful when having to approach you. If I get bad/improper service from government officials I'll complain through the effective channels, but not declare them an enemy. Enemy is a definition for war and too easily used by Americans describing their fellow people.

Oh I forgot, you live in Canada.

Bottom line, the lie itself can become a deadly tool, the liar a deadly danger. Like a virulent cancer. As with cancer, the earlier detected, usually the gentler the cure. Doctors of TPF, your suggestions? — tim wood

Simply make the detection/diagnose of a "post-truth" person and then treat him or her accordingly. Understand that he or she will tell the truth only if it suits his or her objectives and agenda. It just a power game, so get over the stupid fascination about truth and falsehood. The are playing a role and they want to give everything to that role. Assume he or she is pushing an agenda irrelevant of the facts. That's it.

Understand the underlying thinking: "Post-truth" people think that truth simply is a means to further your agenda, just like speech that sounds honest and credible. Truths are just a tool for argumentation. And repeating the lie of the leader simply shows that you are giving 100% percent for the cause.

Subjects and the subjective matters, objectivity is for pussies.

No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads. — BitconnectCarlos

Nope. You lose your heads if the US is really involved in the fight. Conflicts were the US is absent simply don't exist to you. Those conflicts are like the trees in the forest that fall that nobody hears.

Was the US involved in the First and Second Congo War?

Not much, even if many African countries were.

Was the US involved in Yemen?

With a few drones, notably killing during the Obama years an under aged US citizen, because his father (another US citizen) had supported muslim extremists after a stint in an Egyptian prison. But otherwise, this was a Saudi debacle before the attacks on shipping.

Was the US involved in Syria?

With a puny force that withdrew. Anyway this wasn't a real commitment as Americans were too afraid to back anybody in Syria, because they're Muslims and hence possibly Muslim extremists. (As the minorities like Christians basically support the regime as they fear reprisals on them)

But good that we heard from you that 40 000 is a few according to you.

I think most Trump voters just don't take any of his faults seriously. — frank

Exactly!

If seasoned military officers warned that he's a danger to democracy, people ignored it. - It all became a wall of anti-Trumpism in which significant facts got lost. It all fed into his persona as the victimized underdog. — frank

While Americans think their own government is the problem and as they hate their "elites", they go all in with populism. If the DNC would be populist, the democratic voters would fall for it just like all the Trump supporters.

I cannot emphasize enough this delusional idea that the biggest evil against the common American is the US government. I really had to listen myself with my own ears in the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill a Republican representative (who I had no idea who was) gave a speech to the empty hall about how a big threat the FBI was to the United States. (This actually happened during the last Trump adminstration in 2019).

I can understand that citizens feel like that their politicians are inept and the government officials can be annoying and bureaucratic, but the intense antipathy towards one's own government is truly exceptional. So exceptional, that it really makes populism an election winner.

Crazy story and turns out to be true according to FEMA. The hatred and evil runs deep. The worms have travelled deep into the anti-Trump brain. — NOS4A2

The hatred and fear of FEMA runs deep in the mind of the conspiracy theorist.

I assume these were orders after a hurricane evacuation had been given and people had been told to evacuate.

Remember that for the Trumpist the worst enemy is the US government. So someone coming from the government, especially from the despised FEMA that has in plans "concentration camps" for the conservative Americans, yeah, that sounds like quite logical advice for FEMA personnel.

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? Sure. — Bob Ross

Except the US didn't go to war to stop the Holocaust.

The brilliant mr A. Hitler in his enormous wisdom declared war on the United States after Imperial Japan attacked the US. The holocaust was something that was exposed only after the war was fought in Germany and Poland, even if hints of the final solution were to be seen earlier.

Have the historical facts straight, Bob.

To pivot a little, I would say you are underestimating the power of European/American banking and it's allies.
America's debt is just a way of fleecing the American labour and business sectors to finance it's bankers and elites. — Swanty

And pay for that Superpower military, which is crucial. That now the debt service cost more than the whole defense budget is telling. And there's absolutely no reason why the country won't continue to use it's credit card from USD's global role.

They are a different form of nationalism. — Bob Ross

But still part of nationalism. And this is why people will get upset of a troll-like thread called "in support of Western supremacy, Nationalism and Imperialism". Perhaps a similar thread like "in support of of Marxism-Leninism, the good aspects of the Marxist ideology" would be for someone reasonable, but for others it would be deliberate trolling. Yet someone could post a thread like that and tell us of all the positive aspects of the ideology, and there are in PF many who consider themselves Marxists. Where he (or she) would go astray is to deny the negative sides of this totalitarian ideology and go for the insanely ludicrous idea of "if it weren't for Stalin". Or Mao, or Pol Pot. Luckily (in my view) the Marxists here do understand the complexity and the perils of totalitarianism and I respect that.

So no, Bob, you simply cannot bypass the ugly aspects of ultranationalism and jingoism as "a different form of nationalism" and then contnue talk about it positively. Yes, I've read your OP, you state in the end that:

I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical), like fascism, but it seems wrong to go to the opposite extreme and deny any nationalism and imperialism whatsoever. — Bob Ross

Well, a lot of of Marxists won't deny the millions that Marxism-Leninism killed, but the argue (perhaps like you) that the negative aspects aren't intrinsic to the ideology. That it's just, well, as you say when it goes too radical. But in that case, the whole ideology is against democracy, portrays other human beings as the enemy and justifies a violent revolution to be justified, as least as the 19th Century ideas went.

Hence similarly you saying that it's nationalism "just gone wrong" and admit it has negative aspects, or as you said, that ultranationalism is "something different", I don't buy that. You have to define just what you find to be positive and what ought to be excluded because you do have such negative aspects in the term of nationalism.

The US has military bases all round the world. — Swanty

And now pays more in servicing it's debt than in puts into it's military spending.

That means it's on the beaten path to lose it's position. And it can always retreat back to isolationism and create the huge vortex of a power struggle when it leaves. We have heard this over and over again, how the US is pivoting to Asia.

And do notice it made the attempt to have military bases in Central Asia after 9/11. Not only Afghanistan, but several other -stans had US bases, Tajikistan even having both US and Russian bases. Now there are none. The US has totally withdrawn from Central Asia and the Russia enjoys dominance over there. This just shows that likely the US "empire" has seen it's pinnacle of it's power perhaps and is on the way out. Just how many decades this withdrawal takes is the real question. And the likely outcome is that nothing will replace it.

Western values include war,economic oppression,imperialism and broken families. — Swanty

I think war and imperialism have been quite universal in human society, actually. Not something that the West enjoys a monopoly.

But there is one thing hypocritical in our thinking of "the West". And that is that we have this habit of announcing other non-European cultures to be "Western" if they are successful. Hence many people see Japan as "Western" because Japan has been a successful industrialized country. Yet this change cannot seemingly be seen as a result of Japan losing WW2 and the US democratizing the state as the transformation goes back to the Meiji restauration. Similarly for South Korea it took roughly 30 years from the Korean war to become a democracy and again the development is something that South Koreans did themselves. "Westernization" has usually been something of a response to European colonialism and imperialism, as in the case of the transformation of the Ottoman Empire to modern Turkey with Kemalism (which now has ended with the current leader of Türkiye).

(Kemal Atatürk in Gallipoli in 1915. The modernization of Kemalism was a response to Western power and the defeat of the "Sick man of Europe" in WW1, just like in the case of the arrival of US warships were for Japan in 1853.)


And naturally the huge transformation of China that has happened in our lifetime is the obvious example where we simply cannot talk of modernization as "Westernization". I remember the time when China was referred to being similar in economic size to the Netherlands. Technology and consumerism simply aren't some Western, but something simply universal and we should understand it in such a way.

(How Shanghai has changed in 30 years)

The problem is militant capitalism,led by Europe and it's British colony,the US. — Swanty

Europe and the US don't control either China or India, which have been in this Century the economic drivers of the global economy. Americans mainly consume and even if Trump wants the industry to come back, it won't. The UK is the perfect example of European deindustrialization as the country isn't even producing steel anymore. US economic power reached it's zenith at the end of WW2 when every other global competitor was either destroyed, bankrupt or attempting the ruinous experiment of Marxism-Leninism. From there it's been a steady decline, something irreversible as the decline of the UK after it's Empire collapsed.

But if we look at the finance required for these types of actions,then the UK,the US,Russia,china,Saudi arabia,Iran etc always have a hand in weapons sales and political support. — Swanty

And that is quite a mixed lot. So yes, there is the arms dealer to be found. And the country willing to play the "Great game". But as your list shows, those aren't just Western powers.

With regard to your comment about Cecil Rhodes,well the west still has world banking,which is like a maxim gun. — Swanty

The financial sector is the last remnant of the British Empire still working for the UK. And Wall Street is still dominant. When the current global monetary system collapses, that might also change. That might happen in a few years time or after several decades. Who knows, but in the end it will collapse as people and countries will pile debt onto more debt until they cannot.

But my bottom line is the west is still the main instigator and supplier of weapons and money for conflict and world economic trade conflict.
You can't dispute that. — Swanty

That is true, especially if we view Russia (Soviet Union) being an European and Western country. Although even this is starting to change as many countries are having their own weapons industries.

From the Cold War division we are witnessing just how countries that technically are allies of the US are supporting different sides in conflicts as in Libya and Sudan. In the Ukrainian war the Turkish Bayraktar drones, Iranian attack drones and North Korean ammunitions are there alongside the Western and Russian weapon systems. And the first Congo War has been dubbed the Africa's first World War and the Second Congo war as the Great African war as a multitude of African nations backed one side or the other. That few people know about the First and Second Congo War that killed over five million people tells how our focus on the West blinds us and how dominant the Mearsheimer/Chomsky etc focus entirely on the US and the West is. There simply isn't any narrative of Western involvement stirring up Congo conflict, only the historical reasons of European colonialism and Cold War US support for Zaire. Those reasons don't tell how a small country as Rwanda that had just experienced it's own genocidal civil war then attacks Zaire in 1996.

This is totally different from the era of Cecil Rhodes and the time when the Hilaire Belloc declared "Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not." During the Cold War the conflicts could be seen as part of the Superpower struggle with usually the other Superpower backing the side fighting the ally of the other one. Now it's simply wrong to assume that these conflicts are some kind of struggle between China and the US and their proxies, even if we clearly see an anti-US block forming with now North Korean troops fighting in Europe.

We can be critical of the actions what the West does, yet we shouldn't make up these narratives where everything is about us or that the West hasn't done anything correctly.

Sliding toward totalitarianism specifically: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland. — Vera Mont

Quite a list! :yikes:

I would be critical about this. How is Poland sliding to totalitarianism? Law and Order party lost the elections last year and a pro-EU candidate won or, is that the totalitarianism you mean by totalitarianism?

And do notice that the EU has quite changed it's stance about immigration. When Russia started to let into foreigners into Finland without any papers, we just shut the Russian border altogether. And the prime minister willingly acknowledged that this creates constitutional problems, but simply said that national security overrides this. Did the EU reject our actions? Nope, von der Leyen came to Finland, accepted and supported the actions. This already happened when Turkey let refugees to the Greek border and the Greece simply didn't let anybody through. And EU was OK with this. Does the media tell this? No. It's not something that picks up a media frenzy.

Just like I'm not buying the idea that the US is on a verge to collapse into a civil war tomorrow, I'm not convinced that so many Eastern European states heading into tyranny.

2010 we had the orchestrated "Arab spring"interventions,we have genocide in Palestine currently. The US engineered Ukraine conflict. And the less talked about western backed conflicts currently in Africa. — Swanty

Especially if you are an American, don't think that everything evolves around your navel.

You didn't engineer the "Arab Spring". You didn't engineer the Hamas operation "Al Aqsa Flood" and the Israeli response to it. And you didn't engineer the war in Ukraine as you didn't engineer the various revolutions that Ukraine has had.

You only participated in them, tried to influence the outcome. The US was one actor among many. And many not the most important actor. Some times not even the most important foreign actor. Engineering means that someone has been prime instigator of something.

Western haughty hubris has simply transitioned from thinking about "the burden of the white man" to this idea of everything bad happening in the World somehow happening because of the West (and especially the US). In this totally (and unintentionally) arrogant way this idea sidelines totally the actual actors in the countries and in the regions where the conflicts happen and overemphasize your own importance. People and countries are either poor victims or then henchmen of the West actions, not independent actors with their own objectives.

I think this idea is perfectly shown in two very different commentators, namely in the arguments of John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky. Mersheimer starts with his theory of great powers and simply disregard domestic politics of the nations themselves. He actually has said this quite clearly himself. Now, let's think about this: would it be reasonable to disregard domestic politics when it comes to the US foreign policy? Is "the blob" really so independent of US domestic politics? That would be strange, but somehow not strange when it's other countries. Where Mearsheimer sees a chess game, others might not see just a game between other powers. But why should Mearsheimer care about what Putin thinks about internal politics and the situation of Russia, when he has his theory of great power competition to explain everything?

Noam Chomsky disregards foreign actors in another way: he sees as his role as an intellectual to criticize US foreign policy and leaves the critique of other countries to "the dissidents" of these countries. Again just like with Mersheimer there's a problem when Chomsky then explains the origins of some conflict or war from this viewpoint. It totally sidelines that local actors, other non-US actors and their agenda and thus the explanation is in the end that everything as a result of US involvement. Yet it is obvious that in many cases these conflict would happen with or without US involvement.

Yet the real reason is that both Mearsheimer and Chomsky sell what people want to hear. They don't want to hear a confusing story about events they know little about where the US and other powers come to do their own thing.

The book "confessions of an economic hitman" shows how some of this economic thuggery is achieved and maintained. — Swanty

I've read that one, have it in my bookshelf. However, don't think that this is solely something that the West does. The unipolar moment has already gone.

Interesting chart, particular since it's from 2015. I looked to see what's gone on since then (here): GHG emissions by China and India have increased, while US and EU has gone down. — Relativist

Yep, India has surpassed the EU.

Quite telling where the actual industrial growth has been. We can easily forget the sheer enormous size of Chinese production and output. It's one of the things that many haven't noticed in the West: that these decades have been for us an era of slow growth and stagnation, while globally huge changes have happened in the world. Looking at just our own navel doesn't give the correct picture of the world.

And it's not only Asia that is changing. A lot of places are becoming part of the consumer society, which then drives industrial output further:

In the 19th Century economics had a far better name for itself: Political Economy. This name actually showed clearly one fundamental aspect of the social science: it cannot hide from being part of politics however scientifically objective it wants to be.

Yet it isn't game theory that economics has fallen into, it's mathematization. The extensive use of mathematical models to basically carve out a niche from economic discourse that in the end is quite political. Mathematical models simply get the annoying commentators off your back, who would know something about the actual economy. Game theory is only part of microeconomics and only loosely connected to macroeconomics. This creates a narrow field in what economics studies: it's easy to create models about free market or a monopoly, far more harder to do a mathematical model about oligopolies. Yet in truth the global economy evolves around an oligopolical system with 20 or so large companies basically dominating any field and then having small local competitors.

Perhaps a personal anecdote explains where this mathematization has left economics:

I was majoring in economics in the 1990's and decided to make my thesis about something totally unknown yet interesting: speculative bubbles. I thought they were important. My professor (who later went to be work on the board of the central bank here) tried to advise me to take a less difficult thing. Yet I remember the first review on my thesis done by an assistant of the department, a brilliant math guy. He just didn't find any reason in my study. Speculative bubbles according to him didn't exist. Perhaps during the Tulip bubble in the 17th Century oddities like that happened, but surely in the present global financial markets anything like speculative bubbles couldn't exist. The assistant was adamant in his views, even if my professor had to say that "these are things we still don't know about". This was in the 1990's before the IT-bubble and the great recession. But the assistant was good in math!

My "error" later was then that I took a course done by two economic historians, who explained the banking crisis the country had gone through in a totally different way. There were actual real people making actual (disastrous) decisions. It cleared my view that I made the strangest most damning career ending choice of going from economics major to an economic history major. Later a girl I didn't know stopped and asked "are you the guy that changed your major from economics to economic history?" When I said yes, she just shook her head.

In short, there's a lot to criticize economics about. My point is the use of mathematics, however I think that economics gets a bad wrap many times for the wrong reasons. First of all, one should notice that usually any school of economics gets something right while other schools of thought can get other things right. It's very naive to think that one school is right and the other wrong. And many times some economists are taken out of their context. We easily forget that the society Adam Smith lived in had still quite a lot of mercantilism and actual feudalism going around. And then economists can also change their minds. Notice how for example MMT (modern monetary theory) have changed their talking points after our serious encounter with inflation in the past few years.

So, why is it that Republicans in the US just dominate the airwaves and internet social media sites? — Shawn

Americans just absolutely hate the establishment. And they hate to be told what to think especially by the liberal elite. The successful populist always creates this image where he's the outcast, he's the one against the mighty and in favor of the ordinary people who are downtrodden and thus he's the chance for change. That creates the momentum.

Even if it's all bullshit, it still can work just fine.


And btw it worked when after a long time of GOP rule the US had Obama. People back then really wanted change and were hopeful, so it can easily be the other way in the duopoly.

It is topic that ought to be discussed, but those kinds of arguments will just get someone banned in the end. But I would give Bob the chance to explain himself.

But I know one "civilisation" that has plundered and enslaved mankind economically by military force. — Swanty

Yes, the Mongol Horde made quite a wreck of places. Although it wasn't enslavement, but ideas like clearing the people away to make grasslands for the horses. I remember it was a Chinese person that had to persuade the Mongol rulers in the benefits of having humans around to pay taxes.

And that is historically irrefutable over the last 110 years. — Swanty

How irrefutable has this been in the 2010's and the 2020's?

I think the last vestiges of this colonial rule has been going out with the French having to leave the Sahel countries.

. As more small countries fall to totalitarian governments, — Vera Mont

What small countries are you talking about specifically?

into debt or under Russian influence, it becomes harder to discipline the membership and enforce commitments. — Vera Mont

I'm not an advocate or a supporter of the objectives of the federalists in the EU. It's their own delusional idea that the EU has to have strong federalism, that it has to be like the United States of Europe.

It isn't the United States and never will be. The European Union is really a confederacy. It's a confederacy of independent states that just tries to show off as a federalist entity. These countries are independent to the bone, when you just scratch the surface. This is really important to understand, Vera, because otherwise one can be swept away with the discourse coming from Brussels and then think the EU is on the verge of collapse. It isn't. It will just look as weak when it really isn't.

And the debt? The current fiat monetary system is likely to sooner or later collapse, yet it can still run for decades, so who cares.

OTOH, Europe can go ahead with any self-sufficiency projects and energy generation, but with the biggest contributor to global warming determined to increase its contribution and despoil more of the environment, even that tiny sliver of hope is extinguished and climate change is now guaranteed to be fatal. — Vera Mont

Well, China will do what it will. It has it's own problems.

The nationalism I was advocating for can sometimes be at the detriment of the interests of other nations — Bob Ross

Why should it be so?

Is there any disparity in values between your country and another that would make you think it is better? What if we kept slowly making your country better and better and another worse and worse—when, roughly, if at all, would you say “yeah, my country is objectively better”? — Bob Ross

Sovereignty is one crucial thing for any nation. And we shouldn't "make some country worse and worse". Those countries that have internal problems, those are for themselves to solve. If the idea is to let's say make North Korea part of South Korea, just like the allies fought Nazi Germany then well, there's a war to be fought over that. And that kind of "helping" isn't what helping other nations is about. Only If they make their problems to be a problem for other countries, then there is a reason to respond.

And first of all, people in those countries that have problems do really understand and know there own problems, it's not something that others have to tell them.

Patriotism is a form of nationalism. — Bob Ross

So are jingoism and ultra-nationalism also part of nationalism, then why promote a term that has also such much negative aspects and can be misunderstood? One can surely define just what one wants to promote. People surely can understand the benefits of a collective idea of a nation and a state and can understand how these ideas can be also abused.

Just what do you mean by "want to expand its values to the more inferior ones"?

E.g., westernize Talibanian Afghanistan. — Bob Ross

Hah!

And how did that end up? It ended with the US backstabbing it's own ally it put into place and left it's NATO allies dumbfounded about just what happened (there were more NATO troops than US troops in Afghanistan in the end in Afghanistan). Just like the US did with South Vietnam. Luckily the US stood with South Korea and didn't leave it to Kim Il Sung. I guess if it would be for Trump, the US would handed over South Korea to the North: Kim Il Sung would have gladly signed a peace deal like the Taliban got. Then we could have a discussion of how simply Koreans are incapable of democracy or anything, I guess.

E.g., if my neighbor likes different food than me, then no big deal; but if they like raping women...now I am going to intervene and subject them to better morals. What you are saying, e.g., is that we shouldn’t ever intervene because it is ‘cocky’. — Bob Ross

Wow.

So what society is OK with their daughters being raped? Tell me what society in the World is where parents are OK with that? Seems that you have quite the obscure ideas about the morals of "inferior people" or "inferior nations".

Sorry Bob, but now perhaps your ideas of other people are coming out...

And I'll repeat what I said: if some country makes their own problems to be problems of other countries, then obviously the countries been effected can intervene.

This time around he's surrounded not by yes-men, but by people of similar or worse ideologies. And the reason things didn't get done last time around was that the rest of the government could block his worst policies. This time, the house and senate are aligned with Trump and he's already been blessed by the supreme court that a president can do whatever he wants without legal repercussions. — Christoffer

Do not forget that in 2016 Trump already had Republicans in power in both houses,

Trump had the backing already of the congress and he still squashed it away, basically. We are talking about Trump here, remember, attention span of a poodle, except when it's about himself. And what do you mean worse? I urge not to fall to Democrat propaganda, but truly look at just what would be that far worse.

What do you think will happen now that he does not have a new term after these four years? — Christoffer

A premature lame duck period starting sometime in 2025. Or you think that Trump is interested in something else than himself, like his successor and GOP winning in 2028? Hah!

I'd wish that he's just gonna clown around and be embarrassing, but I fear he's become far more of a proper fascist these recent years as the world overall has adopted similar tendencies. — Christoffer

Trump isn't a man with a mission. Trump can be vengeful, but he hasn't got a mission. Just look at it: in the first administration, the four years, he was incapable of building that big beautiful wall. He even stumbled in the financing of that contraption. How do you assume he'll transform the US into a fascist state? It's really nonsense.

Just as people underestimated this election result — Christoffer

People aren't underestimating this election result. In fact, there's no question about the elections results.

There's nothing in the center but mediocrity. You don't have to be a political extremist to move society in a direction, you just need to have some direction. — Christoffer

Isn't Trump moving in some direction?

If Trump and the republicans have fallen so far to the right they're basically becoming right wing fascists or christo-fascists, — Christoffer

Have they? And what is christo-fascism? I haven't heard that term. Is everything right-wing fascism now? I think it would be good to give some concrete examples here and not loose terms. Just like Harris in my view wasn't favoring socialism.

When listening to someone like Bernie-Sanders, it's exactly the kind of left politics that the democrats need. — Christoffer

For an European, Bernie Sanders sounds like a typical mainstream centrist social-democrat. The kind of politician that once in power is then accused of selling the ideology to and not left leaning enough. Well, modern social-democrats don't try to erase capitalism, but just "correct it's excesses", just like Bernie tries to do.

This is just the typical American polarization at work. Bernie or similar guys are totally electable. Bernie Sanders isn't some Marxist. But he will surely portrayed as the worst kind of maoist or whatever, just like Trump will be called a fascist. But that's just American politics.

On top of that, the democrats are so fucking bad at marketing. They're basically rich people trying to appeal to workers. — Christoffer

The old people ruling the two parties are basically bad at marketing. Trump as a great orator and a populist just seized one party, which basically saved the whole system as now people genuinely think that they can have change through the two-party system and simply don't understand that they can easily simply form a new party and win both parties. Because remember, Trump wasn't the candidate that the old GOP wanted. Please don't give a lecture on the legislative hurdles and the stranglehold that the two parties have over the system. When there really a will, there's a way.

In western culture, it is exceedingly common to despise and oppose nationalism and imperialism — Bob Ross

And why not?

Do note that patriotism, love of your country, isn't a synonym for nationalism or jingoism, that your country is better than others.

When nationalism is defined as identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations, then it's totally logical to oppose this idea. I surely do love my country, but I won't think that my country and it's people are better than others as I've met a lot of foreigners too. I might see my countrymen as awesome, but then the Dutch too are awesome too. And societies that have many difficult problems, well, I can be just happy that my country doesn't have them.

And imperialism? Well, we see classic 19th Century imperialism in action with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even if this could be presented as an attempt Russian reconquista. Our present system of having open borders and cooperation inside the Nordic states and in the EU are a positive step from historical experience of one country trying to conquer all of Europe (be it France or Germany).

It is totally another thing to look at your nations history and see nothing but negative in it.

I submit to you, that you should accept a sense of nationalism in two respects. The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations—or move to a different one (if you can). The second, in the sense that, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism). — Bob Ross

So what's wrong with patriotism then? As I remarked, nationalism and especially jingoism have these negative sides to them, which is clear in their definitions.

Yet the last thing you mention I would be a bit critical about it. Just what do you mean by "want to expand its values to the more inferior ones"? Look, if things are good in your country, then let that example then stand out. But don't be so cocky and full of hubris that you think you have to expand your values to others. If it works well, they can copy it from their own free will. If they ask help, then you can give help, but don't force something to others they have not asked for. Your then simply arrogant.

Besides, the idea of superiority or inferiority of a country is imaginary. One bad event and your shiny image can be broken, even if all the people are still quite the same.

ssu anything to add? — Benkei

I think it's quite likely that Trump will entangle himself even more than Biden in the Middle East as wanting to be the loyal ally to Bibi. Bibi can play Trump well. I think here it would be beneficial for Europe to stay clear from this mess.

On your writing about security (in part 4). Well, that Trump would do away with Atlanticism is an exaggeration. He likely might try to do something with Ukraine what he has promised to be over in 24 hours. Here the EU should be consistent and not think (like Germany) that Finlandization would be the solution for Ukraine and not waiver in it's support to Ukraine. What Trump does, Trump does and it's separate from the EU. Americans waiver and abandon whom they have earlier suppported, they think that everything is an forever war made up by their own military industrial complex and wars don't have other reasons to erupt.

I think the real issue is really not to get stressed about the President of the US, really. We wouldn't get stressed if the leader of China would be suddenly replaced either. It's just four years.

What it probably will do is fall apart. — Vera Mont

The EU? This is something at the level that Civil war will erupt in the US ...like now or yesterday. Never underestimate the fact the other EU member states saw how bad Brexit worked for the UK. No appetite for inflicting self harm like the Brits did to themselves. Sure, the bureaucracy is lousy, but there's still some reasons to have that common market, common monetary system and the leaders constantly talking to each other.

Pity that @Tarskian was banned as a returning banned member. He did start some interesting threads in my view.

Lionino was banned for homophobia and racism. — Jamal

In what thread did this happen?

I mean, democrats can't do shit now, both the house and senate are there for him. And since the justice system have ruled a president can do whatever the fuck he wants, he can basically do what he wants. — Christoffer

If the great orator would have actual leadership qualities, that could be the outcome. But this is Trump, you have to remember. The likely outcome is that the administration will have meager results in advancing it's policies simply because of Trump himself. The last year of the previous administration is in my view telling about what Trump II administration will be. First of all, Trump will likely appoint yes-men and then get unsatisfied with their inability to get things done. Hence the Trump administration can continue to be a place where people go in and out. I assume Trump has lost his love affair with appointing military personnel into positions.

Project 2025 clearly has things that Trump wants (or Republicans in general want) to do, yet here again things will be difficult for Trump. Perhaps he can indeed finish the Border wall. But doing away with federal departments or reorganizing the FBI isn't likely going to happen. Besides, being back in the limelight is the real thing for Trump, he actually isn't ideologically motivated or committed to a real fight with the bureaucracy. Just as last time, declaring to "drain the swamp" is enough for him.

Where Trump will focus is on his relationship with the media and at all the "pressing issues" that and next crisis that lands at his table tomorrow and the day after that. This usually consumes every President, but likely will consume all of Trump's focus ...if there's something to focus on else than his own image.

And perhaps the media simply won't give him the attention that he desires. The simple reason is that we have already been here, we know what Trump is like and what a Trump administration is like. Hence there isn't going to be this outcry and especially not the kind of outrage that we saw the first time Trump was in office. Did the mass deportations start at the first day of the first Trump administration? Nope. Will they start now? Nope, how could they?

Looking forward to coming back to this thread in four years and magically, the US will be fine. — AmadeusD

Depends how you define fine. With every president since George Washington, things have been fine, I guess. And I guess we likely won't have a nuclear war between China and the US, so guess everything is fine then... in four years.

This appears to be one of the General Assembly, not the Security Council. These are not binding. — BitconnectCarlos

Lol.

Are the Security Council resolutions binding then? Not when it comes to Israel, I think.

All fifteen members voted in favor of Security Council resolution 242. Nobody even abstained.

But who cares, Bibi can ban the secretary general, attack UN organizations and attack UN blue berets and basically simply do whatever he wants. UN is something as the League of Nations during WW2 now in the Middle East. And Bibi is in war mode.

It's still only a possibility, and not the likeliest outcome, that Trump really can change fundamentally US foreign policy. Yet striking a dagger in the back of Ukraine can happen. He did it already with Afghanistan. He surely can do a similar surrender again.

But it's likely more Trumpian moaning and bitching about us euroweasels. That Trump takes out the US of NATO is unlikely: you really would have to have some serious leadership abilities to do that.

At least last time he visited my country where he met Putin, so he know where my country is.

And this thread CONTINUES!!!!

Even if seven years ago Trump was already the President, so it's not the beginning of Trump talk.

Trump II will likely be in some ways different from Trump I.

How? That's the interesting question.

When did Musk become a right-wing cartoon? — Tom Storm

Around the time he bought Twitter. — Wayfarer

Musk indeed had been a democrat. Why the Biden administration snubbed Musk, like for example praising electric car makers other than Musk, who has been the leader and the newcomer, is basically typical Democratic fumbling. Yes, Musk may not have been a supporter of trade unions, but still. And likely the real cause is him buying Twitter and not being the DEI supporting political line tower as the other internet corporations.



Hence the outcome was logical and Trump got a great backer for his new administration.

He'll burn down the system. That's what people want. They're tired of politics, tired of being responsible for the world's ills, tired of worrying about climate change or foreign policy, tired of the current state of capitalism (though the latter they don't identify as the problem).

The solution is to burn it all down. Elect someone obviously hated by politicians and the media. Someone who is "unfit for office", which to their ears means he's a danger to the status quo. He's a danger to "democracy"? Great that means he'll change the system which doesn't work for ordinary Americans.

This is not meant as an indictment. — Echarmion

I totally agree with this. This is the real reason why Trump is elected (or if he get's through to get the second term). And thus it really doesn't matter what a debacle the whole Trump II administration turns out to be, as long as the media is offended and the elites are angry, Trump voters are happy. Because he is tearing down the rotten system. The smug media/Hollywood apparatus doesn't simply understand this and because it fully has gone with the Democratic narrative, it helps Trump to be the contender (and possible winner) he is.

Anyway, these so-called liberals don't understand how hypocrite bigots they are when they talk about white-trash, hillbillies and flyover country and then uphold the woke narrative. Somehow, when it's your own race, whites talking about whites, in the US you can be publicly as offensive as ever. All what this does is that it shows the actual bigotry in the American system.

First thing in a democracy is to respect your fellow citizens who disagree with you and vote differently. And never, ever, ridicule them.

Here we go again...

The Ukrainian situation might have started in some (out of sight) way between 1991 and 2009. — jorndoe

It surely started then. We just didn't notice as first the restoration/reconquest of the Empire wasn't so evident, even if many especially in the Baltics and in Eastern Europe warned about this. Perhaps we thought that Russia could move on like Great Britain or Austria once the empire collapsed.

Certain people wouldn't accept a wholly independent Ukraine. That independence itself meant that Crimea wasn't for the Kremlin to control, and their empowering influence over Ukraine would diminish. Loss. "Must regain." — jorndoe

At first, this was rather delusional and talk that fringe politicians could say. Until it wasn't anymore.

But of course, this is for another thread.

Yet the obvious issue here is to understand that the objective of Russia is the reconquest of lost territories and to break the link of Atlanticism between the US and Europe. Russia's hostility towards the EU is logical consequence of this. The more broken and disunified Europe is, the more influence Russia has here. This is a far more hostile attack towards the US and the EU than China has ever done (at least after the involvement in the Korean War). How this isn't seen as overtly hostile and people have these delusional hallucinations of Russia and the US getting together against China is incredible. Russia's hostile policies are clear and have been long term. And similarly Trump's idea that he can end this war immediately is silly campaign talk just for on niche of voters.

That North Korean troops are now at the Ukrainian front is extremely telling just where things are going.

This suggests that "the West blocked it" is just Putin's propaganda. — Michael

Yet many here enthusiastically and repeatedly promote these falsehoods. And notably simply disregard every other aspect, like the russification and things like Putin declaring more Oblasts to be part of Russia, not just the now occupied territories. Yet but selectively picking your narrative one can say nearly anything.

If the blue berets are not going to do their mission — BitconnectCarlos

What do you think a lightly armed infantry battalion basically can do where IDF has failed (like in 2006)? That simply is ludicrous. UN can do it's work, if sides comply. You obviously don't understand the difference between blueberets and national armed forces.

It doesn't even look like they attempted to enforce resolution 1701. — BitconnectCarlos

How many UN resolutions haven't been enforced?

Like how about this one from September 18th 2024?

With a recorded vote of 124 nations in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions, the resolution calls for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw its military forces, immediately cease all new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers from occupied land, and dismantle parts of the separation wall it constructed inside the occupied West Bank.

The General Assembly further demanded that Israel return land and other “immovable property”, as well as all assets seized since the occupation began in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions.

The resolution also demands Israel allow all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their place of origin and make reparation for the damage caused by its occupation.