That might be the case. I wasn't there, but it seems quite possible that some sort of early cabal roped a bunch of dopes into farming. — Bitter Crank

Would that cabal be called "the aristocracy"? I think that is a bit too conspirational. Farming and cities emerging because of their utility (and necessity) is likely more closer to the truth. Yet notice that hunting has been something that the ruling class has enjoyed privileges over others. The natural framework is to both farm and hunt, yet hunting can only support a limited population.

But if the two are distinct, does the death of language lead to the decay of culture, or is it the other way about? The Rosetta Stone, for instance, the “language”, persists to the present day, much longer than the cultures that it is derived from. — NOS4A2

You tell me the example of a culture, not a sub-culture, that isn't linked to a language. Things like the literature and songs are obviously part of a culture. If a culture has made advances in science and technology, which have become universal, that obviously is then a part of that culture persists today, yet as part of other cultures. Yet that would be more of cultural heritage, which we usually are totally ignorant of.

Another question would be, if you are the last person that can speak a language, then how much is there left of that culture linked to that language when you die? Is it some recordings in a databank in some university computer done by a linguist that interviewed you and others before you died? The local school that desperately wants to get the youth interested in learning the language? If there aren't any, what can be said about the culture in general? When it comes down to a few old people, how much do they have to carry? Today usually when a language dies, there's a record of the last person that spoke the language.

I think about that when I watch Korean movies and TV shows. If the west disappeared tomorrow, its culture would still be alive as part of Korea.

Or maybe I'm not interpreting "culture" correctly? — frank

I think you are interpreting it correctly.

Especially in our time of globalization there is a huge interaction between cultures, which things like the internet and social media just enforce this unification. I remember one history book putting it aptly by talking about an era of "New Hellenism". Even if a bit of hyperbole, Fukuyama's "End of History" shows just how far spread Western Culture has become. As you said, if the West or the US dissappeared tomorrow, the cultural influences would continue. The only exception would then be naturally that nothing new would develop from Western Culture. And this creativity is absolutely essential for a culture to exist: otherwise it becomes just old traditions and old songs, that people don't listen to anymore. Yet Korean and Japanese cultures are perfect examples of being very Western, yet obviously being very different and surely cultures that will continue to exist even with the Western influence. Perhaps the question is that once something is truly universal, is it something that it specifically part of a certain culture anymore. Should we be talking about a global culture?

(It is very fitting that across the Roman Pantheon, earlier the temple to the gods of ancient Rome and from the 7th Century AD a Catholic Church) there is a McDonalds. In other places that wouldn't have been tolerated, yet Rome is different.)

Trumps most recent pardons; can any sane person doubt the viciousness of the man? — tim wood

Quite easily, as you can see from Trump supporters.

Simply just make up your mind that the media is utterly corrupt and evil and will try telling everything about Trump in a bad light and will make up fake news about Trump. The Russia thing was a total hoax, remember, so naturally those that stood by Trump ought to be pardoned. It goes very easily, as you won't believe anything reported that is critical about Trump. Hence you will believe Trump which more an issue of faith than reason.

It's going to be a while before Americans will truly see how lousy Trump was. I assume later they will have difficulties in understanding that why would Trump have been so popular.

Trump is an intriguing mystery because while he is clearly a pathological compulsive liar, he lies so incredibly blatantly that he is perceived to be an honest liar. — Hippyhead

Or when the assumption is that everybody lies and especially the Democrats and the liberal media lies, why would you then think that it would be bad to "fight the enemy" with similar tactics? The support on Trump is based on faith, not reasoning.

As the topic is cultural decay that ends in a cultural collapse and what are the reason how this happens, it should be obvious that the focus is on dramatic long-term changes, not on how cultures evolve and subcultures emerge and change in one person's lifespan. The perspective has to be far more than one year, decade or even a generation.

People living in Northern America talking English (and Spanish) and celebrating Christmas are indeed those kind of things that are a part of culture. How English is spoken and how Christmas is celebrated has and will change over the years, yet it is obvious that we can and do talk about these issues on a more long term perspective.

For example, Modern English is defined to have emerged in the 15th Century and has been around at least since 1550. Naturally that Elizabethian English would be harder to understand, I guess, than the English used in the 1960's, but still understandable. The English of William Shakespeare is understandable even today.

Do you really think that between 2013 and 2020, there's been insignificant cultural and technological changes? — Judaka

Let's first remind ourselves what the term culture encompasses.

One often used definition is by Edward Tylor and is the following: "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." It is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Culture being those customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group naturally evolves. It would be a problem if culture would be stagnant and wouldn't change even if the World around us is changing, yet it is totally possible to talk about cultures.

The way you see it is rather difficult, meaning that let's say American Culture (add race/ethnicity/place if you want) of 2013 is so different of American Culture of 2020, because those customs and beliefs have somewhat changed (12%?). Well, if you cannot see ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING similar in the beliefs, arts, norms, morals, laws and customs in the 60's America and the present, then it's hard to talk about cultures. What you are talking about seems more proper to talk about a sub-culture.

Yet historians do use these broad complex terms and look at longer timelines. And many WOULD see a connection between America of 2013 and 2020, starting from things like people talk the same language, the nation states have not changed (still there is the US, Canada and Mexico...) and the people celebrate the same festivals like the Holiday season etc.

Let me guess, that s.o.b. Scott Ritter got to you? Me too. After that fiasco, I adopted the law of contrary public opinion as a personal maxim. So then, you see why I am like I am with the covid hysteria? — Merkwurdichliebe

I can understand you perfectly.

Yes, his little book was published before the invasion of Iraq. He was dutifully also publicly smeared later and made a persona-non-grata, but usually I think that US marines are honest people. And what he said was later shown to be true.

I would just say that do notice that one really has to notice that not everything is a conspiracy theory, even if many things are. The thing is that if people have first trusted the authorities and then find them lying, there is this natural urge to dismiss everything they say or what is said later. Yet that's going a bit too far. The basic way is just a) to inform oneself and have a good general awareness of history, economics and politics prior for those issues become hot topics, b) look for various sources that aren't linked to each other and c) understand just what are the facts and what part is the interpretation of the facts, that can be biased by a political or other agenda. Most easiest way for c) is to listen directly what politicians and professionals themselves say, and not only refer to what some reporters says they said or did. Look how opposing sides comment the same issue and use your own thinking.

It's simply far too easy to get trapped in your own bubble now days. Those fucking algorithms are so hard to change when looking for information. If one bothers to look for that. Yet notice that these things are real.

Just to give an example, I traveled last year with my family to the States and we visited Washington DC & New York (which were great, btw). We visited Capitol Hill and after a lengthy que we went to listen to the House of Representatives. The voting had just finished and there were just some unknown Republican members speaking to basically to an empty audience and few of us of the public. But the conspiracy theory he laid on and how startling accusations he made of the FBI just made me quite clear what Trump has done to US politics and especially the Republican party. It has gone to the absurd.

And the pandemic has huge effects and is real, even if people can criticize of the effectiveness and reasonability of the taken policies against pandemic. The policy issue is totally different from the virus existing.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you!

. Covid-19's effect is bad but hopefully only short-term — Tim3003

You think this is short-term?

Why?

Just when do think the global economy will roar back to a state that nothing has happened? All those service sector jobs just magically reappear back again? This year is lost, totally lost. The US has unemployment levels only similar seen in the Great Depression. You think Americans are going to rush to consume in six months or so?

In a situation where 40 countries have banned arrivals from the UK (and think vice versa how it affects tourism to the UK), I find it odd to worry about Brexit implications. But I'm open to change my mind on this view. Perhaps more convincing argument is a combo of Covid+Brexit. That's a whammy!

Perhaps you should take a real time machine and sit down and have a discussion with healthy and sharp people who are in the age range of 70 to 80 years old. Those are people who were similar to you in the 1960s. Can you understand each other or is there such a huge void that it's impossible for you to understand them and for them to understand you? Many times we think that people especially before our time were totally different. Yet you can see documentaries, movies from the sixties and see how different it was. Or as I purposed, talk to people that have lived during the time.

Once a person reaches adulthood he or she is quite the same person for a long while. I assume you will be yourself, quite the same, even after five or ten years. Likely your friends will be the same and your family will be around and they will be the same. Or you think that you will talk differently, think differently and behave totally differently with people around you in the year 2030? Change from 20's something to 30's something isn't so radical as becoming a young adult from a teen.

I did notice similar thinking to yours (and this is no offense) with some social history students in the university back in the 1990's. They thought that especially the 1950's (and earlier times) were a time that they would not have been able even to breathe, so conservative and archaic they pictured the 50's to be (compared to the sixties, were they saw everything transforming to modernity). One student girl portrayed such hideous environment of the 1950's that our professor finally couldn't remain silent and she said: "Hey wait a minute! It wasn't like that. I lived in the 50's."

So 1960s to 2020, there's 99% changed, 1% the same, there's no objective answer I guess. — Judaka

Of course the matter is subjective. But notice what you say about 99% changing in 60 years. That means in seven years roughly 12% has changed, if the change happens in a steady pace. Meaning that 12% of everything you have or do would have not been existing or possible in the year 2013. Yes it was the Iphone 5C and not the Iphone 12, it was 4G and not 5G broadband back then. Yet some could argue that the difference isn't so radical.

Changes of course happen. Something obvious when we are enjoying our lives during a ravaging global pandemic (love it when you truly know that you are living through historical times).

Certainly not because it would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible? — Benkei

The UK administration isn't similar to the Trump tirade. I think managing a country through a pandemic has been a burden for Johnson and if he earlier could be a "reckless" person in the conservative party, he as prime minister isn't one now. A true sociopath like Trump can (and will) stay the same, because Trump is utterly incapable of feeling responsibility. Putting a country again to a lock-down and dealing with the Brexit talks likely is overwhelming as just one would take all the focus of the administration to handle.

Of course any administration will try to portray the deal, any deal, that they in the end get as the best one possible. Yet there's no way now to take back all the rosy Brexit talk when the whole thing was just political discourse and not impending reality.

Yet the thing is, thanks to the pandemic the Global economy is already in the gutter, hence the feared "Brexit recession" felt only by the UK, which would have been the worst thing for Boris, will not happen. So might be a great time to do the Brexit, already thanks to the new pandemic strain UK is quarantined. So, what's a Brexit in all of this hassle?

Let's finally get over with it!

You mean like Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University who called comparing countries' performances a "completely fatuous exercise"? — Isaac

You think so? Well, here is Professor Sir David Speigelhalter himself saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are saying. You can make country comparisons, of course you have to understand how rough those comparison are, which I DO understand. Please listen the following interview to the end.

It's like you're immune to any contrary evidence. — Isaac

Where did you give the contrary evidence? I and you have not discussed or if you have given it earlier, so could you give a link to what you are referring to. It's an informative way would give links or simply to give the exact reason why and what is wrong.

Just referring to Spiegelhalter saying completely fatous exercise doesn't give much, but at least I did get the name and the professor has interesting points. What I can find from the net is the statistician Spiegelhalter talking sense about statistics, but I've not gotten the stuff you refer to, that governments can make statistics just what they want. If you can be more specific, I am open to other viewpoints. In my view Spiegelhalter isn't refuting or contradicting the pandemic.

Merky, talking about slave morality you're definitely starting to rant like a 9/11 truther, because we aren't discussing Nietzsche.

Building WTC 7 you sheeple!!!

And btw, I remember very well on the old PF the 2003 invasion, the time of Freedom Fries. There were those who saw it as their duty to defend the invasion on PF, yet a lot of people here were totally against it. I made my mind when reading a small memoir of a Iraqi weapons inspector that convinced me the whole thing was bogus and that the war was quite similar to the Spanish-American war. Many people thought here that the US would fabricate the WMD's later, but no, who cares.

Quite the usual stuff similar to the stimulus packages during Obama, actually. And of course, it's his administration, but seems like he is already commenting on a Biden administration.

Also there is the possibility that they are using the new variant as a pawn in a high risk negotiation tactic in the trade deal negotiations. — Punshhh

Sorry, but this seems a bit too far fetched. But that's just my opinion.

If true, it would be the mother of all distractions or yelling "LOOK, A SQUIRREL!!!"

Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, there aren't statisticians in the World who would notice the differences in the reporting fatalities, Merky. And of course, hundreds of thousands of deaths can be simply reported just how the powers that be want them to be reported as so. As if those doctors don't care what they write down as the cause of death, or those who gather these statistics cannot be relied upon.

How's that tinfoil hat of yours fitting? A bit tight?

Sorry Merky, but I have to say it, either you are just trolling and getting a laugh from it or you are an example of the cultural decadence of our times. Or then you are both.

A great commentary, thanks Rafaella. :up:

Language, religion and high culture are the only components of a nation that can survive when it reaches the end of its historical duration. — Rafaella Leon

Or reaches a point of evolution that we cannot see other similarities between the past and the present (the example of ancient Japan and modern Japan, for example).

I like it very much when people quote Thomas Sowell, one of those great living American economists and social theorists, who likely will be cherished only after his death (he is now 90). Unfortunately now he is viewed as politically incorrect by some.

the difference, as demonstrated by Thomas Sowell in Conquests and Cultures, lies mainly in “cultural capital”, in the accumulated intellectual capacity that the mere struggle for life does not give, which only develops in the practice of language, religion and high culture. No people ascended to the economic and political primacy only to later dedicate themselves to higher interests. The reverse is true: the affirmation of national capabilities in those three domains predates political and economic achievements. — Rafaella Leon

This is a great point as the idea of "cultural capital" might seem today vague and old fashioned, and we might focus on the measurable, like economic or social indicators that are easy to compile in statistics. That sounds a lot more scientific and is simply more easy to do. Narrative history is so unacademic these days.

Yet Sowell's Cultural capital is in line with the views of the classic historians and what they have said earlier of the reasons for the rise of a culture. Cultural capital of that has then later given the societies economic wealth and political power is understandable. Nial Ferguson put this in a modern context of talking about "killer-aps" that are behind the dominance of a specific culture. These killer-aps still have a direct link to the ideologies and religion that the societies have cherished.

It isn't military of economic power itself. The greatest conquers of all time, the Mongols, have not given us much, even if everybody understands that they are good with horses and Mongolian ponies are very sturdy and tough animals. And with economics influence, not much that Spain got than the ability to fight wars and get inflation with all that gold looted from America.

I think things are moving way too fast to call it evolution. Go back or forward sixty years and there'll be no familiarity, you'll feel like a stranger in your own country. — Judaka

I assume you are well under 60 then. :wink:

60 Years? If we would be transported 60 years back to the year 1960, I think we would survive in the countries we live in (assuming we wouldn't be deported as illegal immigrants from nowhere). You see, you would understand the language spoken in 1960. You could drive a car that they had those days (there a lot of them still around). You would be familiar to cook a meal in a 1960 kitchen and familiar to what to buy from your local stores in 1960. You would know how your country works in 1960. You wouldn't have trouble adapting to that society, perhaps you would be missing only your smartphone. Likely you would have the ability to spend the next sixty years knowing that there won't be WW3 and things will improve. Yet make it the same place you live now in 1760 or the year 960 AD, then you would be clueless.

In fact our personal window to those times are our parents and grandparents, if we have the luxury to have them around still. I would always encourage people to ask their grandparents and especially their great grandparents, if they have them, to talk how thing we back then for them. How they personally felt during those times. It is history directly linked to you, as you have a bond to your grandparents. Those stories they tell are worth telling to your children later. As you said, it feels more than evolution, hence those stories are invaluable.

Now It is starting to ramp up, but an increase of 8%, while substantial, does not support the damage that the social and economic lockdown is doing. — Book273

Let's start with the fact that we agree on that an 8% increase is substantial.

There simply is nothing to deny this and this is the fact based on statistics. Mortality rates have little variance usually. There are I think about 3 000 to 4 000 suicides in Canada annually, while there have been over 14 000 deaths due to Covid-19 in Canada. Just to put that 14 000 in to context, it's in the same ballpark as how many Canadians die to drug overdoses annually. In all, about a bit less than 300 000 die in Canada annually, which should put the numbers in the right context (as we have had Covid-19 deaths only this year, basically).

Perhaps if the US would have been among the most successful countries in the prevention of the pandemic, then knowing the American debate the discourse could be on that the whole thing is a hoax (as people have not died). With now a figure that is over the number of all Canadians dying annually, the pandemic cannot be refuted as a hoax.

I myself have theorized that if the US would have been successful in it's pandemic response, the best example to relate to is Canada as the two countries are quite similar and Canada is also large and a very open country to foreigners coming and going especially on the start of the pandemic. The US simply isn't similar to Norway or Finland. Hence if the US would share similar percentages as Canada, it would have now only 125 000 deaths, not 330 000. Hence the simple fact is that policies taken DO MATTER.



To answer to your argument that the social and economic damage isn't worth wile the effort, we really have to look at credible policy alternatives and just how many lives are we are willing to sacrifice and for what. Sweden is the perfect example as it truly has had a different policy, yet people do naturally take voluntary precautions against the pandemic and the health care system in Sweden is advanced just like in Canada. Above all, Swedes are quite OK with their policies. So, just to give a rough estimate, if Canada would have similar amount of deaths than Sweden, about 30 000 Canadians would have died. Hence you would have a double amount of deaths.

Coronavirus disease: unfortunate, but mostly manageable.
Response to Covid: Much worse than the disease, last longer than the disease, affects more than the disease. Generally a terrible idea based on fear rather than logic or science. — Book273

So basically the question is how much better would it have been for Canada to have less of a hassle, because the global Covid-19 economic bust you could not have avoided. How much worth are 15 000 mainly elderly Canadians that are now with you at least for some years to come, yet you and the economy has had to suffer from the lock downs?

That's your question, to put it bluntly.

1) People are basically anonymous here.
2) Our income and jobs don't depend of what we talk here: people don't have a monetary incentive in the debate.
3) People's careers or reputations aren't on the line here.
4) This is a very small site, so you don't get publicity by commenting

All above reasons just why we indeed could keep a sense of humour, despite serious philosophy problems.

Do you wonder? Or do you just believe what you're told? — Merkwurdichliebe

What I wonder is just your irrationality. So just because Californians are whiners seems enough of a reason for you to doubt the pandemic or the statistics. Let's take for example excess mortality. The is a thing of a natural mortality rate at a national level. And that something did hit us can be seen from the statistical difference: the mortality rate doesn't normally vary to nearly twice the number as in the earlier month on a national level.


Figure 1: Excess mortality. Percentage differences between 2020 weekly mortality and average weekly mortality from 2016 – 2019. The month labels indicate the start of every month. The x-axis indicates the average mortality 2016 – 2019.

Source: Eurostat

From a study in Nature:

From mid-February through May 2020, 206,000 (95% credible interval, 178,100–231,000) more people died in these countries than would have had the pandemic not occurred. The number of excess deaths, excess deaths per 100,000 people and relative increase in deaths were similar between men and women in most countries. England and Wales and Spain experienced the largest effect: ~100 excess deaths per 100,000 people, equivalent to a 37% (30–44%) relative increase in England and Wales and 38% (31–45%) in Spain. Bulgaria, New Zealand, Slovakia, Australia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Norway, Denmark and Finland experienced mortality changes that ranged from possible small declines to increases of 5% or less in either sex. The heterogeneous mortality effects of the COVID-19 pandemic reflect differences in how well countries have managed the pandemic and the resilience and preparedness of the health and social care system.

The fact is that health care, as every emergency service starting from the fire department, have usually been trimmed down to meet the ordinary challenges. Hence once something out of the ordinary happens the system is in trouble. If there is a large scale accident, it's typical that resources are hurled to the area even from very distant places. Yet in a pandemic situation, that simply isn't the option.

Hence obviously something has happened, but I guess with Merky's reasoning is that Californians are just whiners.... and that others here talking about a Covid-19 pandemic are victims of big-government propaganda: perhaps done thanks to a sinister plot of the powers in be to take our freedoms away and not to fight a pandemic. But you just tell us how it is, Merky.

If I think about my own thread, I think I was aware of some aspects of the debate you raise, but probably thinking more in terms of the economic collapse being primary to the collapse of culture. — Jack Cummins

Notice how there is a division between what is basically economic history and the classical history. Today it's harder to make the point of something being a result of economic factors, not societal factors. Even more hard is to refer to factors in culture. Yet these factors do seem very important to people even in this Milennium.

I have to admit that sometimes I wonder if we are at the end of human civilisation. — Jack Cummins

Many have had that feeling since Antiquity I guess. And this one interesting thing we have with "the present": as we live in the present, we always insist that just now is the absolutely crucial time of humanity. Yet that's just our point of view. Not likely for history: not every decade is a huge turning point.

The times when our culture was on the verge of destruction might have been those few times during the Cold War that one or the other side contemplated that the other side was implementing an out of the blue nuclear strike.

Sometimes we learn only later what have been the very dramatic times:

I think that there are some major nuclear risks in the world presently, especially given tensions such as between the US and China. — Jack Cummins

Compared the time above in 1983, it isn't so bad. First, the number of nuclear weapons have dramatically decreased since the 1980's (when basically the Soviet Union finally countered the US dominance in nuclear deterrence as the "missile gap" had been in favor of the US before). And China has a "rational" nuclear deterrent as it basically has under 100 ICBMs or so. Rational in that sense, that it didn't opt for the thinking of either US or Russia and would have multiplied it's arsenal.



Just how vulnerable our society is to collapse in tragedies like war or pandemics is also a very important question. In Antiquity and later written texts were few and far between, educated people rare. Romans burning the library of Alexandria or the Mongols ravaging Baghdad amounted to a huge loss a knowledge. Now we aren't dependent on one physical place were our valued books are stored in as then. In all cases, even if we downplay the past, it is very likely that it was only a minority of who were literate in Antiquity.

One factor that makes us less vulnerable for societal collapse:

, there is the thread by called Are we on the verge of a cultural collapse?, where this is discussed. Have we been in decline since the 19th Century would perhaps be a view you should explain more.

My question was more about the essential link of language to culture, so I'll comment this part.

Language maybe will survive but civilization may collapse. When summerian civilization was only history, in Mesopotamia their language still existed 2000 years after! (higher culture). Civilizations falls but languages have chances to survive. — HangingBishop

It does beg the question just how "dead" that culture is if the language is alive.

For example, We do have still Latin, which just in the last Century was a very popular language to be studied (and obviously differs from modern Italian language). The last bastion of the Roman Empire, the Catholic and also the Orthodox churches are still quite alive and kicking, even if religiousness isn't so prevalent as earlier. Above all, we do see an inherent link from Roman and Greek culture to our present Western Culture.

Just think, even if the present nation states wouldn't be around in a thousand years, yet students in the Universities (or similar higher levels of education) would still study English, would read about the history of the United States and would claim that their culture, one thousand years into the future from us, is a direct descendant of the democratic experiment of the United States and the French Revolution and still would read what the "Founding Fathers" wrote, how dead would American or Western culture be? How extinct would that make our culture, really?

(Buildings that Ancient Romans and Greeks could relate to in present day Washington DC)


The important question here is if evolution of a culture really means the same thing as the collapse of a culture. I don't think that it's the case at all. A collapse means the end of the culture, literally. It's the example where you have to have an archeologist to dig pieces from the ground to make some hypothesis about what happened when the local people don't know who built the ruins in the area. That isn't evolution, but an observable cut off with the past.

If a country like Japan can justifiably claim that it has had an emperor from the 7th Century AD, it also is totally natural for the Japanese culture to have evolved and changed. The might be a heated discussion in Japan about Japanese identity and culture, yet it is hard to argue that there has been a collapse of the Japanese culture, even if Japan lost WW2 and was occupied. And obviously, the Japanese language is still the same language. That language of an ancient culture is spoken is in my view proof that something even from ancient culture is still quite living among us.

Now Trump's farce is starting to reach the insanity which it deserves, I think. The just pardoned Michael Flynn, promoted the idea that Trump ought to use the military to "rerun" the elections in key states.

"He could order the, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states," Flynn told Newsmax. "I mean, it's not unprecedented. These people are out there talking about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times."

Such delirious comments from the disgraced and short lived Trump National Security Adviser made actually even the military respond to such insanity with the Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville saying in a joint statement that there “is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”

Off course what the armed forces will do, or not do in this case, doesn't matter. The only objective with floating these kind of absurd ideas was to get Donald Trump's attention, just as it was with lawyer turned conspiracy buff Sidney Powell, who has made such a splash that Trump floated the idea of her being a special counsel to investigate the "rigged" elections. Doesn't matter that under federal law, special counsels are appointed by the U.S. attorney general, not the President. That Powell was earlier declared to be off the Trump team after wild conspiracy theories just fits to the logical picture, if there is any logic, how Trump picks those who he listens to. Somebody explaining to Trump that he can easily turn the elections and get reinstated as President in January because pigs fly, will get Trump's ear and attention. Because, who could have known that pigs don't fly? It was a great idea and the person suggesting it had balls.

Trump's actions are now equivalent to a certain German leader in his bunker in April of 1945. And similar behind the scenes struggle for power is going on in the Trump administration.

I can imagine that the Trump team meeting with Powell and Flynn alongside others in this boat ended in a shouting match. This is what the end of the Trump administration looks like.

Definitely not covid statistics...its complete bullshit — Merkwurdichliebe

How about the stats that there is a shortage of ICU beds in states like California?

(All quite normal?)


Or the stats that funeral homes and morgues are full thanks to Covid-19?

Those also bullshit stats / fake news, Merky?

(Acela Truck Co. has already sold hundreds of pull-behind refrigerated morgues created in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet is that for a need or just a consequence of the covid-scare?)

That surprises me. How are Finns thinking about the vaccine? — frank

The Finnish government firmly believes in the EU, and thus is waiting patiently for the EU to decide, or more specifically the European Medicines Agency EMA to decide which vaccines are accepted for distribution. No hurry, I guess.

Larger scale vaccinations are expected to start in the beginning of 2021 with only a symbolic small amount of vaccinations (perhaps 5000) starting from 27th of December with Biontech-Pfizer vaccine, if it is approved. Vaccinations will be free of charge, voluntary and available to everybody. The primary focus groups are similar to other countries: a) medical personnel, b) older age groups and c) other risk groups.

EU has made the following orders for vaccines:

AstraZeneca (300 million doses)
Sanofi-GSK (300 million doses)
Johnson & Johnson (200 million doses)
Biontech-Pfizer (200 million doses)
Curevac (225 million doses)
Moderna (80 million doses)

Of course, as Finns basically trust their government and don't have a similar culture of criticism of the public sector as the US has, there is hardly any discussion about the vaccinations. Naturally there are some commentators who largely mimic the US debate.

Now the debate is about the UK corona scare and the discussion is if the example of the Netherlands should be followed and flights from the UK should be canceled.

I don't trust the statistics at all, there is absolutely no way that covid is as fatal as it is being portrayed.

I have a friend whose wife just died of pneumonia.
Her death was officially attributed to covid. I know someone else that died of heart failure whose death was also attributed to covid. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah. Statistics isn't your thing, obviously.

People are getting tired of it. Especially Americans. Hardly noticing that they lose daily same number of people as in 9/11 in the pandemic.

I guess I'm just waiting for the things to normalize next autumn. People assume here the spring is already lost and the same thing will go on for a half year at least.

About European quarantine, travel limitations and The Holidays:

My Mother-in-Law came to visit us from Mexico. After reading just how "forbidden" and "only in special cases" it was allowed to come to the EU from outside, especially from North America, I didn't know how it would go. The papers have told here how much effort has been put especially to surveillance of international flights at the airports. I told my wife to check and double check the procedures with the officials, the flights, ask if my mother-in-law had to quarantine in a hotel before and check that she had that Covid-19 test before leaving. We were prepared to pick her up from a hotel and feared what a hassle it all would be. She came and nothing... No Covid-19 test on arrival at the airport, no covid dogs on stand by. Just like ordinary times: only a Dutch border guard checked his passport in Amsterdam and then for the connecting flight. Here the airport was empty without any officials in sight, as usual for a 11:00 PM flight, just pick your luggage and a cab here to our place. The only thing was that my mother-in-law used a face mask even at home before she noticed that Finns basically use them only at shopping malls and stores.

So no hassle to come to Finland from Mexico, I guess.

The critical ingredient missing from utopian schemes is a population of utopians. Lacking an appropriate population, utopias remain unoccupied. — Bitter Crank

I guess if we redefine the population requirements for a "society" to some odd little cabal of people, give them lots of resources, then I guess extremely bizarre utopias can exist.

The only agency is keeping out third parties. And that is all you need.

This idea seems very popular in America where there seems to be little knowledge about the historical wedge between communists and social democrats experienced in the West, which started well in the 19th Century. But as there hasn't been in the US such a leftist party as the Labour Party of the UK or anything similar, just a few leftists called progressives in the Democratic Party that basically haven't got their say, the American narrative totally disregards this very important political movement.

Hence there is now this narrative of the ominous Frankfurter School who then spread their ideology in the academic circles. This is story for example Jordan Peterson tells and while he has a point, there is obviously a huge part that is missing from the story and what he or many other North American conservatives don't talk about at all: social democracy.

All important European countries have all had social democrats in power: The UK (Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown), Germany (Wliiy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder), France (Francois Miterrand, Francois Holland), Italy (Bettino Craxi, Giuliano Amato, Romano Prodi) or Spain (Felipe Gonzales, Jose Rodriguez-Zapatero, Pedro Sanchez). Basically Sweden has been dominated totally by the Social Democratic Party since the start of the 20th Century.

Such grasp on power has had a huge effect and just to talk about some eccentric academic communists or leftist intelligentsia rearranging the image of the left after Marxism-Leninism collapsed with the Soviet experiment is simply quite irrelevant compared to what an extremely popular and successful leftist movement has done to change the World. These political parties are so entrenched into the system that in many countries they are seen as part the power elite alongside their conservative peers with trendy leftists choosing some more radical image (even if the actual policies favoured are quite in line with social democracy).




However these countries are surely not communist or socialist countries. This is no machinations of few communist professors in their ivory towers spoiling the next generation of students, this is the consequence of actual rule in the countries where the objective surely hasn't been some crazy communist utopia. Social Democrats are just fine with capitalism. They just want to "control the excesses", do wealth distribution, create a welfare state and have the government have an active role in the economy, yet have absolutely no intensions of demolishing capitalism as some fervent communist wants. Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

The third made the left-wing world the unconscious or undeclared handmaiden of global capitalism — Rafaella Leon

If you are interested about those who hold power, you should look at those in the left that actually have been in power. One has to separate the public discourse from actual implemented policies and political rule.

Far better would be make the separation of communism/marxism/marxism-leninism with social democracy (or democratic socialism) and the New Left here. Leaders like Tony Blair or Francois Miterrand were not surely communists, but were leftist leaders of our time.

(Just like that one shouldn't put absolutely everybody in the right-wing/conservative camp as being alt-right / fascists, which is the typical case.)

This scenario looks like a ship sailing across the ocean with a different party grabbing the bridge and setting course for a different destination each time. — FreeEmotion

Well, my point above is that it's the exact same two parties, same two cabals, which just rotate from one to the another. In a democracy it would be healthy to get new people with new ideas to power every once in a while. Not exactly the same people from four or eight years ago.

I am not sure if democracy is a good thing for the United States of America. — FreeEmotion

Still best option, if it only would work.

It is too late to go back. It is nice to know that China has a one party system, and has done quite well with it. — FreeEmotion

The real problem with a one party system is that once things go really bad, there is nothing to replace those in power. There is no way to know just how bad things are and if the system is a totalitarian one, it will exist in place so long as there is nothing to do and the whole system collapses.

China just shows that with economic growth, people accept any kind of system.

By contrast, little or almost nothing is known about the deep sources of power in Russia, China, and the Islamic countries. Even the descriptions we have of the visible ruling class in these regions of the globe are schematic and superficial, without comparison to the meticulous Who’s Who of the western elite. — Rafaella Leon

I'm not so sure about this that there is little or almost nothing known even about the deep sources of power in these countries. Authoritarian countries are more simple to reason about just who has the power. Besides, these regimes leave a ton of documents in their wake as they are quite bureaucratic. Above all, there is much interest in them.

Perhaps it's the third World where we have the real problems as there simply isn't those similar archives and even larger events can simply happen without historical data being gathered (as little if any data is gathered). For example, we have little accurate knowledge about just how many people were killed because of the First and Second Congo War as the estimated differ in the millions. And who knows about the African equivalent of a World War here in the West?

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. — Benkei

What special plan do you need? It's simply to a) not have a valid third party emerge to ruin the show and b) keep the people polarized as then they will vote against the party they hate? I think it's pretty clear that the whole system is based on minimizing the role of possible other political parties starting from the electoral college system. The creaming on the top is the "primaries" as this way "for people to have a say" in the system. And Americans will now surely believe in the "primaries"-system as it gave them Trump, which obviously the GOP elite didn't want and then Trump got the grip of the whole party.

You see, this kind of "deal" doesn't need any kind of written or oral agreement, it is basically like the "way of the land" as the saying goes.

There's no silent or gentleman's agreement between GOP and Democrats to share power by alternating each other. — Benkei

Who needs that, because NATURALLY people will get enough of one side at least after 8 years or 12 years. If you are given two political choices, the natural outcome is that enough people will be disappointed in one party to give the another a chance. Hence just look at how the administrations change.

Again don't think that this is implemented by an mutual open agreement. I doesn't have to.

Could you give me examples? I agree that they exist, I'm honestly just curious as to how many there are and whether they all have the same goals. — BitconnectCarlos

Naturally we are interested here in the Biden administration, as obviously it's now very current:

Kamala Harris: I'll leave this one as there are obvious reasons for her pick.

1) Secretary of State designee: Anthony Blinken


Blinken was the deputy Secretary of State in the Obama administration and before that in Joe Biden's National Security Advisor (to the Vice President of the United States). Blinken was then before in the Clinton administration in the National Security Council and speechwriter and assistant to Joe Biden. Blinken comes from a career diplomat family as his father was an US ambassador as was his uncle.

So this guy is working on his third Democrat administration.

2) Secretary of Treasury designee: Janet Yellen


Fed Chairwoman. Bill Clinton appointed her as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, where she served from August 12, 1994 to February 17, 1997. Yellen then became Chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) from February 18, 1997 to August 3, 1999. Later Barack Obama appointed her as a replacement to Bernanke. After Trump appointed a replacement for the Fed Chairperson, Yellen went to work to the Brookings Institution think tank before now picked by Joe Biden.

This woman is has been basically working along all administration since Clinton, even if the Federal Reserve isn't part of the administration, naturally.

3) Secretary of Agriculture designee: Tom Vilsack


Governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007. Then from start of the Obama administration worked as the Secretary of Agriculture until the end of Obama's second term.

Need to say anything? This guy has worked at the same job under the last Democratic administration and earlier was a governor from a state where agriculture is rather important.

4) Chief of Staff designee: Ron Klain


Biden's campaign advisor. Also Clinton-Gore campaigns advisor and Gore's campaign advisor. Served as chief of staff to Vice President's Al Gore and, of course, Joe Biden.

Again a person that has served in all three Democratic administrations, basically in the same position. Now just the President's Chief of Staff, not the VP's.

Do you notice my point here? Of course there are those politicians from the House of Representatives who are picked for cabinet posts etc. but that is very normal for political careers everywhere. But when you look at the next lower level, the story is similar. And naturally those that have worked in the Carter administration are now quite old! But they would be there, if they would be younger.

Even if we had this outrageous Trump administration and it had it's infusion of career military generals, which hadn't been the usual choice, and the odd multimillionaires, it is hardly a surprise that people like John Bolton waltzed into the White House... and waltzed out.

So please understand just how tiny these circles are in a country with 330 million people when the position are filled by only two political parties.

I don't think so.

I think the "polarization" is a means to keep the present system up. The worse the situation is for more Americans, the more polarized and poisoned the atmosphere has to be. The objective for those in power is that the power perpetually changes from one to the another in four to eight years. You see, the candidate who is depicted as "ultra-right" or "ultra-progressive" doesn't rock the boat as there will be enough of Americans who reject them on the other side.

It's interesting you say that. When I think "ruling elite" the group that comes to mind would be people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet, the Waltons... I keep a loose attention to these people but unless I'm missing something I don't see them as having one common interest in keeping the country divided, but who knows I may be missing something. I view them more as unique individuals with their own plans and goals. — BitconnectCarlos

You should perhaps look at those people that man the various administrations: there is a small group of people (let's remember that the US has 330 million people) that get a position in the administration after their party has gotten into power again. Or how many of them are multimillionaires (when it came to the Trump administration).

It's simply is very lucrative as a career choice to be in either of the two parties, as they are in power in a very normal manner. You can have that lucrative board room / think tank place in the private sector when you party is out of power.

My conclusion is that ruling elite in the US wants the country to be divided.

And the elite is extremely successful in this.

Many people go along with this, thinking that they can simply win the other side as they are right and the others are wrong.

Hence nothing changes and the elite prevails.

The medical and technological issue is that the vaccine has not been tested for efficacy at reducing either transmission or hospitalisation, nor has it been tested for safety on key demographics. — Isaac

Which key demographics are you referring to?

And more importantly, I think one should refer here to distinct vaccines, or is it really alleged that all various vaccines now studied have been dealt in similar way? That's what the Lancet article says? (I guess you had a link)

And if you think policy makers aren't disastrously idiotic and corrupt, just look at the pandemic up until this point in the places rushing to be first to deploy the vaccine. Although past stupidity and corruption doesn't guarantee future stupidity and corruption, I wouldn't personally bet against it. — boethius

Well, looking at just my country, I don't really feel that they have been disastrously idiotic and corrupt when the country is among the least effected countries in the EU. If you want to paint every leadership in such gloom, that's your problem. I don't know then were you draw the line of what then would be an adequate, OK response to a pandemic.

As now the election results are official, Barr steps out.

Now Trump is truly in La-la-land, if it comes to the elections.

How many days is it? Still over a month to go with Trump. That's not much.

Good that you referred yourself to a political opinion here.

Being against the political decisions is different to being against the technological or medical aspects here.