So talking about the policies and what Trump is doing while in power is whining about a lost election? — Christoffer

Talking critically about the policies and what Trump is doing while in power is whining about a lost election.

Actually, any negative or critical talk of God Emperor Trump is a sign of the person suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, at least in the eyes of the cult members. Actually, anything that isn't supportive of Trump is a sign of that.

The latest T proposals speak of sending U.S. military down to the border before figuring out how that fits in with the other federal, state, and county jurisdictions.

As a citizen here, that promotes the expansion of federal power above that of local communities. It hurts the brain to have self-identified Libertarians support such measures. — Paine

Sending the military in has a look that the President is "really doing the most" to tackle an issue. Trump doesn't give a shit about federal, state and country jurisdictions and / or military readiness, as once the troops are on the border, well, they sit there.

Of course closing a border is totally possible. We've had to do it and I can assure you it's absolutely devastating for the border region. And this is where it goes from just rhetoric to reality. Naturally Trump doesn't want to close the Mexican border altogether. Mexico is a larger trading partner than China and there's far more of those who legal migrants. And Trump doesn't want the economy to stall. But since he's for raising tariff's with everybody, some kind of trade war can indeed happen. Hence it's going to be combination of trade and migration policies that will effect the economy. And that's why many are anticipating stagflation: inflation with weak or even negative growth. Yet as Trump is a "transactional" president and not ideological, he can change the most economically disastrous promises, if he understands the actual effects.

More important than that is the proposed abandonment of regulation in all its forms. The efficacy of the anti-regulation movement will produce the most immediate outcomes for life in our nation. The environment, levels of education, standards of police behavior, acceptance of chosen forms of identity, equal rights under the law, national responses to health threats, etcetera. — Paine

You can aptly talk about the power of the American oligarchs increasing with Trump. Never underestimate the power of Elon Musk. If it's between Elon and some Steven Bannon, it's the Bannon-type Trumpsters that will be the hangaround fans outside the circle of power telling themselves that Trump stands for them and their important.

Even with the double talk of "draining the swamp" or going after "the deep state". Well, the "Deep State" in Trumpland are only his political rivals and government employee that he is disappointed at. And not of course the "Deep State" he would like to have around to do his bidding.

Whatever bad and good we may have done for others, the dissolution of our infrastructure is what will consume the next decade. — Paine

This likely will continue regardless would it be a Trump or a Harris administration starting. The US is such a huge economy that the idea that infrastructure doesn't need federal aid, but the market forces will take care of it will continue. There are enough cities and municipalities that are prosperous enough to take care of their infrastructure, so why waste money? That some cannot do this, that they have severe economical problems usually suffering the opioid epidemic doesn't matter. The "Rust Belt" is there to give a base ground for populists like Trump promising that things will change with them.

What is 'quite telling' is that in light of this you're still trying to give Biden credit, while unwilling to acknowledge Trump did a good thing. — Tzeentch

I'm not a great fan of Biden, never have been after the disaster in Afghanistan. And with Ukraine, the nuke scare worked like a charm on Biden. Even if the guy had been long around during the Cold War.

But let's see what Trump does with Ukraine. At least Kellog is reasonable.

This forum is turning into a clownshow with all the adults whinging over a lost election. Jesus. — Tzeentch

That's what the Trump supporter hope or see through their orange tinted glasses.

And the philosophical, not any political or present day commenting, has never been a clown show.

Just as with the help of many computers you are having a discussion with a person from another continent, similarly the populist can reach more people with the help of AI, rather than the costly and difficult campaign staff & volunteers.

Populist using AI rules... over the traditional populist.

Good thing that Artificial Intelligence will eventually take over the task of guiding and governing by appeal to arguments instead of stirring the unthinking feelings of the crowd. — Arcane Sandwich

Also, it's just far more easier for those in power to control the debate through AI. Imagine just how many people intelligence services and various secret police have employed to listen and survey people? Now everything can be done by computer!!!

Just curious, why would you pick up a six-year old thread about Roger Scruton and urge everybody to watch a documentary about a reporter against the Phillipine autocrat Rodrigo Duterte? What has this to do with a traditional conservative like Scruton, that are now basically silenced? Yes, social media obviously favours disagreement than agreement.

What Scruton wrote about populists (in 2017):

Populists are politicians who appeal directly to the people when they should be consulting the political process, and who are prepared to set aside procedures and legal niceties when the tide of public opinion flows in their favor. Like Donald Trump, populists can win elections. Like Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, they can disrupt the long-standing consensus of government. Or, like Nigel Farage and the Brexiteers in Britain, they can use the popular vote to overthrow all the expectations and predictions of the political class. But they have one thing in common, which is their preparedness to allow a voice to passions that are neither acknowledged nor mentioned in the course of normal politics. And for this reason, they are not democrats but demagogues—not politicians who guide and govern by appeal to arguments, but agitators who stir the unthinking feelings of the crowd.

I don't think he was a supporter of Trump ...or Duterte.

Meanwhile, instead of continuing on Biden's policy of wanton destruction, Trump achieved a cease-fire in Gaza.

I wonder if folks on this forum are able to acknowledge that, or if the cognitive dissonance would make their brains implode. — Tzeentch

The first question is "what cease-fire"? A prisoner exchange would be more proper definition that has happened. A "cease-fire" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict usually means that there simply isn't so many bombing strikes and rocket attacks as before.

And quite tellingly you are forgetting that the Biden administration was involved with the negotiations and took along also the incoming administration representatives. So both admins worked behind the back. And yes, Trump declared that there would be hell to pay. Of course, do note that also Bibi was finally influenced to back down here and negotiate. So there was also pressure on Israel too.

What is the positive thing that I will give credit to Trump that people do really think he would be so reckless that entangle the US into the fighting in Gaza or walk out of NATO. Those threats worked, for example NATO countries raised their expenditure because of Trumps threats at least partly, even if the main reason was Putin's invasion of Ukraine (and not the comments of any President).

But then again, many people do feel that Trump could go berserk and take the US out of NATO (and hence disassemble the Superpower status of the US). Yet many now understand this transactional populist. You can see it in the Greenland debate: the European countries aren't buying Trump's bluff. Hence they're not anymore surprised with Trump's rhetoric as the first time around.

Will there be trade wars, the removal of the Department of Education funding, the weaponization of the DOJ and the FBI, camps of stateless people, and a new colonial ambition to signal our withdrawal from the alliances built over decades of shared adversity? — Paine

Uh...will he finally finish that Big beautiful wall he talked so much? I guess that is forgotten, and won't come up as it is, um, a bit embarrassing reminder that the first term promises weren't achieved.



What definately will happen is that has been already cleary shown after the election: Trump's attention goes from this to that and the administration will be chaotic as Trump is chaotic. And the Republicans (and people like NOS4A2) will spin this the best way possible. There's a lot of hopeful, wishful thinking going around. That nevermind the Trump tweets etc, the administration will work just fine. Well, the Biden administration was a disaster also, but I guess it worked just fine too. Yet be it about taking Greenland or renaming the Gulf of Mexico, it's everything about just being in the limelight and not actually planning something to the end.

The Wall is actually a perfect example. Nobody in the Trump community cares a shit about it anymore, so it's not going to surface again. And this is what will happen to many things that Trump is talking about to do. The next crisis, the natural disaster or terrorist attack or demonstrations will take nearly all of Trump's focus. Social media is focused on literally the present day. Something like sending away 11 million people in an union with democratic institutions would be a monumental task, which the Trump yes-men and -women won't be capable of doing. But it's great to promise that kind of things during the election. It will make enthusiastic the Trump base, and it will horrify the anti-Trump liberals, who are people Trump and his base want to horrify. All the proper media frenzy has been spurred by this, which is the main goal. A totally different issue is reality. Just what was accomplished with the 12 billion or so put into the Great wall of Trump wall just show what Trump is capable of doing.

(BBC, 12th Jan 2021) However, only 80 miles of new barriers have been built where there were none before - that includes 47 miles of primary wall, and 33 miles of secondary wall built to reinforce the initial barrier.

The vast majority of the 452 miles is replacing existing structures at the border that had been built by previous US administrations.

President Trump has argued that this should be regarded as new wall, because it's replacing what he called "old and worthless barriers."

Hence to a similar compartment we can put the bitching over Greenland. If you ask Trump or Trump officials, they surely will continue the line that "Purchase or aqcusition of Greenland is in the works" until the last days of the administration, but nothing really will happen. Because... the US won't invade or go to war with a NATO ally. But it will pass... just like the idea passed earlier.

46,000 dead souls were needed for a cease-fire. It is hard to give relevance to Western organisations such as the UN, honestly. — javi2541997

Is it 46,000? Time will tell.

(The Lancet) We estimated 64 260 deaths (95% CI 55 298–78 525) due to traumatic injury during the study period, suggesting the Palestinian MoH under-reported mortality by 41%.

46 or 64? Well, it's still in the tens of thousands. Not hundreds of thousands. So that's good.

Yet it's a cease fire. With Hamas. Without participation from other countries. I remember that Bibi Netanyahu was declaring last summer that Hamas was nearly finished. Now...

(all Israel news, Jan 2nd 2025) Despite more than a year of military operations against the Hamas terrorist organization, Hamas has recruited between 12,000 and 23,000 new fighters, Israel’s Channel 12 news reported, and confirmed by the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday night.

According to the new report, Hamas currently commands a surprisingly high number of between 20,000 and 23,000 terrorist fighters if combined with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) forces present in the Gaza Strip. Until recently, the Jerusalem Post reported, terrorist forces were estimated to be reduced to about 12,000 fightera

And of course, this is the time when the media ought to forget that in the Middle East a "ceasefire" doesn't mean what a ceasefire means in other parts of the World.

(Jan 18th, CBS) Despite the ceasefire news, sirens sounded across central Israel on Saturday, with the army saying it intercepted projectiles launched from Yemen.

The Iran-backed Houthis have stepped up their missile attacks, in recent weeks. The group says the attacks are part of their campaign aimed at pressuring Israel and the West over the war in Gaza.

There were also continued Israeli strikes into Gaza. The Palestinian Health Ministry said at least 23 people were killed in the previous day.

Also, during the first phase, Israeli troops are to pull back into a buffer zone about a kilometer (0.6 miles) wide inside Gaza, along its borders with Israel.

Still, this underlines what was already the obvious question of what really Netanyahu wanted. As if there would be a military solution with Hamas being destroyed and the Palestinian issue somehow going away.

So this thread goes on, likely far longer than the Trump thread...

The real question is if China would try to occupy militarily Taiwan, which other countries would assist the US, if the US opted to intervene. Would Japan commit? Would South Korea commit? Apart from those two, the other countries have not much to give in sea warfare. What would Australia do?

Japanese Navy is back with combat aircraft...

Yes, I agree. He would be heavily criticised, and his works would suffer a bit of censorship, or at least he would be sued and seated in a trial. — javi2541997

Hence we are far more open to hear what truly a Japanese writer writes and we don't immediately go for the character assassination. We tolerate views that we would immediately not even to bother to listen, if it would be our society. What comes to my mind is the stereotypical cultural studies student, who is fascinated about cultures and traditions of all people except his or her own.

Yes, I know Japan had imperialistic views towards Korea and China, but according to Mishima, that's just politics, and he wanted to focus on the spirit of the nation, and (again) Japan is intrinsically violent, although they promoted actions of peace since the 1945 debacle. — javi2541997

And that is a far more nuanced view, which makes it interesting.

A very good point, ssu. Honestly, after reading biographies on Mishima's life, I think he had never expected such a reaction from the Self-Defence Forces. — javi2541997

He didn't understand that the Japan Self-Defence Forces was a totally different animal than the Imperial Army or Navy of the past. These institutions had been disbanded and the first implementation of the SCAP was to form a the National Police Reserve in 1950, and the JSDF was formed as late as 1954. And this is actually very crucial to understand post-WW2 armed forces of Germany and Japan. There was a dramatic ideological change from as both Germany and Japan cut their ties to the past military culture and started with citizen-soldiers and with influence of American military training. (In fact the WW2 era Wehrmacht continued in the East German Volksarmee as there was no emphasis on changing the old culture in the DDR as there was no denazification effort as Communist East Germany assumed it had no ties to the Wehrmacht.)

For example in Finland there was no disbanding of the armed forces or serious organizational changes, the armed forces that now joined NATO is the same army as fought in WW2 alongside the Third Reich (and later against it) just as the modern US army does trace back to the military of WW2 era.

Hence this made the Japanese soldiers to be trained and tought quite differently than from the discipline of the Imperial Army or Navy. And especially since Yukio hadn't himself served, I assume his idea of the men making up the military was more of a polished and shining propaganda view of what the actual military is like. And the followers in his own private army were something totally else than the cooks and clerks of the JSDF listening to his speech.

Usually being in a army shatters ones high views as the normalcy of the members and the bureaucratic of the institution hits home.

Look how the people are laughing at him and his katana. — javi2541997

They are not at all laughing at him, but smiling and in the following video you can see people clapping their hands. And I suspect that the Japanese male next to him is likely a veteran officer of Onoda that was there to convince him that the war is over. Also note the American officer and Phillipine Army general. Here is actual video of the surrender. He is treated with quite the respect with a lot of Phillipine Army officers around him, not at all as some lunatic.

Damn! I have always missed that pure loyalist behaviour that the useless politicians of my country don't have... — javi2541997

Weren't you Spanish? I think that you will find it in your history too.

ssu, I don't follow you in that quote. What do you mean by "instant recoil" if Mishima would have been German instead of Japanese? — javi2541997

Think about. What would we think about a writer that would be an ardent patriot like Mishima if he would be German? He would be the jingoist ultra-nationalist and people would just try to find hints of nazism, white supremacy and racism in his writings. How would a German who would favour Prussian militarism look like today?

Above all, remember how the Japanese soldiers of the new Self-Defence forces reacted to Mishima. They started to hiss and jeer.

In fact, I would argue that if there's a "culture war" between the right and the left in Europe and the US, so too is there a similar thing in Japan, but it's very Japanese. And the sad story of Yukio Mishima is part of that, just like the story of the last Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese soldier to surrender in the Phillipines in 1974. Well, he too was disappointed about post-WW2 when he finally got back to Japan.

Hiro Onoda surrendering in 1974. He died at the age of 91 years in 2014.

Onoda’s three decades spent in the jungle – initially with three comrades and finally alone – came to be seen as an example of the extraordinary lengths to which some Japanese soldiers would go to demonstrate their loyalty to the then emperor, in whose name they fought.

Refusing to believe that the war had ended with Japan’s defeat in August 1945, Onoda drew on his training in guerilla warfare to kill as many as 30 people whom he mistakenly believed to be enemy soldiers.

I wonder what Mishima would have written about Onoda.

I'll try to give a thorough response to you here.

Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

Well, years ago when Ron Paul was campaigning for the Republican candidacy in 2008, I thought his simple line getting all the troops had a lot of merit. Wouldn't it be great that the US simply didn't mess around so much? It's a nice idea, but then we have to understand that not everything the US has done has been wrong. Above all, not everything bad that happens is because of US actions. US inaction can have a worse outcome. Usually when the US has been able to gather a large alliance and especially when it has gotten an UN permission, the military actions have been just, understandable and needed. When it has NOT been so, when the US hasn't been able to gather a broad coalition, when it has operated by itself, the outcome has been usually a disaster.

Was it right to defend South Korea against a Russian sponsored North Korean attack? I think yes, personally I like K-pop and stuff that comes out of the country. And the country finally has been a democracy and the South Koreans are far more better off than their Northern counterparts.

Was it right to create a large coalition and drive out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait? I think yes. That was the second aggressive war that Saddam had started toward it's neighbors, even if Kuwait had backed it in the war against Iran. Back then the US followed the advice of it's Arab allies and didn't go into Iraq. Unfortunately this success lead to neocons going later berserk.

Jihadism isn't the reason why the US is in Middle East. Actually there are countries that are OK with the US and do want it to be around. So what would happen if the US left? Well, that creates a vacuum, which is filled by some way.

We can already see what happens when the US has lost interest: other regional actors take it's place. Just look at how active in Africa have the Gulf States have become (in Libya and Sudan). Look at the actions of Turkey. Or how Saudi-Arabia went to war with Yemen and nearly went to war with a GCC member, Qatar.

So I think there is a role for the US to play in the Middle East, but more of leadership role than unitary actions. Unfortunately especially the Trump administration doesn't care a shit about creating alliances and bringing states together.

Stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes — T Clark

Which regimes you define to be repressive Islamic regimes? Do note that Islam is far closer to the state as Mohammed himself was the first leader of the Muslim state. Hence it's no wonder that Arab states, especially those which are monarchies, do have state religion. Do you put into this category Saudi-Arabia? How about the UAE or Egypt? What about Jordan? And how about the wavering states of Lebanon and Syria?

Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

Well, this has a thread of it's own where I've voiced my opinion about this. In short, this has far more to do with domestic politics in the US than is about foreign policy and not because of the Jewish American voters, but because of the millions of Christian Evangelists who see supporting Israel as a religious matter. And as I've said in that thread, France was earlier the supporter of Israel, not so the US. And the Cold War era thinking doesn't have anything anymore to do with the US-Israeli relationship as it did earlier.

(Bibi talking to his American base)

The artificial states for Putin don't end up with Ukraine. This is why he is a threat... in the end also for the Russian people themselves.

If you're like me, you probably spend a lot of time trying to unwrap the meanings of contemporary social lenses like "post-metaphysical" or "post-modern." The meanings become clearer if you grapple with them in the context of the succession of social lenses that preceded them, from enlightenment to romanticism to scientific positivism. — Pantagruel

One should obviously understand modernity in order to understand the criticism of post-modernity. And as you say, "the context of the succession of social lenses that preceded them, from enlightenment to romanticism to scientific positivism".

Unfortunately this rarely happens. People simply study Habernas or Foucault and that's it. Why study those past things that "you should object to".

And then there's the culture war crowd for whom post-modernism is a swearword. So even less intellect there.

Confucianism, for example, sits right at this juncture of the material and the moral. It does not appeal to a god for justification (nor offer salvation). But it does seek to define morality as it can be best actualized in the here and now. In this, it is strongly akin to Stoicism. Values made real. — Pantagruel

So are you hoping for a synthesis after the thesis of modernity and anti-thesis of post-modernity?

One of Mishima's traumas was not having the chance to fight in WWII, because he thought it would be priceless to die defending the honour of his homeland. Since then, he always had a fetish for war and bellicose topics. Too much passion on him? — javi2541997

In my view Mishima is a great example how patriotism and nationalism and the militarism involved with that isn't something that we Europeans have invented. These ideas are old and universal. And also when it's someone that isn't "us", like with Mishima, we don't have this instant recoil that we would have if Mishima would have been a German, an Englishman or an American. This tells something about us, not of the Japanese or their culture.

What do you think of that, ssu? Agree? Disagree? Sort of agree, sort of disagree? — Arcane Sandwich

There's truth to that. At the most simple level, we just love to look at our own navel and think about us. That modern life in other continents is quite the same, people have quite similar ideas what is right or wrong is a fact. Why then the hubris? Something that is now universal, is universal, even if it first happened in Europe. If Europe adapted inventions from China or India, we don't call the "Asianization" of Europe.

Samir Amin, who btw as a Marxist supported the Khmer Rouge and was their apologist, goes on to say that it isn't about "catching up", but that eurocentrism leads to polarization of the World. I'm not so sure about that.

Are they? What's your take on that? — Arcane Sandwich

No. Modernization can happen in many ways.

In history it has been that Europe hasn't been on the cutting edge.Europe of the Dark Ages is an example of this as then the teachings of Antiquity were held by the Muslim east. The Asian military superiority was evident when the Mongol Horde came into Europe and defeated larger European armies. Lucky for Europe that they didn't do more than a "recon attack". It was only Napoleon that woke up the Ottomans, before they were the ones trying to take Vienna and being the imperialists taking territory. Only after the Renaissance and especially the Age of Enlightenment and industrialization it turned to being "From the West to the rest" as @Bob Ross perhaps would say.

Many times it's not the success of someone, but the failures of others.

EDIT: BTW ssu is "Rule, Britannia!" the best you got, as far as music goes? — Arcane Sandwich

We were talking about patriotic music. Or how nation states use music for their own purposes. And since you where an Argentinian, why not then British patriotic music? I guess you have heard quite much the Himno Nacional Argentino already.

This is a wonderful OP. It rivals my favorite recent "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism" for naive, knuckleheaded hubris. If we, the US that is, wants to deal with jihadism, here are the simple steps:

Stop supporting Israel
Get US military out of the Middle East
Stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes
Mind our own business
Stop supporting Israel — T Clark

British, French, American (et al) activities in the Middle East have triggered reactions among various ethnic and religious groups--not least among them founding the state of Israel. This has been discussed extensively and I don't have anything new to add to the topic. - In my opinion, extreme political / religious behavior, whether Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or what have you is NOT compatible with secular societies (which, of course, can contain actively religious citizens). Recognizing it as incompatible, however, doesn't tell us what to do about it, at home or abroad. — BC

Jihadism is a very broad term.

I think we should talk more specifically about Sunni-extremism that followed Sayyid Qutb's ideas and came to be popular with Al Qaeda and later with ISIS/Islamic State. Very different from Shiite islamic revolutionaries from Iran, even if both have similarities.

First and foremost, the objective has been to create Islamic revolution in the Muslim population itself, the Ummah, and to overthrow the secular governments (at least in the view of the radicals themselves) now controlling the Muslim states and pave way for the righteous Caliphate. A way to get to this is to attack the West. This should be obvious from the Al Qaeda of the 1990's. Osama bin Laden declared back then that the US was the enemy and that it was OK killing American civilians, something that goes quite against the idea of jihad being a personal religious struggle and a defensive war to protect Islam. This actually is something similar to what the Iranian islamic revolution has and why Iran has been opposing so much Israel, a country with the former Imperial Iran had lukewarm relations. Declaring to be against Israel has been the way for Iran to spread it's revolution and vitaly to the effort, because otherwise the idea of having a war with a country so far away simply doesn't make sense. But it works wonders for the zealots of the revolution, just as was taking the US Embassy workers prisoners. Because the US was the Great Satan, after all, remember the ouster of Mossadegh and Operation Ajax?



The idea to attack the West, the US or European countries has an old idea in terrorism behind it: that the response of the West to these attacks would show the "true colors" of the West and hence create the environment for the Caliphate to emerge. This is similar to the thinking that for example the Red Army Fraction had in Germany: they were the fraction of the incoming "Red Army" emerging from the German "proletariat" that would rise in the future. By their attacks the Nazi state that West Germany was (according to them), would show it's true colors and unleash a wave of counter-terrorism, that would awake the masses. Well, West Germany responded by the matter being dealt by the police and the Bundeswehr wasn't involved in anything in the fight against the RAF (Rote Armee Fraction). No actual "Rote Armee" emerged in West Germany.

But not so with the financier Osama bin Laden and the fringe group Al Qaeda. Perhaps the US didn't bomb the Holy Sites of Mecca, but they did go after him by occupying a country where OBL was. And in the end killed him in Pakistan, were he was kept as a chess piece by the Pakistanis. The idea didn't die with OBL.

The whole thing did achieve a short term success briefly. We did have a former Al Qaeda member (that had broken with Al Qaeda) declaring himself the Caliph and the IS gaining control of territory. The franchising of the idea has been also successful, so successful that an retired US veteran drove into people in New Orleans with an ISIS flag waving from the vehicle.

(Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declaring all is good in the Caliphate in 2014)


Yet the focus should be in the Muslim states themselves here and how they view this debacle. Well, if there was indeed support after 9/11 and Palestinian crowd did praise the attack, the brutal ways of Al Qaeda and ISIS have really changed that in the Middle East. It's extremely telling just what happened in Syria, where the victorious HTS group and it's leader Ahmed al-Sharaa had been fighting alongside Al Qaeda, had been imprisoned in Iraq by the US, and then had a rift with IS and it's Caliphate. And now is deemed as an apostate by the remnants of ISIS/IS still lurking in the country.

(Ahmed al-Sharaa, on the right, and not wanting a Caliphate in 2025)


Now many actually in the Arab street think that ISIS was invented by the Americans and Israel, in the way that perhaps one Iron Man movie with the "Mandalorian" as the villain was portrayed. The conspiracy theory is similar to the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theories. Just like in the civil war in Algeria, the radicalism of the jihadist themselves turned on themselves. And likely was used by the Algerian junta, just as Assad tried to use them in Syria. But in the end, the extremism of jihadism kills the revolution itself, just like we have seen from many different historical revolutions where the extremists have gained control.

But the focus isn't on the Muslim states or the Middle East. The terrorist attacks happen in the West that we are afraid of. Jihadism and the response to jihadism is now part of our "culture war" rhetoric. The next mass murdering lunatic that wants publicity can happily get from the net the IS regalia and have the franchise continue. And Islamophobia is alive and kicking and will remain so.

So what to do with jihadism (and thank for reading so far, if you have)?

First thing is what to do in the Middle East. Then is what to do in our own countries. The two are totally different issues and need totally different policies. To blanket them with one response will lead to failure. How do we improve the situation in Middle Eastern countries that Messianic extremist groups cannot emerge and be prominent actors? This is both a political and counter-terrorism/military issue and has to be done helping the muslim countries themselves. Blaming ourselves for past actions doesn't get us anywhere, it's what we do now what counts.

Then the home front. How do we get estranged people willing to commit mass murder? How do we manage relationships with muslim minorities and stop radicalization among them? That's another issue. Jihadism will work as the lightning rod for migration policies and here also there needs to be a broad response with policies that at first don't seem to be related.

Usually the most effective policies seem too bland, far too long to explain and too lousy, actions of whimps, for those who want to ride with the scare of Islamophobia. And usually the simple tweets and comments given by our politicians backfire. Just like George W Bush declaring that the US is on a Crusade against jihadists. Or islamofascists or whatever.

Stay tuned to the next event and the next response to it.

Bob should know why you went there. But then again Samir Amin, the Marxian economist who coined the term eurocentrism, thought that fascism was the extreme version of eurocentrism.

And it should be noted that many that speak of things like "Western supremacy" are happy to take Japan to be part of that West, unlike their contemporaries of the 19th and early 20th Century. For them, modernization and westernization are synonyms and democratic values inherently Western and not anything else. How European or Western Japanese actually think of themselves being is another issue, as they seldom are asked about it.

Ah, but you are too Lawful, my dear. You lack a bit of the Chaotic joyfulness that I have : ) — Arcane Sandwich

Chaotic Latin joyfulness??? Ah, the wonderful national stereotypes.

Besides, music has much to do with the issues that the OP raises. How could it not? Think of military marches, for example, or prison songs, for that matter. Songs to inspire moral, songs to record an event. I think you underestimate the role that music has played throughout history. There is no reason to think that this is any different in our times, unless you think that History ended some years ago, and this is "just politics" now. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, this hasn't gone unnoticed when creating nation states and national identities. We indeed have national anthems and patriotic songs that we listen on certain events. The collective experience is important.

What would be more fitting than this one for you, my friend. Notice how the crowd sings along:

Is there a philosophical reason that you have for avoiding music as a topic of conversation? — Arcane Sandwich

Nope. I just try to stick to the actual topic of the thread.

Are we not members of our respective nations? Am I not an Argentine? Are you not a Finn? This talk between you and me is a talk between two different nations in that sense. — Arcane Sandwich

In that sense, but then again this is also talk between two people who are interested in philosophy.

So, what is the need of reciprocity here, between you and me? — Arcane Sandwich

Again, it's about the topic of the thread, that starts with the opening paragraph of @Bob Ross, which is on intent quite provocative. Imperialism isn't reciprocity, it doesn't start from mutual benefits as peaceful engagement does. Looking at World history from the viewpoint of Great Power competition hides or forgets a lot what happens in peacetime.

A very different history than the one that characterized Finland during the 19th and 20th centuries. — Arcane Sandwich

Not actually so different, if you take the 19th and 20th centuries. Both have had civil wars. Both have gotten independence from an Great Power. Both have fought the British (Finland as a Grand Dutchy of Russia then, but still). Where the difference is from being on different continents: Finland never has had a military junta and has had no extermination campaigns. Finland has stayed as a democracy and has prospered rather well, still being poorer than Sweden or Denmark, but still.

Perhaps that's why the communication between you and me is so incredibly difficult, — Arcane Sandwich

Is it?

Individuals talking about philosophy is a reason itself, as we can get new insights from each other and can improve ourselves with the discourse. I'm all for that.

Nation states and the people acting as their representatives, it's a bit different. They talk as representatives and usually have a political domestic agenda, which foreign policy should implement and help.

For nations to engage each other there is this need of recipocity and something for the leadership to show for. Usually the leadership of a country has a mandate to do something, usually to improve the situation of it's people.

Hence if it's Javier Milei meeting our President Alexander Stubb, the obvious question is how trade between the two countries can be increased or what kind of investments could Finland do in Argentina. This is what both Milei and Stubb would want and it would be mutually beneficial for the two countries. The rather small trade between the countries is telling: Finland exported about 400 million euros worth of industrial equipment to Argentina while Argentina exported a meager 10 million euros worth to Finland, mainly wines. Only ten or so Finnish companies operate in Argentina and they employ only 400 people. In Uruguay Finnish investments are far larger with forty companies operating and the exports being over twice as to Argentina, so there obviously is much room for improvement as Argentina is a larger country than Uruguay.

Argentinian wines are good and Argentinian steaks are World renown. Naturally Finland wants to sustain some level of production in agriculture as it's sea lanes could be cut off (and Finland couldn't sustain itself by land connection by Sweden), yet I would think there would be a market for more Argentinian beef and wine. Also as Finland wants to diversify it's energy exports, why not buy LNG from Argentina?

As both Presidents are likely on a tight schedule and likely will have only some brief time to engage with each other, the discussion on commerce and political relations would be important. Yes, they could have a wonderful talk about philosophy, but would that be the most useful way for heads of the political structures to spend their time?

And why would this be important for Argentina? Because exports for Argentina are only 12,93% compared to the GDP, while Finland it is 40,96%. On the trade openess index Finland is on place 106th while Argentina is 192nd out of 196. Here you can see the real effects of Peronism as international trade simply isn't an important part of Argentinian economy. For Peronism "economic independence" has been one of the cornerstones of the political ideology. In fact, as Peronism is actually one type of populism, you can see what the effects on the long run have been in Argentina. At the start of the 20th Century, Argentina was far more wealthier than Finland with far higher GDP / per capita. Now the

Commerce has been the way that rich countries have become rich. For smaller countries (and larger ones, like Germany) international trade has been very important. Yet there's a false narrative that they are rich because they have exploited other countries. Being colonial powers has usually made only a few very rich and in the end have been a more of a problem. Portugal as one of the first European colonial powers and the last one just shows how detrimental it has been and how poor the country was with trying to fight colonial wars in Africa in the 1970's.

When the question is how X looks, one can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do. — Corvus

Empiricism and science goes far further than this, and this was already evident during the time of the first empiricists. Science starts from theories, as it understands that the present ideas can change and we can obtain even better models and theories in the future. Hence rarely do we truly talk about laws of nature and we aren't taught at school laws of nature, laws of physics.

Above all, the scientific method tries to be objective and evade subjectivity. Let's take literally what you said: what X looks like, "can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do." How limiting is that? What then about sounds or radio waves, everything else in the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot see? Scientific theories here help us to define these, by having a spectrum defined by wavelength or frequency. It helps us to create machines that can use these other frequencies and we can "see" by radio waves (radar) or infrared light etc.

And lastly, if we say that this is our science and the scientific theories we use at the present, it doesn't mean that the theories are less important or less valuable, because they can be replaced in the future. It especially doesn't mean then that a hypothesis like "the Earth is flat" has value, because perhaps in the future there would be a theory that would prove it. Science doesn't work like that. It is built on earlier findings and seldom something is shown to be wrong, but simply not adequate to answer everything. Perfect example of the is Newtonian physics compared to Einsteinian physics. Newton's theories are quite accurate on many occasions, but in some situations Einstein's relativity gives us a better answer.

So in the end, we could say that the theory of Earth being ellipsoid is far more useful to us than the theory that the Earth is flat. And since we can even prove that the Earth isn't flat, but an ellipsoid, the theory of it being flat can be said to be simply false.

For example, would it make sense for Argentina and Finland to form a bloc, with a few other countries? — Arcane Sandwich

If there is a reason for it, if the cooperation would be mutually good for all countries involved, why not? There has to be a reason. Otherwise it's just empty talk, handshakes and the usual photo opportunities.

Your vision can be deceiving. You aren't using the scientific method if you just assume what you see is true. This is the kind of thinking that actually empiricists like Bacon were against in the first place. Me with my bad eyesight cannot see all the stars in the sky, especially not any galaxies or black holes or what ever. It's not a scientific argument to say that what is in the night sky is only the things I myself can see.

Ah, so you believe in blocs, is that it? Like the BRICS, for example. That sort of political organization is what you believe in? That's what's best for the Nordic countries? — Arcane Sandwich

There are different kinds of political organizations. Some are just for talk, but some have a lot more beneficial effects than just leaders meeting each other. Cooperation is beneficial. If two countries don't have relations, there will be a lot of mistrust.

Latin America is a good example of this. In the 19th Century there were a lot of very bloody wars between the countries (like the war of the Confederation) and still you have borders wars like between Peru and Ecuador or Venezuela threatening annexation of large parts of Guyana. This means that the relations, even if better than earlier, are still a bit tense. But they could be better.

As I made clear that the shape of the Earth changes depending on where you are looking at it from. — Corvus

Any object looks different from where you look at it. It's called perspective. Perspective doesn't refute truth or falsity of a statement regarding objective truth about the universe. Here even the theoretical model or the axioms you start with can be questioned.

How is it not? It is purely empirical for the fact that the knowledge is based on my observations on different locations on the Earth. How more could you get empirical, scientific and logical? — Corvus

Do note the implementation of the scientific method. It is far more than just "a perspective" you have. You have this whole methodological process that isn't similar to any random observation I can take by looking at something. It is worth reading Bacon and Locke on this issue (among others) as using the scientific method is far more than just an observation.

So you believe in the Nordic countries as something higher or greater than Suomi, and of Scandinavia? I'm not sure that I understand the point that you seem to be making here. — Arcane Sandwich

Not higher, but something that Finns can relate to with other Northern European countries. Hence Swedes, Norwegians and Finns etc. can refer happily to being part of the Nordic countries. Many times it's very beneficial to have close ties with states and it's something that many countries are very much seeking to build. Hence in Europe we talk about the Benelux-countries, the Visegrad-countries, the Baltic States, the Nordic countries and so on. Trading blocs and political blocs can be very useful when they function.

For Finland it was actually extremely crucial that Sweden joined NATO at the same time (even if thanks to Turkey it was a long process for the country).

And it's something that many times is totally lacking from the historical narratives of "Great Power competition" where the strong defeat and conquer the weak and where Great Empires emerge and collapse. The focus is on conflict, not peace and stability. The last war between the Nordic / Skandinavian countries was fought between Norway and Sweden, which is also the last war that Sweden has fought, happened in 1814 between Sweden and Norway. Hence that is 211 years of peace between the countries, which earlier had many wars starting from the Middle Ages with basically the bellicose Sweden being in constant war all the time.

I am not familiar with either Flat Earthers or Round Earthers claims. — Corvus

How? Seems you value them to be similar, that one isn't better than the other, at least theoretically to make a theoretical argument. And not knowing "their claims" doesn't free you of answering which one you believe to be true, actually, if the you think the World is flat or round.

From my own point of view, I am not a Flat Earther, and I am not a Round Earther either. I am an empiricist. Whether the Earth is flat or round depends on what location you are seeing the Earth from. — Corvus

That's not at all empiricism or being an empiricist. It's not just our sensory experience makes it true, it's also the empirical evidence that something is so. Roger Bacon himself opposed the older Aristotelian view in this way. And that empirical evidence cannot make both to true.

But there are the majority of the Earth population who have not gone out the place they were born, and seen the Earth only from where they stand. — Corvus

And this obviously is the reasoning just why not all historical cultures came to the conclusion that Earth is round. Eratosthenes had to have a lot of exact information to calculate the circumference of Earth (which he got nearly right) in 200 BC.

If you accept the fact that philosophy is more than just believing everything you read and see on youtube, internet, and what is told in the classroom, then you would open your mind and listen to the other folks different ideas and methodologies in arriving their own beliefs and claims. — Corvus

We help others the best with really thinking about what they say and supporting them we think they correct and also disagreeing with them, when we see something incorrect in their reasoning. I value much about the responses I get in this forum. If someone disagrees with me, that's OK. If many disagree with me and say the similar reason for why I am in error, I do have to look at my reply. That's the best kind of help you can get here.

My point was that methodologies of arriving the knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself. — Corvus

Then for this topic, the important question here is: Just why some people, if they indeed are have thought about the issue, come to the conclusion that Earth is flat?

Why is there https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php ? Why do they have the mission of:

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.

Are we "free thinkers" if we believe in something that is false? Do we have to be so different, or otherwise we are the sheeple that conspiracy theorists believe others, the mainstream, being?

The Round Earther's knowledge must have come from the Science class, books and media i.e. it is based on the authority of the institution.

Hence the Flat Earthers' knowledge is more Scientific than the Round Earthers' in terms of the method of their knowledge acquisition i.e. it is based on their own experience and observation rather than relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda.

Therefore the Flat Earther's beliefs are more scientific than the Round Earthers? — Corvus

???

Trying to troll me exactly the way I said that Flat Earthers troll us? Or are you really serious? :smirk:

I don't understand your viewpoint. If there are things that puzzle me that I can see with my own eyes that go against Flat Earth idea, where Science (and geometry) gives me a good answer, why would it then be
about authority of institution, propaganda telling me this? Do you think that learning in school is just a form of remembering lines that the teacher tells you? A lot of that learning is things that I can see working in reality. Just as I can believe in arithmetic, because it works, it gives me answers of my surrounding reality. That's the real idea of understanding: you just don't "learn by heart" or accept something as true because an authority figure has said so, you can observe it yourself that it is so.

In fact, the vast majority of "Flat Earth" conspiracy theories start exactly the way you think Science education works. They see a video in YouTube, which gives an argument about a huge conspiracy. Bigger than the so-called "Moon landing hoax". And this is, in fact, it is actually exactly that "relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda", which you talk about. The authoritarians are just the conspiracy theorists themselves.

As I explained before, you can observe from multiple things that show that the Earth is a sphere. I just gave two examples that I myself have experienced. I could give others. I have been in Central America, in Costa Rica (which has been closest to the Equator) and notice that my shadow is quite under me, a thing where my shadow never is where I live. And there I can see new stars and constellations that I couldn't see at any time in Finland. And I've been in Australia and New Zealand and noticed the a totally different star constellations that I've never seen in Finland. So you tell me how all that is possible with in the flat Earth world?

I need to correct this thing that I said. Scandinavia also includes Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. Why didn't you point out this mistake that I made, ssu? — Arcane Sandwich

Because Faroa Islands aren't a sovereign state, they are part of Denmark. Even if they have autonomy, just like Greenland or Åland Islands have autonomy from Finland.

Of course there more regions to the Nordic countries too, so ask yourself, do you know all the flags and what regions they represent here?

All I'm saying is, don't deny me that right, because since I'm a South American, I have the same right as a North American to call myself an American simpliciter. But I just say that I'm from Argentina instead, just to avoid unnecessary rambling. — Arcane Sandwich

Actually it's quite telling of the attitude of people of the US to refer to themselves to be Americans, even if it logically refers to all people in the Continent and not just themselves. It would be like if people of the member states of the EU would refer themselves being the Europeans. What role then for the Swiss or for the Norwegians etc?

Hence when Trump is talking about Canada being part of the US, he is talking about annexation, not about a merger of states, where Canada's status would be diminished to be a state like Rhode Island with a governor.

Just how easy it is to prove these issues simply question just what on Earth this Flat-Earth nonsense is about. Is it simply trolling? Is it simply an attempt to try to make nonsense so credible, that people fall for it and have a laugh about it? It looks a conspiracy theory pushed to the extreme, as an outrageous extrapolation of the sum of all conspiracies. Or the intent is to get the "science people" to be angry about the ignorance of the common folk and thus show their hidden elitism and how they look down upon others.

It reminds me of Sasha Baron Cohen's skit playing the character Ali G interviewing a former US Surgeon General, who obviously didn't know who Cohen was (or his character Ali G), seemed to have genuinely thought that that the "hip hop rapster"-interviewer was as idiotically ignorant as Cohen portrays Ali G to be. It's just an extremely hilarious exchange about (def) death starting at 3:50. If you haven't seen it, worth watching.



Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? Or then it's simply the algorithms that make this discourse so talked about. When something is blatantly wrong, it gets a lot of replies of the issue being wrong.

So, if you were challenged, someone said "Don't rely on any experts, scientists, NASA photographs -- prove yourself that the earth is round," what do you do? Don't look up the answer, try to come up with one yourself. — flannel jesus

Go to the ocean shoreline on a clear sunny day and look at how outgoing ships simply "sink" into the horizon and incoming ships emerged from the horizon. If the Earth would be flat, the ships would just get tinier and tinier.



And this is why there's a very common "submarine sighting" on the ferries going from Helsinki to Tallinn. Observing people notice the "submarine" emerging, then slowly going past the ferry and later submerging again. Well, it's not a submarine, it's a well known rock that simply looks like a tower of a submarine.



Or if you have a friend, put your head on the ground (perhaps at the shore) and watch the sun go down while your friend is behind you somewhere higher, perhaps on the fifth floor of a building. Talk to each by phone and yell "now!" when the last glimpse of the sun's circle has dissappeared to the horizon. The difference is notable. Now I've done both of these "experiments" and have seen how large ships drop into the horizon as well as seen the difference between the sighting of the sunset.

There is a difference of about three minutes between the first sunset and the last sunset. For Islamic ritual purposes, the building is divided into three zones. In Ramadan, people in the highest floors have to break their fast about 2 minutes later than people on the lowest levels.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I understand this. What do you mean, when you say those words? — Arcane Sandwich

If the citizens of the US have this national identity of being "American", it's hard to tell that actually now you are going to be Northamerican and so put that antiquated Stars and stripes flag away as it's only a local flag and officially use another new flag. And refer to yourself from now onward as Northamericans when foreigners ask who you are.

If the European Union is Europe's best attempt at articulating European Continentalism, then it's not good enough, because if it was, people would have never even thought about Brexit as a concept, or even as "the right thing to do in such circumstances". — Arcane Sandwich

First of all, many Americans think about secession of their state, at least as a theoretical option. The Brits here can tell just how and why UK did Brexit happen, there's a whole thread about it. However do notice that actually Brexit showed other member states just how awful and economically disastrous such a stupid move would be. How badly it went and what UK citizens now think about Brexit is very telling and has actually been noticed by many people, who do have had their criticism against the EU in their own countries.

It's usually the American commentators who declare the imminent demise of the EU integration project, something that they have done now for decades.

Yet what is also telling is that those who really are keeping up the dream of the EU are Ukrainians and Georgians, who have seen how other neighboring countries have become stable and prospered inside the European Union. It's in these countries who want to avoid to be under the control of the Russian Empire that cherish the thought of European integration.

By contrast, Latin America is not a continent, it's just a group of countries in which the inhabitants speak a language derived from Medieval Latin — Arcane Sandwich

That does connect still somehow, even if there is Brazil. Of course, these countries aren't as in such good terms with each other than are for example EU members, but still especially the contrast towards the US is there. There's a lot of feeling to be together in Latin America than just being North American.

Yet the most important question is, for what would you need Northamericanism? What is the narrative of it? Where do you use it?

I'll take the loose definition of the Nordic Countries to explain this. First of all, it isn't Skandinavia, as Finland is not part of it and because when the idea of the Nordic countries emerged, the Baltic States belonged to the Soviet Union. Yet in order to have such a group, many things have to happen.

And above all, there ought to be a genuine feeling for borders being a needless division between friends. The states have to have cordial friendly relations and respect. Above all, there ought not to be any historical grunges and feeling that the other ones behind the border are totally different, even possibly a threat.

Not only with a bully like Trump, as his disrespect even towards Canada is evident, will there emerge anything like the idea of Northamericanism. Mexico lost huge amounts of territory in the Mexican-American war and the later US actions during the Mexican Civil War and afterwards is at the root of anxiety towards the "Gringos" in Mexico. And the imperialism that the US has shown earlier in Central American and in the Caribbean is there to be remembered. Trump's unabashed imperialist views that are meant to be a distraction only poke the fears and hatred towards the US.

And in the end, when states do have a national identity, this cannot be replaced. This means that there then should be a higher level identity above this, which the countries can relate to. Just like the North European countries that all are happy to use the term "Nordic" or like three European countries can be called "Benelux"-countries.

The English calling their country the "United Kingdom" and everybody accepting to being "British" have been successful in this (except for the Irish, that is). Yet the whole idea is now forgotten so badly, that even the English start to ask just what being "British" or "English" means. Yet it can be a possibility, a higher level identity binding together people with different national identities is possible.

This is something that the EU ought to put more importance to than it does. The EU may have a flag, even a hymn, but it lacks at the present the ideological zeal and purpose. It isn't marketed to the member state citizens as it ought to be. The EU has never been marketed to the people as a savior from our bloody past seen from our history, but just as a technical bureaucratic institution that is good for commerce. Bureaucrats in Brussells won't do that. Their effect is the opposite. The EU-citizen hasn't been involved in the experiment, only the elites.

I am horrified by Trump's announcement that he intends to take Greenland and Panama Canal and will use military force if need be. — Athena

Even if the main object is distraction and to dominate the narrative, this still would be closer to imperialism than actual war. But indeed this is the mentality that an aggressor needs to start wars. More likely is to use force in the case of Panama than in the case of Greenland/Denmark. Even as I'll repeat, the main purpose for this rhetoric is to distract and to get people to respond to your narrative and discourse.

Northamericanism ( — Arcane Sandwich

Northamericanism? What is that? Note that Mexico is part of North America, so why if logical with continentalism, then simply both South and North America? Mexico is actually very close to the US than to Europe.

And notice that many countries embrace that civic nationalism. Few truly embrace ethnic nationalism, like Israel does.

Since you never cite what you quote, — NOS4A2

Never? See here and Trump turnaround here

You also don't mention that Trump started to change his mind about h1-b's shortly after his comments in the debate you cite, — NOS4A2

You seem not to notice that I'm talking about policy implementations that Trump did during his administration, his executive order. Do you understand that? See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-work-visas.html

To try to deny what actual policy Trump implemented / tried to implement is telling of your intellectual dishonesty. Trump tweets and says things so much, that his changing rhetoric isn't that important. Anyway, Elon Musk has been very consistent on this while Trump has not, which is very typical for him.

Changing one's mind is probably tantamount to lying in anti-Trump world — NOS4A2

Lol. Well then, I assume then that no politician ever lies, because they just simply change their minds. Just like Putin said he won't invade Ukraine, but then changed his mind, perhaps on February 21st 2022 or so.

And oh, the references of this:

I believe it's often fear of what other governments might do that keep governments from becoming totally tyrannical, corrupt, and incompetent. — Brendan Golledge

I think that it's far more that the people working for the government want to serve well and the people that are governed themselves either accept or not the government. People who have some job usually want to do it well, those working in the public sector aren't different from others. Outside governments rarely check on the doings of other states or then there has to be dramatic violations from the ordinary.

Corruption and autocracy is something that people simply adapt to, it becomes "the way how things are", the "way of the land".

. In practice, all governments are rule by men. — Brendan Golledge

Don't generalize the US reality to the World. Women can have a considerable role.

Share of women in the US Senate: 25%
Share of women in the House of Representatives (US): 29%
Share of women in the Danish Parliament: 45,3%
Share of women in the Finnish Parliament: 46%
Share of women in the Swedish Parliament: 46,4%
Share of women in Mexican Congress: 50%