From the OP's Washington Post article:

The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed.

I think this is the actual problem: the politization of all branches of the government. And that every issue out there will be made a partisan issue, basically part of "the culture war". Departments that ought to be non-political are actively drawn into being partisan players.

I think this first happened with the FBI. The way how the organization was dragged from being supporter of one side to another and how the former director tried and failed to keep non-partisan. The end result is that people's faith in the government will erode even more. Now it's happening to the army.

I'm not worried about a civil war in the conventional meaning. More apt possibility is a "time of troubles", a confusing time when the country will look more like Mexico.

Did you know that in 2018 about 20,000 people lost their lives in the Syrian civil war and that roughly the same numner of people died by homicide in the US in 2021? Civil war? Yes, there's a civil war ongoing in the US. — Agent Smith

Better to look south of your border. It's a better example. There the country isn't in literal civil war... at least in the capital and many parts are tranquil. Yet a total of 350,000-400,000 have died from organized crime homicides 2006–2021. Yes, that's a lower body count than the Syrian Civil War, which has killed 400 000 - 600 000 people.

Inflation is a yawn that is being used by neolib wreckers to further institute cuts and hurt the poor. — StreetlightX

We'll see.

Especially about this line:

Inflation now is ‘transitory’ in the sense that after the ‘sugar rush’ of consumer and investment spending ends during 2022, growth in GDP, investment and productivity will drop back to ‘long depression’ rates. That will mean that inflation will subside.

I guess the question is how long is something 'transitory'.

Especially the idea that the spending will end during 2022 is hilarious. :snicker:

But it's nice to see that you believe in what the Federal Reserve is forecasting!

Oh, they have such great history of accuracy in predicting what will happen. :blush:

There is no 'brewing' economic and monetary crisis. The world economy has been in crisis for more than a decade now. — StreetlightX

That is actually true. Perhaps better to say that things could get even worse.

It's only 'brewing' for those who are comfortable and benefiting from the misery of those who have been in unending crisis for years. — StreetlightX

Nah. Those who have it the worse now will be the ones hit the hardest in the future too, if we have another crisis (on top of the current long one).

For sure it's the valley of death I open up my wallet and it's full of blood because of inflation. — Maw

:smile:

Well, there was this argument of MMT going around that especially the US government can spend more than they think without spurring runaway inflation. (I'd call it the Cheney-rule: "deficits don't matter".) That deflation is our main problem. But I guess if things stay as now, it's great for the wealthy class with those negative real interest rates.

Yes, it isn't the only problem and surely isn't the biggest problem facing us (when you have things like a pandemic and climate change...)

That’s not why we have inflation. We have inflation because of the supply chain. — Xtrix

So how long are you going to believe the official "supply chain" argument?

The Fed has been printing money galore since 2009. — Xtrix

First, no, not in this way. The alphabet soup of programs they went through wasn't at this level and intensity AND the money basically went to uphold the banks, which sat on the money like Scrooge McDuck. Banks sitting on money doesn't create inflation. Or basically just creates asset inflation, which isn't so bad as people don't have to buy assets (but they do have to buy food).

Now the money is going directly to consumers, which does put the money into circulation. Yes, incredible isn't it! Sure, those who have debt and have invested it in something that holds value are going to be the winners. Part of those are ordinary people, but it's the rich who profit most from this. Worse are those who have fixed income like pensioners.

Yes, keep enabling denialism. You’re doing great work. — Xtrix

Yeah, having a debate about the actual issues is enabling denialism.

Doom is nigh and we have to repent our sins!!! (?)

It's not a serious question, we can't grow perpetually. The only question is how long can we grow before we bump against all sorts of limits? — ChatteringMonkey

Market mechanism creates the obvious limits. But if those are disregarded, then simply you will have "official" prices that nobody can get the stuff and then a black market. Perhaps the following remark on what you later note sheds light what I'm trying to say.

At some point fossil fuels will become so expensive that it costs more energy to extract them then you are getting from the extraction. Let's call that a negative Return On Energy (ROE). If ROE is negative it's not worth is from an energy-point of view to extract them... maybe you'd still do it for other applications like plastics, lubricants etc etc, but not for the energy. — ChatteringMonkey

Glad you take this up. First of all, market mechanism will stop the use far before you get negative ROE. Negative ROE is for research stuff. For example, we are quite capable of making Fusion reactors with very low or negative ROE. Profitability goes negative far before a negative ROE is reached.

And you are correct that the end product does determine what is used, hence fossil fuels surely will be used for some of the high end stuff now produced from fossil fuels.

Yeah solar-panels that are produced by a fossil-fueled economy and mass-production process. I'd want to see how that works without fossil-fuels to jump-start the whole process. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, energy policies DO MATTER. The fixation on the US based fossil fuel guzzling economy doesn't tell the truth. Let's compare it with another country.

Here is the fossil-fuel dominated electricity production in the US:


As I said, just look how different the electricity production has been in France, which opted for nuclear:


End result? An actual real difference. Here are the biggest fossil fuel users country by total aggregate use. Do you notice one thing? Yes. The large economy of France is not included:



So policies actually matter. But are they truly implemented? That's the real question.

And even if it would be theoretically possible, it surely isn't in practice as we haven't even succeeded to reduce fossils fuels one iota since we started trying to reduce them consciously — ChatteringMonkey

Have we really tried? Have we had enormous Manhattan-project like programs on this?
No. Here is one statistic that shows the effect to be quite puny even on a global scale:



In today's dollars the Manhattan project was about 20 billion dollars (btw the B-29 was more costly). Nothing close to Biden's Reconciliation Bill (or the trillions to pump up the US economy in general) and the amounts that we put into transfer payments and welfare, which is simple spending that doesn't help this issue at all.

Hydrogen is no source of energy, just a way to store it. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere, especially when made by non-fossil fuel energy.

I don't know if you even can have a "production-proces" without oil. — ChatteringMonkey

Do notice what is important for climate change is the amount of carbon released to the air. Having lubricants or hell, I warming my sauna in the countryside with wood isn't as important as gas engines being the dominant vehicle motor or the coal plants producing energy. It's the aggregates that matter.

I dunno,I think people just all to easily gloss over the fact that it's not evident (not possible I'd say) to just replace oil and gas, which is solar-energy densely-stored over millennia gushing out of the ground. — ChatteringMonkey

You are totally correct and I agree with you. It isn't at all simple. And likely there isn't the actual political will.

The worst thing is that people won't understand it when or as the climate change is happening. Because the real outcome of draughts, famines, economic crises is political crises and wars. And those have a different narrative: it was this and that politician, it was these factions that started the conflict. Nowhere do you see an link to some political conflict to truly happened because of climate change. Now every smart facet will understand this (like the US Armed Forces), but it simply won't go down to the level of political narrative on how we explain political developments.

In the end, people will take the weather as "Gods will", if the link isn't as obvious as the London smog was to how houses were heated back then. This is the real problem.

We were born and raised in the candy-store, never to know anything else, how could we realistically conceive and really feel like it was not to last. Fossil-fuels being such a potent, yet one time source of energy, really threw us a nasty curve-ball there. — ChatteringMonkey

I still am an optimist and think that we can prevail. We are still standing on the "shoulders of giants" and all that gathered knowledge that science has given us is available for us. The economy hasn't collapsed as it did during antiquity and we haven't gone full backward that we would be going back to the "dark ages part 2". I'm not sure that it will happen. I think it's going to be just a bumpy road. After all, we are living during a global pandemic right now, @ChatteringMonkey. :mask:

And still, I cannot say that my grandparents or especially their parents lived a far more affluent and easier life than me. For me as a young second grader, I remember the first time I walked into an American Supermarket, a Safeway in Seattle in the early 1980's. I just laughed with my father at how much stuff there was. How many entire rows of cereals. It was something I'd never seen in Finland and no, Finland was not part of the eastern bloc back then. But it was ruled by euro social-democrat type semi-controlled economy and such "gluttony" of the US standard basically landed in the country in the 1990's. Now it's quite similar to the US. Ah, the hated capitalism!

And many countries around the World are starting to be like Seattle of the 1980's. So yet we haven't seen this slide downward. Not yet, at least.

A Supermarket in Kenya. Things are changing...

The few rare times I agree with @StreetlightX.

But of course, if you print so much money, you will get inflation. And finally that has happened. Inflation. Finally, MMT doesn't look so smart now. And old school economics is looking to be correct (again).

(is it off to the races here?)

All-in money printing totaled $13 trillion: $5.2 for COVID + $4.5 for quantitative easing + $3 for infrastructure. Mountains of money cause inflation

More than the spending on WW2 by the US in todays dollars. The Fed has gone down the rabbit hole where there's no turning back. 40% of dollars now created out of thin air in the last year and a half.

I think there is brewing a real economic and monetary crisis here. Good luck if you can hold on to your wealth (if you have any) as the next 10-15 can be hard.

Without further use of fossil fuels there can be no growth economy as we know it. — ChatteringMonkey

Do notice what I said. If alternative energies ARE MORE CHEAPER than fossil fuels, then the transformation will be rapid. And do notice what is happening in the World. Things don't happen in an instant, but they do change in decades.

There are no alternatives that work because fossil fuels were a one-time, easy to use energy-dense source of energy. — ChatteringMonkey

I disagree. There are alternatives that are totally realistic. Just look at how for instance the price of solar energy has come down. In fact, the situation where non-fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels isn't at all a distant hypothetical anymore. It is starting to be reality.



Just compare this to then fossil fuels:


The real hurdle are niche things like aircraft. But here the also there is a lot of investment in hydrogen fueled or electric aircraft. (Hydrogen can be made by electrolysis without causing emissions)

The real problems happen when don't invest and just ruin our economies. Then there isn't going to be any investment and then we will have to rely on fossil fuels just to keep our present energy consumption. Ruining the global economy will create political instability and at worst widespread war. Not much investment will then go to climate change. And just notice how for example the US energy consumption has leveled off in this millennium. And do note from below how huge the level of fossil fuels are in the US. But in for example France, it's a different matter (as they have opted smartly for nuclear energy).



So I do disagree in the idea that the global economy cannot grow without fossil fuels. The way things are going now, with little and sporadic investment in technology, with pompous declarations by politically correct politicians (who know people don't remember the promises six months from now), it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Now things might prevail somehow, but likely that isn't enough for those who are against the how our society works in general. They surely will be as disappointed as now are, even if we do manage along for the next one or two hundred years without any cultural collapse.

Since economic growth tracks energy consumption, it doesn't look to hot for the economy going forward. — ChatteringMonkey

Hmm, looking at this statistic, comes to my mind a statistic of the consumption of whale oil. The 19th century likely would produce such a graph. Yep, whales were really hunted down to extinction in the 19th Century, but then came an alternate way of producing similar oil.

The long time question is of course if we need economic growth after we have hit peak human population. More prosperous people have less children, and when the fertility rate is well below 2, do we in the long run need perpetual growth? It's more a like a question for our debt-based monetary system, which needs perpetual growth itself. But otherwise, I don't think so.

The whole discussion is moot anyway because fossil fuels (and other resources too) are a limited resource. Even if we would want to keep using them, we can't because we will run out of them soon enough. The economy will have to collapse no matter how you want to look at it. — ChatteringMonkey

But just how limited is the question. That's why the economy is far more capable to deal with these changes.

You see, it's all about the price. Higher the price, more exotic ways to create oil become profitable. With a lower price, those exotic ways are left to the pages of scientific papers in universities and R&D laboratories and never implemented in real life.

In fact current history of oil production shows this perfectly. Actually "peak conventional oil" happened already years ago (and at the same time when forecasted in the 1970s). But then, what do you know, the US became again a huge producer thanks to technological advances.

I guess @Xtrix is in the camp that endorses the juxtaposition of either we "solve the climate change" or "we think of economics" where "economics" is the filthy "capitalism" of everything bad in the World for him. :smirk:

The problem with climate action is that if the appropriate steps were taken, the result would be a global economic meltdown. — Agent Smith

Actual appropriate steps would be more of investments in the "Manhattan project" -scale to tackle climate issues and simply get non-fossil fuels and energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels. Then things would change rapidly. But otherwise we just create a mess.

But too many times the offered woke answer is that "we have to dramatically cut everything" and other silly but good sounding policies that don't care at all how complex the world is. The juxtaposition between an effective response to climate change and "the economy" isn't actually correct.

I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things. — Amalac

You definitely are of the evangelist sort, just looking at the loaded terms you use and from the debate with others. I have no desire to debate an issue of faith. It goes absolutely nowhere.

Freedom of religion, I guess.

Not “portraying”, identifying.

It’s just common sense. That’s what everyone does in the real world. It’s called situational awareness. — Apollodorus

So... when it comes to Russia, it's all a hoax, anti-Russian or russophobe propaganda, Russia is the one under attack, but with Turkey, it's the real enemy! And that's just common sense according to you. :roll:

Well, I would leaving calling any country an enemy only to when you are in a real war with the country. Otherwise depicting other people and countries as enemies or "anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1." is counterproductive. Such cries will only make Turks afraid of the "evil West". The time when Islam was a real threat to "the West" is the time of Charles Martell and perhaps the early stages of the Ottoman Empire. Not now when Turkey is facing extremely diffucult economic times. An immigration as the fifth column? Humbug.

IMO it makes much more sense for the West and Russia to be allies instead of enemies. — Apollodorus

Never understate the distrust of the West that the Russian present day "slavophiles" have. Likely those who in the West promote ideas like these are viewed as "useful idiots".

Basically after the Kosovo War that alliance would be one hard issue. And after the annexations of Crimea and South Ossetia, even harder. Of course, Putin might be deposed, but I don't think any opposition leader that could get into the Kremlin will hardly run to the West. The window of opportunity for real alliance with the West was just after the Soviet Union collapsed. But then two things happened: 1) the haughty West thought Russia was finished and 2) a KGB-colonel and FSB director came into power in Russia. That Russia was accepted (for some time) in the G7 countries making it the G8 and Russia having ties to NATO happened briefly then.

One simply would have to had greater than life politicians both in the West and in Russia to make the great alliance between the US and Russia. Of course, the US having Russia as it's closest ally would make anyone scared shitless of this juggernaut. For "the War on Terror" Russia would have been the perfect ally that the US would want. An ability to take losses, a large intelligence service, capability to project power to other continents would be what the US would want... if the ally would see eye to eye US objectives. Yet that would have taken a larger than life Russian politician to make the country accept it's role as the new "UK" and not anymore a superpower, but just a great power like France and UK (perhaps combined).

It's really a thing for alternate history now.

I don't think people hate vegans per say. They hate vegan evangelists. Vegans who do it because they think its the right thing to do, and don't believe it makes them better than other people, I think are respected like anyone else. But, these vegans don't make a display of it, they're just living their life. — Philosophim

I think this is the main point. It's the evangelist attitude, the "your are bad and I'm better" and I'll tell you that. People don't like evangelists, especially arrogant evangelists that are full of themselves and see them as being better, more enlightened, woke, contrary to others. This is a quite general issue with any kind of evangelist: a leftist progressive (looking down on those right-wing fascists), a conspiracy nut (looking at as others as the ignorant sheeple) or the classical right-wing evangelist (looking down at those hedonistic atheists).

Veganism is an ethical philosophy, not merely a diet. — Amalac

And thus you also have vegan evangelists.

And if your diet finances an industry which is cruel to animals, then you will have to admit that you care more about tasting some particular flavor than about the suffering of animals. — Amalac

Don't predators cause suffering to their prey? And humans have domesticated animals and farmed them from around 11 000 - 9 000 BC, only a thousand or two years after plants were "domesticated" in similar fashion by humans. That this has been a necessity for our present numbers of humans and our society and culture should be considered too.

In fact, the examples of other animals "farming" shows that this basically is a symbiotic relationship which humans as being smart animals have advanced.

Because of their holier-than-thou attitude. They (vegans) need to get off their high horses! :lol: — Agent Smith

Or basically that some Vegans, not all, have the attitude of actively judging what other humans as omnivores eat. That they feel nauseated of others eating meat and make a huge issue of their veganism sometimes happens. Or think that others are committing murder. I think vegans have this attitude far more than your ordinary vegetarians, who can eat things like cheese made from animal milk.

People of other dietary following don't necessarily have this arrogant haughty attitude and the simply fact is that if you have chosen one diet, you should let other people choose their diet as independently also. Simple manners.

It's so convenient to blame covid for what is actually the general decline of quality in human interaction. — baker

Oh but of course! What else would be better that when being rude and not caring about manners, you can insist that you are only being thoughtful and taking into consideration others. And that those who perform these antique antics, likely shaking hands or (OMG!), hugging or kissing to the cheek are putting others in danger. Just as one now famous and widely popular doctor said, he would like that people would not shake hands anymore in general.

People just love it when something that has been nearly a vice can be portrayed as an virtue. And yes, I think people have become more rude and unfriendly in the past two decades compared to the 20th Century.

And yeah, then we'll notice that being lonely has increased! Well, thanks Faceb, correction, META, we will have a better alternative reality to go in later. (As if I'm not here already commenting someone who is a totally stranger to me likely living on another continent or at least in another country)

Do they not work? — baker

How many now have started to work from home? Working from home isn't because of Covid, but this experiment has surely increased working from home.

It's far cheaper for your employer if the employees stay at home and work from there and only occasionally comes to a physical meeting or something. No need to have or rent huge office spaces.

What has been the normal, regular, ordinary experience for so many minorites, for those bullied and mobbed, excluded from normal society, has now become a temporary experience for a few more people. And they cry foul?! — baker

Ah yes, the evil arrogant majority with their white privilege. They (we) surely deserve this!

Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.

Therefore I am against Turkey. — Apollodorus

Why start with portraying countries as enemy No 1? It's been a long time since the Ottomans were trying to take Vienna. And do remember that they do have their history of Western aggression and the West wanting to divide into colonies the whole of their country. The whole westernization of the Atatürk era was first and foremost done to make the country strong enough to defend the country from outside aggression and not be "the sick man of Europe".

I don't view Russia as the enemy. Russia under Putin simply has a very aggressive stance in the defence of it's "near abroad". In truth likely a less aggressive stance would have in the long run been better, just as it played out in Central Asia. Russia patiently waited for the US simply to leave...and it did so. No US bases in Central Asian countries anymore. And the countries are in good relations with Russia, because it hasn't done any annexations there.

Let's not forget that both Russia (and Turkey as the Ottoman Empire) were Empires that collapsed. Nobody really wants these empires back, just as there's no intention of getting back the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Soviet Union just gave time for the Russian Empire to continue, but still, the empire was an assortment of very different people. You have to be a political Houdini to get people that speak different languages, are from different religions and have different cultures to somehow belong to one nation. Or in other words, the Russification of the Empire failed. Russia had that problem (and earlier the Ottomans). Yet when you start from the view that as there was this Empire, Russia has special privileges over former parts of the empire, you obviously end up in conflict. Yet the idea that you indeed have this "sphere of influence" is the imperialist cause you are holding onto. And basically you are accepting this imperialist view that some nations have "spheres of influence" over others.

This means that (a) there are legitimate reasons to be critical of the EU and (b) not every EU critic is a “Russian silovik”. — Apollodorus

Well, I view myself as an EU critic as I think it is absolutely detrimental and damaging that EU leaders are trying to make EU a US-style federation. It simply won't work. They should be happy with basically a loose confederation that they have now.

From the very start, NATO represented Western oil interests. And its purpose, as stated by its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, was to “keep the Americans in and the Russians out”. — Apollodorus

There's actually a lot more interests than just oil. This is too simplistic.

England and France have been predatory entities for centuries. It is absurd to claim that they wouldn’t like to get their hands on Russian oil and gas if they had the chance. — Apollodorus

Yet do notice the limits. You really have to be a very vulnerable, poor country basically incapable of performing the most basic task of a sovereign state and YES, then Great Powers like France or England will be all over you like vultures. But again, remember Norway.

As I said, Russia with it's nuclear arsenal is quite capable of stopping Western influence over it's own resources.

Next, England and France used Russia to get rid of Germany but they lost their own empires.

They are now getting kicked out of Africa because of their colonial past and Russia is moving in. This is the true reason why they are ganging up on Russia. — Apollodorus

Now this is way far fetched. First of all, the Soviet Union had far more influence in Africa than Russia ever has now. Russia has only so many resources, so they pick their allies. So I don't buy this argument of Russia "moving in" to Africa. Syria is one and in Africa it's basically Algeria and some parts, but there isn't a large presence of Russian forces in Africa. The one country that has a large footprint in Africa is France as it basically never left it colonies, actually. With the exception of Algeria, of course.

I am really wondering what comes next. — Jack Cummins

I will assume it's just a very long haul of the same debate, same restrictions, vaccinations and coronapassports until it fiddles out like the War on Terror.

You see, there was no time the "War on Terror", that started 20 years ago, did come to an end. It's still basically fought in various places. In Iraq the "War on Terror" is still fought, and so is in North Africa. After the disgraceful pullout from Afghanistan people simply don't want to talk about it, to refer to it. The term has vanished from the vocabulary, and the new threat that people are urged to be afraid is China.

Same will be with the Covid-19 pandemic. The virus will simply become similar to influenza A, and the officials will urge people to have the next shot, and then the next. Just as with the annual flu shots. And politicians, health officials, simply will stop referring to the pandemic...as a pandemic. Nobody has the balls to declare that the measures taken now will be ended at a formal time, so they will be there for years to come. Even then when far less people die of Covid than other spreadable diseases.

Perhaps in 2030 when you go to your local medical center, you'll still see some signs about how to prevent COVID-19. And people won't bother about it, but likely many won't shake hands anymore. I assume that will happen: the World will be a colder place with less physical contact with people you don't know. Hand shaking is then such an old gesture then, I guess. Just like the gesture of a man kissing the hand of a woman, it will perhaps become too theatrical.

I'm not sure the "billionaires to Mars" private mission will do it in the end. Not that it could happen, but come one deep economic depression and suddenly these billionaires have no money to do it anymore (assuming they won't be saved by the government, which isn't obvious as they aren't banks.) Suddenly Elon and Jeff can have some 50 billion less. Let's hope that doesn't happen (as millions of poorer people will be in dire straits).

It only shows how little effort has been put after the 70's into manned flight de facto. But let's not kid ourselves: the whole manned space mission was an PR offshoot from the real program of building the ICBM arsenal. Russia even had a military space station and experimented shooting an AA cannon in space.

So obviously without an nuclear arms race, it has been slow on this theatre. But hope that something will come out of it. Going to Mars is one for the history books, at least then something from our time could be remembered in a positive light. I fear otherwise that the 21st Century will look quite pale and boring compared to the 20th Century.

Moon first, then Mars.

Or we could try establishing civilization on Earth first. — James Riley

Hear hear!!!

Hope they have a flawless launch!

Absolutely. It’s a well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood. — Apollodorus

So, for you the statements

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.[/quote]

is "well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood". Again wow. Wonder where you see the propaganda, but oh well.

To claim that if Turkey invades and occupies Cyprus without annexing it, is OK but that if Russia invades, occupies, and annexes Crimea, it is not OK is just too preposterous even for EU-activists like yourself. — Apollodorus

And here again it's seen how utterly incapable you are noticing the actual answer given, which was that it was three NATO members entangled in this issue (Cyprus) and hence obviously NATO is not for this (internal squabbles) and the US will likely try to mediate and not pick sides. That with Ukraine there was the OSCE Bupadest Memorandum on Security Assurances, that obviously one side broke it as Ukraine's political collapse made an opening for annexation would be rather different. doesn't I guess for you matter at all. As I should have predicted, you either don't understand that, or simply aren't even remotely bothered to actually to respond to. Hardly worth wile to make real arguments when the other simply doesn't read them.

So it's meaningless to continue with this babble as you are utterly incapable of anything else than changing the subject and make baseless accusations without even the remotest effort to try to show just where the other one is wrong. Or so desperate to win this argument. It's just shows that those crying the loudest of propaganda are themselves usually the victims of propaganda.

Oh, and don’t forget to post some more pictures to “prove” that your propaganda is true. Reindeer and Santa Claus would be just perfect …. :rofl: — Apollodorus

And Merry Christmas to you too. :sparkle:

Lol. That's the problem with you Americans. Always taking the credit for everything! :wink:

Believe me, other people besides you can also fuck up things too in a spectacular fashion. Many times even without you.

ust as Gödel discovered back in the 1900s, the American constitution has loopholes that allow a dictator to come to power. What those loopholes are only Gödel and the friends to whom he had confided this info to, Einstein among them, knows. They're all, unfortunately, dead and gone! Beware Americans. — TheMadFool

I read somewhere, that when Gödel was applying for US citizenship, he started to take up the matter of the loopholes up with the citizenship examiner. Luckily Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern did calm Gödel down (as perhaps it wasn't the best place to start debating the subject) and he got his citizenship.

Trust a native, sir, my country was a "shithole" in 2019 (in 1989) too. — 180 Proof

Well, things can always get even worse. Just look at Mexico. It's surprisingly like the US, but just worse. Worse corruption, worse police, worse crime. Of course, what is lacking is the hyper-partisan political tribalism as Mexicans know all their politicians are thieves. (You might think the election of Lopez Obrador would cause a divide and an Mexican "culture war", but actually...no.)

As I said, more obvious disinformation, distortion, and black propaganda. And straw men! — Apollodorus

I've asked you now many times just what was false or propaganda in the statement I made.
So I gather that you think that stating the following:

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO. — ssu

...Is disinformation, anti-Russian propaganda, distortion.

As a general rule, when analyzing a problem, it is common practice to start from objective observations. — Apollodorus

Try sometimes that! It's healthy.

But I guess the West trying to do everything to get Russia's natural resources is the conspiracy theory you cherish so much it's needless to continue. Anything contrary or even just another point of view to this I guess is "anti-Russian propaganda".

And what you are trying to cover up is that Turkey, which is a NATO member, has invaded and occupied Cyprus, and no one does or says anything about it!

Why is it OK for NATO members like Turkey but not for Russia? I bet you can’t answer even a simple question like that. — Apollodorus

Ok, how for an OBJECTIVE ANSWER starting like with the fact that we have not discussed Turkey and Cyprus!

But going for those strawmen as you do, you are already saying that I'm trying to cover up that. Guess by that thinking, there's a lot of history I'm "trying to cover up", because we haven't discussed all history.

Let's start from the actual facts, that you find so annoying. Turkey did not actually annex Northern Cyprus as Russia did with Crimea and South Ossetia, just as the rest of Cyprus isn't part of Greece. But let's look at the situation more (before you accuse me of something and not bother to read more...)

The simple fact is that Cyprus conflict is obviously a conflict involving two NATO countries, or should we say three (as the UK still has bases in Cyprus and has been involved in this mess from the start). That isn't a thing that NATO's article 5 was there to deal with in the first place. I would say the real reason for the problems in Cyprus is thanks to the British (again, no surprise there). So when the Greek junta gave the go ahead for the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état (which the UN saw as illegal), Turkey saw that the Treaty of Guarantee between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom was broken. The rest is history. The US of course tried to mediate the issue. (I wonder where else has there been a British protectorate where thanks partly to the Brits two ethnic groups have started a conflict at each other and then neighboring countries have tried to fill the vacuum when the British have left? :wink: )

More likely the fact has been that because the two countries, Greece and Turkey, have been in NATO, they didn't continue from where they left it in 1922 now with the island of Cyprus.

Needless to say that this isn't the only occasion that US allies have nearly gone to war at each other. The GCC members ought to be allies with the US and with each other (yet it nearly came down to a military conflict). Even Iceland and the UK had their feud about fishing rights with the Cod Wars.

And demographics?

(Hmm... do you know something about Russian demographics? I guess I shouldn't go there with you.)

Well, that seems like a nice future there.

I can always remember how nice the US was actually in 2019, the last time I was there.

I agree.

Yet the problem is this. In 2016 Trump was already totally ready and in fact expecting to play the "stolen election" card. Now in 2020 that became the reality. Now with 2024, both sides seem to think that the election will be stolen. The article is sure about that and is a good example of this.

Perhaps this part shows this most clearly:

One year later, Douthat looked back. In scores of lawsuits, “a variety of conservative lawyers delivered laughable arguments to skeptical judges and were ultimately swatted down,” he wrote, and state election officials warded off Trump’s corrupt demands. My own article, Douthat wrote, had anticipated what Trump tried to do. “But at every level he was rebuffed, often embarrassingly, and by the end his plotting consisted of listening to charlatans and cranks proposing last-ditch ideas” that could never succeed.

Douthat also looked ahead, with guarded optimism, to the coming presidential election. There are risks of foul play, he wrote, but “Trump in 2024 will have none of the presidential powers, legal and practical, that he enjoyed in 2020 but failed to use effectively in any shape or form.” And “you can’t assess Trump’s potential to overturn an election from outside the Oval Office unless you acknowledge his inability to effectively employ the powers of that office when he had them.”

That, I submit respectfully, is a profound misunderstanding of what mattered in the coup attempt a year ago. It is also a dangerous underestimate of the threat in 2024—which is larger, not smaller, than it was in 2020.

For all I know, to do a self-coup with the powers of the US president is far more easier than not being the President. So really to argue that the threat is bigger in 2024 than it was in 2020, nah. There's no strategic surprise anymore, Trump isn't getting the political establishment caught like deer in the headlights.

Where does that lead the US? Both sides already making the charge that the other one is up to no good. It's like both sides are saying: "Let's not even wait for the actual election years from now, it will be stolen." Seems like elections will get to be only bigger dumpster fires than the last one.

Although I think this is a view that still can change:

Unless biology intercedes, Donald Trump will seek and win the Republican nomination for president in 2024. The party is in his thrall. No opponent can break it and few will try. Neither will a setback outside politics—indictment, say, or a disastrous turn in business—prevent Trump from running. If anything, it will redouble his will to power.

There still are the midterms before this, and things have changed in US politics quite quickly.

And one thing, I don't think that a guy like Patterson in the article represents all the 74 million that voted Trump. I'm sure that you can find the most woke, most stereotypical liberal that perfectly annoys everything in Republicans, just as the racist Patterson does.

Let's not forget that the vast majority of American voters don't believe the steal.

You didn't answer anything when I asked earlier.

Again, just what is propaganda in saying:

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.

Nope, you went on from EU to M16 (which is now an intelligence service of a country not even part of the EU) to Saddam Hussein, bombing of Serbia, and even to the Kievan Rus!

Wow. :grin:

At least later, you do come to the actual subject.

In the same vein, you conveniently forget that it isn’t Russia that is encircling NATO but NATO encircling Russia.

It isn’t Russia that is expanding but NATO and the EU.

Russia is reacting the same way America would react if Mexico and Canada were to enter into a military alliance with Russia, China, or any other rival power. — Apollodorus

And here's perfectly shown just how you think.

What Mexico or Canada think doesn't matter. Not to you. Seems you are totally incapable of understanding that there is a difference of voluntary membership and straight forward occupation. Because in truth neither countries (Mexico and Canada) are really worried about the US invading them now. Wars between these countries happened in the 19th Century with an addition of one punitive raid into Mexico during the Civil War. Not like the US had been occupying them in the 20th Century.

Hence you conveniently forget totally all the reasons just why countries close to Russia would feel threatened by it. Again, the annexations of parts of Georgia and Ukraine seem not to matter to you. They have been the reasons for the change. In truth the EU and the West would have been all too happy to have good relations with Russia. Of course, you don't remember the Obama administration trying to "reset" the relations after the Russo-Georgian war.

The above issue simply cannot be understated enough. EU membership is voluntary. European countries like Norway and Switzerland have opted out of it, and the UK had it's Brexit. So is NATO. Warsaw Pact membership wasn't voluntary. Only Yugoslavia and Albania stayed out of it as simply the Red Army didn't occupy the countries.

If you want those kind of examples of the US/West forcing states to be their allies, then it would be present-day Iraq and the former administration of Afghanistan, that were put by force by the US into power. That surely was not voluntary membership.

Well, Afghanistan collapsed in a spectacular rapid fashion and Iraq has very cool and strained relations with the US. And if you would remember, even if the US did assist in the opposition overthrowing the Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic, then Serbia didn't become an ally of the US, but now has close ties with Russia. Might have been that bombing of Serbia that made them not to be so hot about the West. But how smaller countries behave doesn't matter to you, there are only the pawns of the Great Powers it seems for you. Not independent actors, oh no!

What also has to be said is that in truth people would be OK with Russia putting down a Chechen independence movement, because they do know that there is a reason why there is Westphalian Sovereingty. But with sovereign countries, it's a bit different.

The disputed areas in Ukraine like Crimea have Russian-majority populations. So it isn’t as if the Russians are invading England or France for those countries to feel threatened by Russia. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with America. — Apollodorus

And there you have it. It's OK to annex parts of other sovereign countries because they have Russian minorities. Plain and simple from you, @Apollodorus. (And btw, I don't think that England of France feel threatened from a Russian invasion. Plenty of country between them and Russia.)

It may well have been your original comment. — Apollodorus

Indeed it was. Which you replied as a counterargument about Finland:

Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China! — Apollodorus

Ooh, the finger waving in just mentioning an issue!!!

If you don't like the sound of "EU siloviki" try "EU bureaucrats", "EU apparatchiks" or "EU stooges". It's all the same to me. :grin: — Apollodorus

I thought so, you don't pick up the nuance. But to understand present Russia, it's important to know just what a "silovik" means:

In the Russian political lexicon, a silovik (Russian: силови́к, IPA: [sʲɪlɐˈvʲik]; plural: siloviki, Russian: силовики́, IPA: [sʲɪləvʲɪˈkʲi], lit. force men) is a politician who came into politics from the security, military, or similar services, often the officers of the former KGB, GRU, FSB, SVR, FSO, the Federal Drug Control Service, or other armed services who came into power. A similar term is "securocrat" (law enforcement and intelligence officer).

Do notice the difference to your usual bureaucrat: Putin's Russia is a very different animal compared to especially to the EU or Western democracies. This is crucial in understanding Russia. In the West, it's perhaps a general doing a table excersize who looks at the possibility of war, yet the actual politicians are in the realm of trade, economic issues, climate change etc. In Russia as the siloviks, the force men in their power ministries look first and foremost every issue from the security/military perspective. Authoritarians need a reason for their "special powers" and for Putin there simply has to be an enemy that is lurking to attack Russia.

Anyway, if you think that China is the enemy of the West, then I don't think it makes sense to advocate conflict between Russia and the West. It certainly makes no sense to do so just because Finns hate Russians. — Apollodorus

Again with your nonsensical and imaginary accusations. I have not said China is the enemy of the West or that Finns hate Russians. This is simply nonsense. That Russians have Putin doesn't make Russians themselves at all bad.

What you preposterously call "reality check" is just more anti-Russian propaganda. — Apollodorus

Just what is propaganda in saying:

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.

What is the "anti-Russian propaganda" in that? And Russia has now annexed parts of Ukraine and Georgia, so the incentive to join EU and NATO was obvious. Sorry, but these are simply facts.

Your total inability to understand that the various European countries are independent actors and have their own incentives to join either EU or NATO just shows how willing someone is to assume real propaganda.

If the EU, of all entities, is out there to "get their hands on Russian oil and gas", why did they let then Norway stay out of the union, not to join the EU? It has a lot of oil. Norway had it's talks on joining the EU same time Sweden and Finland had, but opted out. Germany with Helmut Kohl surely wanted all Nordic countries to join the EU. If the EU is conspiring to get oil, why didn't it start with small Norway? Has to be easier than Russia!

(Both in 1972 and in 1994 Norway decided not to join the EU. Pro-EU posters in Norway before the 1994 referendum.)


But the will of these small countries seems not to matter as according to you, it's all a EU / NATO power grab against the Russians. The fault seems by your thinking purely lie in the West.

The fact of the matter is that it was the West who attacked Russia under Napoleon who wanted a "United States of Europe" ruled by himself. Now it’s his successors, the EU, UK, and US who are starting a war — Apollodorus

Now you are forgetting Hitler. First, Napoleon, then Hitler, and Russians aren't going to stand idle for a third invasion. That's the modern Slavophile line which Putin also cherishes. That is the passive-agressive reasoning that the leaders in the Kreml use, yet then go on with annexing parts of Ukraine and Georgia. And of course, it's all because of the evil West with it's sinister intentions!

Now, I'm not at all sure if Putin has any intention to enlargen the war that already he is fighting in Ukraine. Many times the West has been worried about the Zapad excersizes with Belarus. That's why I have said (on a different thread) that this all seems to be sabre rattling. Hopefully things calm down.

Expecting Russia to surrender to the EU (and NATO) is just illogical IMO. — Apollodorus

Again, who is talking about a surrender to EU? This is a totally illogical narrative. If Norway can handle it's own oil wealth how it wants, I'm sure a nuclear armed state can easily hold on to it's natural resources, as it has.

You first seemed to suggest that Finland’s demographic outlook is somehow better than China’s — Apollodorus

Nope. That was all your Strawman answer of the month! Please read the comments of others.

My original comment was:

2) Never underestimate the effects of the disastrous "one child"-policy. Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. This is a severe problem for China. Just look at India: they never had limits to population growth and now it isn't a problem.

No mention of Finland. :wink:

On your logic, if “siloviki” say that the sky is blue, then it must be wrong and no one must ever repeat that statement. — Apollodorus

Saying "Sky is blue" and a hilarious argument that "The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources" are really not in the same ballpark.

Reality check: The Warsaw Pact collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed. The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO. And for an obvious reason, just look at what happened to Ukraine and Georgia. You seem to forget that and go with the idea of Russia being the victim here. And the countries that wanted to join EU or NATO doesn't seem part of the equation for you.

The reality, of course, is that an EU silovik is not any better than a Russian silovik. — Apollodorus

Oh boy. EU siloviki. As if those bureaucrats in Brussels that make the EU are military & intelligence people. :snicker:

Basically, what your own statement boils down to is that Finland is in the same boat as China. So, it's a case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. :smile: — Apollodorus

No, that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality, but I'm not forecasting my country to be an economic juggernaut that will surpass others. So I'm clueless why you are thinking this is a "case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black". The simple fact is that in order for China to surpass the US economy, demographics is a real issue, which you cannot simply deny. It simply does have an effect, because in order to take the position of the US, China has to grow.

Still, in my view the far bigger obstacle is the CCP and the authoritarian streak that has taken China during the era of Xi Jingping. Central planning can go only so far. Central planners cannot anticipate what are the new growth sectors will be during the next decade or two. That the CCP put down harshly the protest movement shows that in the end the Chinese authorities don't care if they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (as Hong Kong is a huge economic powerhouse).

I've often assumed that to gain absolute power in a political sense would likely require deceit, violence and possibly murder to achieve and to remain there. — Tom Storm

Assuming that the whole society is built on absolute power both the power elite and the people are OK with the existing institutions. There are countries like Saudi-Arabia ...or North Korea. Or even Monaco, actually. Power transition can also happen peacefully.

In fact when you think it, hereditary transfer of power is one basic way to avoid the pitfall of a violent political struggle once the absolute ruler dies.

(The happy Korean family that North Korea is known for: Kim il-Sung with his son Kim Jong-il and his wife Kim Jong-Suk.)

So the kinds of people that get to absolute power are likely to be compromised from the get go. — Tom Storm

In a way, yes. The absolute power is usually rationalized with the country and society being under a threat, either external or domestic or both. When you don't have this fear of everything collapsing otherwise, why wouldn't the leader share power or delegate issues to others?

Just look at Russia or China. Both countries fear that the state will fall apart if "Western liberal democracy" is given a chance and that it is a conspiracy of the West, that wants this to happen.

I suspect there is a broader point that people who never have anyone say no to them might eventually become intoxicated by that power and take awful liberties with other's liberties. — Tom Storm

This is true, but perhaps we should think just why this kind of power is given to them in the first place.

Remember the full quote from Lord Acton, which answers your question. It refers to men and politics, not deities. And the quote is tends to corrupt not always corrupts. Although it looks like absolute power seems doomed to malfeasance. — Tom Storm

I think the major problem is when absolute power is obtainable, when there aren't existing safety valves to prevent a person to have absolute power (like institutional separation of powers), then the competition for this power can become extremely ugly. And this corrupts power, because people will kill each other for that power. Because why not? Once you have absolute power, that you killed people to gain that position doesn't matter.

Just ask yourself, just how many absolute dictators or monarchs have been killed? And how many of these people with absolute power have killed people in order to sustain their position? Many.

Hence, having "absolute power" in a human society has meant that actually the power of the authority has been weak and vulnerable.

A good reply. This cartoon from Gary Larson came to mind from what you said:

I thought their culture must truly be dead if it did not fit my prejudicial, uninformed and wholly biased view. - I don't hold romantic views of Indians. They are humans and I'm no big fan of humans. — James Riley

If only things would be this way, that people would hold native peoples as humans and not either as "noble savages" or just as victims of Western imperialism. Yet those prejudicial, uninformed views do dominate. Either you have the classical derogatory (racist) views or then the more woke ideas, which also can go into nonsense just from a totally different path.

If those cowboy hats, boots and Wranglers are somehow viewed as wrong by somebody, I would say the Sami, one of the last indigenous and nomadic people in Europe, have even bigger problem with the dominant narrative. And that is that the narrative about indigenous people has this dichotomy between the indigenous people and white people, the settlers. Because this is the dominant narrative, the Sami activists simply have to adapt to this narrative and have to refer to Finns, Swedes and Norwegians as the white "settlers". The problem is that Sami, being a Fenno Ugric people, are in the American racial terms simply white. There is absolutely no way you can spot the difference of a Sami from a Finn from some outward "racial" difference. Perhaps an Udmurt could be recognized from having more likely red hair, but even that doesn't count for some reason as a racial difference (as these racial definitions are genuinely invented). Bit of a problem when a female Sami activist looks like a stereotypical Finnish or Swedish girl with blue eyes and blonde hair in an environment where intersectionality and white priviledge are so important and it is assumed that all indigenous people have a similar story with the European settlers.

But I guess the same way even the proletariat, the working class, was earlier romanticized by leftist activists in to being something that the actual people weren't.

Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China! I don't think I will bother with your other comments .... :smile: — Apollodorus

LOL!!!

Have to say that has to be the strawman argument of the month! I mean talk about not refuting anything of the original argument. Yet actually your comparison only shows how dire the issue is to China. So thanks for taking another dismal example to compare how bad things are in China:

Btw, ALL European countries are below 2,0 fertility rate for those who don't know it. Yet Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, and still higher even if we'd take that 1,37 you refer to. (see here).

And China doesn't have similar net immigration. So if for Finland the peak of population (by the article given by @Apollodorus) would be in 2031. How are things in China? Some fresh news articles about it:

(The Guardian, 23rd Nov 2021) China’s birthrate has plummeted to the lowest level seen in official annual data covering the period from 2020 back to 1978, as the government struggles to stave off a looming demographic crisis.

Or worse:

(Korean Times, Dec 6th 2021)China’s population to peak in 2021 as demographic turning point has already arrived, threatening to disrupt Beijing’s economic ambitions

China's population is expected to peak in 2021 and fall steadily in the foreseeable future in a turning point for the country's population trajectory, according to James Liang.

Liang told the South China Morning Post on Thursday that the number of births across the country fell 20 per cent to about 10 million in 2021, citing published data from local Chinese authorities, while the number of deaths could be more than 10 million this year.

“That means the size of China’s population has peaked much earlier than previously expected,” said Liang, who has been one of the country’s loudest voices calling for pro-birth policies over the years.

Or even worse:

(Reuters, Dec 3 2021) - China may be downplaying how fast its population is shrinking, and a recent policy to promote three-child families has poor chances to improve birth rates, a fertility expert told the Reuters Next conference on Friday.

Fuxian Yi, senior scientist in the obstetrics and gynecology department at the University of Wisconsin, said he estimated that China’s 2020 population was 1.28 billion rather than the 1.41 billion census number reported and that fertility rates were lower than reported.

Yi estimates that China's population has been shrinking since 2018.

Of course, we will see quite quickly (in a decade or so) if the above articles are true or not. But I guess decreasing population NOW is worse than possibly decreasing population in ten years. Of course, the Chinese officials will likely hide this statistic as they hide nearly everything starting from a virus out brake that caused a pandemic. But things can be kept hidden only so long.

So I would urge Americans just to keep their cool. The only real worry is that the local dictator will do something extremely stupid (like invade Taiwan) if the domestic problems get really bad. But still I wouldn't say it is imminent.

The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources. — Apollodorus

This indeed is what the siloviks have and the KGB has said all along. Those evil Westerners!!!

(And people fall for this)

The bottom line is even if China isn't able or willing to use military action to get what it wants in the near future, in the coming decades will it be able to use it's economic and/or military might to get whatever it wants and be able to eventually even push the US and her allies into a corner and make it so that the rest of world has to allow China to whatever it wants and eventually allow China to surpass the US as the world's major superpower? — dclements

Very long sentence.

Short answer: No.

A bit why this is...

1) If mainland China would have the same per capita income as Taiwan, it would have surpassed long ago the GDP of the US. Actually the Chinese economy would be then twice that of the US. Now it's still far smaller. This is the crucial factor: Mainland China is controlled by the CCP who think they are doing achieving true Marxism. Really, don't mind what people here say, that's what the CCP themselves say. They really believe that they have finally molded Marxism to work.

Hence they shoot themselves in the foot, because planned authoritarian economies can go just so far. When you look at Chinese history, they have been able to do this in many occasions. The biggest obstacle for China is that they are controlled by communists. A China that would remember Chiang Kai Sek would be different (what you can see from the tiny Island nation).

2) Never underestimate the effects of the disastrous "one child"-policy. Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. This is a severe problem for China. Just look at India: they never had limits to population growth and now it isn't a problem.

3) China will be facing hard financial issues in the future. You can only build so much, even if that building program has been something that has never been seen in World history prior to this day.

4) Finally, do note that this discourse is extremely American. It's the Americans that see any growing country as a possible rival that will take their place. Earlier it was of course the Soviet Union. Were they scary. Then it was Japan, remember? Oh, how Japan was taking over the US and how Japanese companies were buying the gems of American industry and commerce. This is a discourse that is promoted in the US in order to try to get Americans to go with the idea of them being a Superpower.

P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one. — James Riley

Exactly.

If for example people don't have in ceremonies folk costumes from the 19th Century (and some from the 18th Century) doesn't mean that Finnish culture is dying. Culture isn't just remembering the past, but adapting to the present and creating something new in one's own way. Besides, there has always been the a lot of influences across cultures. Good luck trying to separate which Nordic traditional folk costumes comes from which country. They actually are quite similar.

Native Americans aren't like that. Their cultures are gone. There's a really sad Bob Dylan song about it. — frank

Well @frank, if you have Native American heritage, links to them or would have studied them, that might sound more credible. I think Robert Zimmermann's ancestry is Jewish from Eastern Europe.

I think one has to put these things into perspective.

My country compared to Europe is like the state of Minnesota compared to the US. I'm sure there are actors, writers and intellectuals from Minnesota, but they are a small fraction to the "cultural" people of all the US. And this shows actually that when we talk of American culture, be it Hollywood or Broadway in New York or whatever, that there are 331 million Americans, some 64 times more people than there are Finns. So actually it's no wonder that the US can have vibrant cultural centers, yet the fact is that there are only a few of them is the real question. There being the "West Coast" and the "East Coast" and the in between being "Fly over country" doesn't sound actually so vibrant to me.

Just compare motion pictures. In my country about 30 motion pictures, long films, are produced annually. Hollywood produces about 600 (earlier perhaps 800) motion pictures. Compared to the population (64 times smaller) Finland produces a lot more films than Hollywood. A way lot more. Cultural activity simply doesn't go similarly with the growth of the population. In fact I could argue that some "cultural scenes" can dominate larger populations and basically end with less cultural activity in a bigger population.

There are about 2,9 million Native Americans in the US belonging to 574 federally recognized tribes. That's less than 1 percent of the US population and equivalent to the population of Kansas. The largest community I think is the Navajo with 332 000 people belonging to this ethnic group. That is of similar size of the city of Corpus Christi in Texas.

So perhaps we have to look at how vibrant culture Corpus Christi has, how many famous artists, writers and intellectuals have come from there? Great if you can mention one. I'm sure there are, but that comparison is a good reality check of how much unique culture can be sustained with a few hundred thousand people. Some comparing the "cultural scene" in Corpus Christi to NY or LA might think the city is quite dead. Yet it's likely not. So to argue that the Native Americans have lost their culture is quite unfair. There are so few of them.

That was a call for reinforcement of Native traditions. That's a lost cause. You can take my word for it, or believe what you want. :razz: — frank

I do believe it isn't a lost cause. The only thing is that actual culture cannot be just remembering the past, something new has to be created also.

(Navajo language likely won't die yet.)


It only puts a bigger burden if there are fewer people. For example, there are only 10 000 Sami people in Finland. Try upholding an own culture (music, literature, art) with that. But with even a few hundred thousand it's totally possible. Icelandic language and culture will surely prevail. I simply cannot fathom that somehow they would forget their language and start talking something else.

It's been devastating to the people. That's what I was thinking about. — frank

If you haven't lived where the combat has taken place, it has been quite normal. Remember that this basically has been now a border war fought with limited resources. For instance air power hasn't been used by Russia.

(For example Donetsk looks quite ordinary, even if the front lines are close)

Yes. Although I'm aware that my time sense has been warped a little by my adventures into geological history and the history of the Bronze Age. I got so used to diving into the past that the present moment started seeming far away.

It gets me in trouble with climate change angst too. I realize that a thousand years isn't really that long. — frank

1000 years? Sure, in a 1000 years not much is consistent and doesn't change. But yes, I think the time range of one millennium isn't the most preferable one when tackling the problems of the present societies.

There isn't any Native American nationalism. — frank

Really? How can you say that?

Some very prominent Native writers and intellectuals such as Vine Deloria Jr., Taiaiake
Alfred, Jeff Corntassel, David E. Wilkins, Glenn T. Morris, Tom Holm, Waziyatawin Angela Wilson, and Simon Ortiz have reflected on the concept of tribal sovereignty and self-determination and, in order to achieve self-reliance and self-confidence, have called Native peoples to return to the positive energy of Indigenous epistemologies that is desperately missing from Native communities. Along the way, for instance,

Ortiz, in Woven Stone, concurs:
We need to insist on Native American self-sufficiency, our heritage of cultural resistance, and advocacy for a role in international Third-World de-colonizing struggles, including recognizing and unifying with our indigenous sisters and brothers in the Americas of the Western Hemisphere.

Thus, academically-based and community-grounded Native intellectuals and writers alike are expressing the need for Native societies to restore the health and prosperity of the people using historical Native ways of governing.

It's not only the Navajo that call themselves the Navajo Nation, but with their own jurisdiction, administration and police force, they can call themselves rightly a nation.

And I didn't say nationalism is inherently evil. That is your knee-jerk reaction — frank

Fair enough. But do note that the discussion started from Ukraine, a country that was invaded and has now for seven years fought a war with Russia. And if it was bad (nationalism) for them to defend their country? Yet I think we agree on this issue.

Oh no, you got personal, so I'll have to pull rank on ya. I'm from the Melting Pot. I am Assimilation Personified by virtue of my diverse genetics. — frank

So hopefully your country does promotes that diversity! There's a lot of countries where those of mixed heritage are left outside the political/ethnic/racial divide and have no place in the political discourse. And that is extremely sad.

I would argue that several countries have been able to successfully create that "Melting Pot" and create a universal culture in which people from different backgrounds can relate to. We naturally think of the US, but I'd argue that the Romans were successful in this too. A multicultural state can exist, but then there has to be created a very strong identity over the older identities. The British identity is the obvious example of this. How important this is seldom is acknowledged. That the EU has totally failed in this (which is obvious, because it has taken national identities and "nationalism" to be bad). The EU will never be something like the US, it's just a political union for which nobody actually is willing to give his or her life literally.

In a way, it's crucial for the state to uphold the "priviledges" of it's people: that you can be educated in the language that your family speaks, that you get service in the language you speak. That the Constitution and the government is made for you, not someone else. These are among the obvious "perks" of having an own state intended for you that we take for granted. We shouldn't forget that this isn't granted. These "priviledges" also give the reason why people would give their life to defend that state. No small matter for the existence of a nation, large or small.