Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

This is long [1:09:56 - skip to 3:20] but very interesting. Well, it's interesting if you're on a similar page to David and me regarding Trump. Otherwise you'll probably just see it as an exercise in confirmation bias.

Chris Hedges: The Rise of Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na_jAtxpmiI
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:I guess it was just a coincidence that it was the first non-white president in history who had been singled out for suspicion.
It's just speculation on your part that it has any racial component to it, and I don't trust your speculations.

From what I can see, Trump began to aggressively push the birther conspiracy theory back in 2011 for two main reasons . . .
You are merely speculating about what the reasons were. You don't know what his reasons were. For all you know he may have been provided with fairly good evidence to suggest that the document was a forgery, but his sources may have wanted to remain anonymous. You simply don't know, and nor do I.


And you are badly contradicting yourself. You previously claimed that Breitbart was "far right", which you clearly explained means "white supremacist" (to you). So why didn't you say that you believe the "Breitbart worldview" includes white supremacy? That's a pretty glaring omission, don't you think? What you're saying doesn't make any sense at all.
It's a grey area.
If it's a "grey area" - specifically to you - then you shouldn't be saying that I agree with everything in the "Breitbart Worldview". Not only do you not know what the "Breitbart worldview" is, but nor do you know what I agree with and what I don't agree with.

You are speaking from a position of almost complete ignorance. You are in darkness, but imagine you are bathing in the light.

As Shapiro observes, Breitbart does attract readership and comments from members of the "far right", which indicates that the site is indeed catering to that kind of mentality to some degree.


No, that doesn't logically follow. It might be that Breitbart is catering to all people who want to express their opinions freely. It doesn't mean that they are catering to one particular group or mentality. And you are again failing to mention that Shapiro is a competitor to Breitbart.

If you don't want to be associated with white supremacism, then you need to properly disassociate yourself from the Breitbart worldview . . .
I think your mind has turned to mush. Utter mush. First of all, you've already said that in your mind "it's a grey area" what the Breitbart worldview is, and secondly I have already demonstrated that I am not associated with what you call "the Breitbart worldview". You are living in a fantasy world. I have already clearly stated that I don't believe in white supremacy, nor even white nationalism (not that Breitbart supports those things in any case). You've completely lost the plot on these issues.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

Dan Rowden wrote:Kevin is perfectly fine. Just don't mention the War (Gamergate).
I'm perfectly willing to talk about Gamergate and the ongoing war against the SJWs.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:It is very different nowadays. Kevin has become extremely touchy about being defamed and called mentally-ill, and this has come about because he nowadays identifies more with the political group which fights the SJWs than he does with the larger spiritual cause of fighting ignorance in general.
This is truly amazing. You are defending your *own* accusations against Kevin by accusing him of being touchy.
Dan Rowden wrote:Now, Matt, don't try to psychoanalyse someone or you'll earn the ire of Jupiviv.
Psychoanalysing people in itself is indicative of delusion, because the categories of modern psychology were created by deluded people. Anyone who uses those categories as the primary metric for determining whether someone else is deluded cannot be a sage. In the realm of psychology, a sage should create his own categories, like Weininger. Or else, at least work with the categories of other sages, like Hakuin.

Jimhaz is on record saying that he has no problem with Muslim countries being bombed and kept poor. Yet you are showing support to him because he shares your negative opinion of an old friend and colleague! I'm pretty sure that ticks a box in the psychopathy checklist.

In my last response to David, I asked him a question which he didn't answer, presumably because he couldn't. Perhaps you can answer it:

Where has Kevin revised his critique of human delusion in general to exclude Trump, Milo, their respective fans and alt media journalists?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:Kevin has become extremely touchy about being defamed
We live in an age where the authoritarian left are constructing actual lists of non-believers who are to be excluded from society, whom they seek to deny employment, whom they seek to block from all social media, and hidden from search engines. We live in Orwellian times. That is why any sane individual wants to avoid being defamed by anyone who holds what is deemed to be a leftist perspective. Anyone accused is held guilty by accusation. I have seen this happen many, many times.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:This is long [1:09:56 - skip to 3:20] but very interesting. Well, it's interesting if you're on a similar page to David and me regarding Trump. Otherwise you'll probably just see it as an exercise in confirmation bias.

Chris Hedges: The Rise of Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na_jAtxpmiI
Because some established Christian NYT author and ordained minister will, of course, provide deeper insights into the ills of society than Nietzsche or even, god forbid, Ayn Rand (Tillerson and Trump) and Marcus Aurelius (James Mattis favorite).

Just kidding a bit here though, I'll watch the video and if it's worthy of any comment, I'll probably post it in Worldly Matters.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Psychoanalysing people in itself is indicative of delusion, because the categories of modern psychology were created by deluded people. Anyone who uses those categories as the primary metric for determining whether someone else is deluded cannot be a sage. In the realm of psychology, a sage should create his own categories, like Weininger. Or else, at least work with the categories of other sages, like Hakuin.
Haha! Yes, you mean what was often discussed like that on the old forum populated with sages who dismissed all these categories although being officially as well as informally diagnosed themselves quite often with the same DSM? The moment you see all these psychological classifications currently overused and abused by the offended and pissed of feminine "faux-objective" part of society, oozing back into the thoughts of those once opposing it, the awesome cause and effect becomes much more clear to see. Let the discussion continue and way more might become exposed. It's one purpose of the forum.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jimhaz wrote:29 Signs of a Psychopath (the word seems to have only been mentioned once in this thread, by David)

I can match Trump to every one of the signs below.
Just for your information, all symptom based diagnosis (like DSM, which abandoned the term "psychopath" decades ago) start with the main qualifier: inhibiting someone to function or succeed in life (or approach a desired goal) more or less within the confines of the law. It's rather insane to think that being elected President or being billionaire somehow could ever qualify as inability to function or being stuck in a rut. Of course, you could wonder that about a lot of jobs but once you go there, society itself can become "psychopathic", which is another discussion and nomenclature altogether.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I guess it was just a coincidence that it was the first non-white president in history who had been singled out for suspicion.
It's just speculation on your part that it has any racial component to it, and I don't trust your speculations.
Sure, it could be just a coincidence.

We could say that the odds are 1 in 45.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:From what I can see, Trump began to aggressively push the birther conspiracy theory back in 2011 for two main reasons . . .
You are merely speculating about what the reasons were. You don't know what his reasons were. For all you know he may have been provided with fairly good evidence to suggest that the document was a forgery, but his sources may have wanted to remain anonymous.
The evidence, if it existed, couldn't have been all that good, as he ended up retracting the claim in September last year.

You simply don't know, and nor do I.
Judging from his overall behaviour that he exhibits every day, the chances are he just made it up and went into overdrive pumping the lie to the max. That's very much his style.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:As Shapiro observes, Breitbart does attract readership and comments from members of the "far right", which indicates that the site is indeed catering to that kind of mentality to some degree.

No, that doesn't logically follow. It might be that Breitbart is catering to all people who want to express their opinions freely. It doesn't mean that they are catering to one particular group or mentality.
It's a very one-dimensional site, though, isn't it? The editorial board obviously doesn't accept any article unless it is dark and angry and stripped of all humour.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:If you don't want to be associated with white supremacism, then you need to properly disassociate yourself from the Breitbart worldview . . .
I think your mind has turned to mush. Utter mush. First of all, you've already said that in your mind "it's a grey area" what the Breitbart worldview is, and secondly I have already demonstrated that I am not associated with what you call "the Breitbart worldview". You are living in a fantasy world. I have already clearly stated that I don't believe in white supremacy, nor even white nationalism (not that Breitbart supports those things in any case). You've completely lost the plot on these issues.
I know you don't believe in white supremacy, but nonetheless you are choosing to be part of a movement which overlaps into white supremacy and thus you run the risk of being called a "white supremacist" by others.

It is not unlike how if a man joins the Catholic priesthood he runs the risk of being called a "pedophile", even though he might abhor pedophilia himself and does what he can to protect children from other priests. There is no point in railing against me over this. It is the way of the world. Once an organization develops a reputation it tends to tar everyone involved in it, whether they like it or not.

The priest might decide that being a part of the Catholic Church is worth it, despite the fact that he will probably be thought of as a pedophile. Or he might decide that having such a reputation will undermine him too much and he would be better off being away from the Church altogether. That's a choice he has to make.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Kevin has become extremely touchy about being defamed
We live in an age where the authoritarian left are constructing actual lists of non-believers who are to be excluded from society, whom they seek to deny employment, whom they seek to block from all social media, and hidden from search engines. We live in Orwellian times. That is why any sane individual wants to avoid being defamed by anyone who holds what is deemed to be a leftist perspective. Anyone accused is held guilty by accusation. I have seen this happen many, many times.
I would like to see some proper evidence of this. Can you point to some specific examples? It definitely doesn't sound good.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Psychoanalysing people in itself is indicative of delusion, because the categories of modern psychology were created by deluded people. Anyone who uses those categories as the primary metric for determining whether someone else is deluded cannot be a sage. In the realm of psychology, a sage should create his own categories, like Weininger. Or else, at least work with the categories of other sages, like Hakuin.
Haha! Yes, you mean what was often discussed like that on the old forum populated with sages who dismissed all these categories although being officially as well as informally diagnosed themselves quite often with the same DSM? The moment you see all these psychological classifications currently overused and abused by the offended and pissed of feminine "faux-objective" part of society, oozing back into the thoughts of those once opposing it, the awesome cause and effect becomes much more clear to see. Let the discussion continue and way more might become exposed. It's one purpose of the forum.
I have to say, I'm seriously inclined to return this to the 'old forum'. The 'new forum' is being run by mediocre intellects. There's nothing inherently wrong with the DSM criteria for mental disorders or illnesses. They are reasonably practical for their context, which is the statistical norms of human behaviour and psychology.

The argument has always been that wise detachment can and is mistaken for these statistical and normative disorders because of their superficial appearance of such. That doesn't make the actual disorders any less real or meaningful from a practical social viewpoint. NPD actually exists.

It is simply the case that the DSM cannot meaningfully deal with wisdom and its psychological phenomena and necessarily mistakenly interprets them. That is indicative and symbolic of the wider reality of society's inability to recognise and interpret wisdom.

It does not make the DSM criteria of mental illness and disorders false or useless.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

jimhaz wrote:29 Signs of a Psychopath (the word seems to have only been mentioned once in this thread, by David)

18. Occupy positions such as chef, civil servants, religious leader/clergy, police officers, journalists, surgeons, sales persons, media personalities, lawyer, corporate CEO/entrepenuers
This one might be a bit extreme. I mean, I have met the occasional prickly chef, but still ....
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Kevin has become extremely touchy about being defamed
We live in an age where the authoritarian left are constructing actual lists of non-believers who are to be excluded from society, whom they seek to deny employment, whom they seek to block from all social media, and hidden from search engines. We live in Orwellian times. That is why any sane individual wants to avoid being defamed by anyone who holds what is deemed to be a leftist perspective. Anyone accused is held guilty by accusation. I have seen this happen many, many times.
I would like to see some proper evidence of this. Can you point to some specific examples? It definitely doesn't sound good.
Actually, Kevin has a point here, especially in the context of social media. Twitter and Facebook (and in some ways even YouTube) are quite actively imposing what might be characterised as 'political standards'. And those standards aren't necessarily readily defensible and they are dominantly the standards of the Regressive Left. Milo's Twitter ban, for example, was objectively wrong and stupid.

So, up to a point he definitely has a point.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I guess it was just a coincidence that it was the first non-white president in history who had been singled out for suspicion.
It's just speculation on your part that it has any racial component to it, and I don't trust your speculations.
Sure, it could be just a coincidence.
Fun facts from history might help here, when it comes to challenging presidential candidates:

Other presidential “birther” controversies from American history

- Trump (in 2016) questioning Canadian-born Cruz on birth certificate.
- Chester Alan Arthur (around 1880) was challenged by campaign rivals on birth, also Canada
- Candidate Charles Evans Hughes (around 1916) challenged for possible birth in Wales
- Barry Goldwater citizenship (around 1964) challenged because of Arizona
- George Romney (around 1968) because of birth in Mexico
- John McCain (2008) challenged because of birth in Panama

The only rational item left here is that Obama is indeed the first candidate besides Arthur (who was technically elected vice-president) who was challenged on his birth certificate and actually was voted in as president.

In other words: perhaps instead of suggesting, speculating and theorizing on racist conspiracies, we could keep our heads a bit more cool and cautious?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Not a single one of those is actually analogous to the Obama 'birther' saga. Not even close.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:I have to say, I'm seriously inclined to return this to the 'old forum'. The 'new forum' is being run by mediocre intellects. There's nothing inherently wrong with the DSM criteria for mental disorders or illnesses. They are reasonably practical for their context, which is the statistical norms of human behaviour and psychology.
The main problem with your recent posting is not that I disagree or spot errors but that it's all rather dull, uninspired, infected with mainstream knee-jerk lines, inconsistent, womanish and often contradicting with your own views. The only value this discussion has left now is to analyse of what might have happened to you. Did you and David reach your conclusions apart or together?
The argument has always been that wise detachment can and is mistaken for these statistical and normative disorders because of their superficial appearance of such. That doesn't make the actual disorders any less real or meaningful from a practical social viewpoint. NPD actually exists.
Disorders do not "exist", Dan. they are lists of symptoms one qualifies for or not. Certainly they're not meant to judge undesired personality traits. There's no professional who would seriously attempt it although the media always finds some dupe to say something. But for every one you cite I can cite ten more who'd warn against it.
It is simply the case that the DSM cannot meaningfully deal with wisdom and its psychological phenomena and necessarily mistakenly interprets them. That is indicative and symbolic of the wider reality of society's inability to recognise and interpret wisdom.
So a systematic, professional tool is useful when it happens to agree with you but delusional when it's contradicting what you are valuing. That's just weak, at best.

Man up and make up your mind, Dan.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:Not a single one of those is actually analogous to the Obama 'birther' saga. Not even close.
In what way, besides that Obama actually became president, the hyperactive media and perhaps his foreign, Arab middle name, first used by the Islamic prophet?

Anyway, you're declaring things again without any explanation. Obviously there are differences but to link it with skin colour is something you can't pull off. Just speculate.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Not a single one of those is actually analogous to the Obama 'birther' saga. Not even close.
In what way, besides that Obama actually became president, the hyperactive media and perhaps his foreign, Arab middle name, first used by the Islamic prophet?

Anyway, you're declaring things again without any explanation. Obviously there are differences but to link it with skin colour is something you can't pull off. Just speculate.
Yes, 'obviously there are differences'. FFS, those differences are sufficient to deny any analogy, regardless of 'skin colour' issues. They are simply not analogous. Given that birth citizenship is a requisite for POTUS you'd expect there to have been historical questions over it. But analogous? Comparable? Hardly.

Anyway, whatever. Readers can look at each case and judge for themselves. And there's the small point that such historical events, even if it were that they were in some distant sense analogous, has not a single thing to do with Trump's actual behaviour nor the conspiratorial nonsense, expressed without evidence of any kind, that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery.

Maybe, after all, there were no planes on 9/11. I mean, it's all just speculation.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:I have to say, I'm seriously inclined to return this to the 'old forum'. The 'new forum' is being run by mediocre intellects. There's nothing inherently wrong with the DSM criteria for mental disorders or illnesses. They are reasonably practical for their context, which is the statistical norms of human behaviour and psychology.
The main problem with your recent posting is not that I disagree or spot errors but that it's all rather dull, uninspired, infected with mainstream knee-jerk lines, inconsistent, womanish and often contradicting with your own views.
Contradicting with my own views? Interesting. Can you give an example of that? Should be easy enough given I've apparently done it 'often'.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:Yes, 'obviously there are differences'. FFS, those differences are sufficient to deny any analogy, regardless of 'skin colour' issues. They are simply not analogous. Given that birth citizenship is a requisite for POTUS you'd expect there to have been historical questions over it. But analogous? Comparable? Hardly. .
There's quite a range there between denying analogy, "not being analogous" and then "hardly" analogous when the list clearly is about the same fundamental issue, just the birth country in dispute is a bit further removed than the rest with the added Islamic spicing to the issue (which is a topic which I guess blended with it). My point however was if questioning birth certificates would be coincidently happen to a black candidate. And I think I offered enough material to change the odds considerably. Anyway, it's not a very interesting topic, also because I've no dog in the race: I don't care where someone is born for his right to become elected in a democracy.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

David Quinn wrote:
They [the absolute and the relative] are combined whenever we make a decision in this world.
Kevin Solway: While you can be absolutely certain that you have a belief about some empirical matter, you can't be certain that your belief is correct. Your belief may be entirely wrong.
There is no 'may' about it. By definition, a belief is not absolute. Knowing this, one has right view. Belief in 'my truth' is wrong view. There is only THE truth. No wiggle room allowed.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

[jimhaz is on record saying that he has no problem with Muslim countries being bombed and kept poor. Yet you are showing support to him because he shares your negative opinion of an old friend and colleague! I'm pretty sure that ticks a box in the psychopathy checklist.]
Darn, you’ve made me go into rant mode, defending my dishonourable comment.

While I accept that is not the sort of comment a sage would make, my desire is to be pragmatic and practical, and I enjoy being opinionated. I’m not really a sagey sort of fellow. On the other hand I‘m confident in my ability to come out with reasoned viewpoints and do try and be objective.

It is entirely pragmatic for a person in a country with a better standard of living than most others to take steps to ensure the continuation of the means that enables its easier and less risky life. Naturally that means includes heritage and a significant degree of attachment. Clearly born elsewhere migrants will often be less attached than home grown, less attached to the means that enables it, even if grateful for the position they are in.

In the US and Australia etc whites being the organisational history, being the most attached even just by the sheer weight of experience within, will always be loudest preachers of nationalism – and will have the most justification in practical terms. Being practical means accepting we will act as the foolish, and sometimes not at all foolish, competitive animals we are. The most technologically and organisationally advanced deserve their position as they evolved to obtain it and others failed to do so. As a group they are undoubtedly superior, for the time being, and like aging lions know their end is going to be shakier and shakier as time progresses, as those systems and information spreads. They see the developing male lions encroaching into their territory, their means of living, and are merely defending their turf.

It’s all quite reasonable, rational and in evolutionary terms blameless. From what I’ve assessed, Indians have a lot of self pride, so I know you’d be the same, lol, from the manner in which you are defending your territory here. All just cricket on bad pitches.

Of course if the dominant lion gets too aggressive, it will likely be defeated by cooperation from the lower status, or a bad choice or luck. It’s a bit angry at present - big elephants are running right through its territory, the mischievous media monkeys are squawking incessantly, too many irritating cubs and testy females around, it has a bad infestation of the Neoconitus Worm, migraines from digesting Trumprot, and for this lesser lion, the weather has been shit.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

(cont)

As far as I can tell there are three ways of dealing with the Muslim problem.

1. Military means ie what is occurring now.

2. Wait it out and hope that materialism, western technology will make them desire to conform and become far less fundamentalist.

3. Use philosophical propaganda to change their worldview, so that they change from within.

Point 2, wait it out, is a big stickler for me. Modern technology means they will want to become westernised, so they will eventually naturally modernise. On this point, I may have the emotional fault of being too impatient.

My ideal method would have been the 3rd one. After military action in Iraq to take out Hussein and to limit fundie imperialism, the bombs I would have dropped would have been information bombs (literally millions of little parachutes dropped from the air) containing well considered philosophies, to make them question their spiritual and political leaders, and lighter stuff like non-exaggerated and even handed true stories about gaining freedom with just light propaganda about democracy, perhaps some appeals to consumerism. Though the civil war death count might be initially high, I’d still expect the end result to be more lasting, as it would be coming from within. That chance is gone.

The problem we have now is theocracies, just another form of dictatorial rule, so one must expect social regression and for fundamentalism to increase with economic woes.

I hardly care about the rights and wrongs of western actions, such as the Iraqi war or what is happening in Syria, as I truly feel this level or more of destruction was going to happen in one way or another in any case. Outside of Jordan, their leaders were all Power IceHeads looking for the next power drug war. Their people were like flocks of zombies herded by religious wolves. Their economic position was dismal and their environment not that conducive to growth in any case. All the potential social benefit money from oil wasted by idiot leaders.

The tinderbox was already alight, held in bay only by religious and dictatorial smothering. It wasn’t going to be a status quo like the North Korean madness.

They were and still very much are primed to be used as tools for the Saudis and the Russians. I see them in particular, and the world arms network of course, as making it almost impossible for the US from to have had a more positive, far less destructive, impact in that region. The outliers, Iran and Pakistan, and now Turkey all making use of it in negative ways.

Israel has been there long enough for me. Countries are opportunists, so nothing unusual in them taking advantage of the stupidity to take land. It’s not as if it was just the Palestinians against them. We need to be pragmatic, not righteous by compassion.

So finally, why keep them poor?

I see how stupid the Christian controlled nations have been over the centuries and decades. With WMDs we can no longer afford that stupidity to get into the hands of a serious fundamentalist opposition - a new violent and reckless teenage gang on the block that wants to challenge the veterans. Serious opposition creates so much more risk. It is better for us that the middle east is disunited and fight amongst themselves, it is better that they use most of their stupidity internally. They need to get to the point where the creep of materialistic and freedom desires makes them lose obedience to the strictness of their religion, and they call for progression socially and politically.

Until then, we cant be as compassionate as we’d wish to be. We have to deal with what is, not what ought to be. Dubai may show the way but I’m uncertain about its viability should the very rich be made to become far less rich and influential.

The spread of information means they will get the required knowledge and systems to create WMDs of some kind that would have a big impact on the west, sooner than anyone can prevent, but things being as they have been for the last few decades, it would less risky to take reserved action, with less cost of US lives, than to go all hands on deck to resolve it, but still leave a mess. Let them fight their own demons, and while doing so have less external potential.

Just like a teenager they have to grow some maturity themselves, before they can get the keys to the family car. If the kids reckless and steals the car, then stern discipline becomes justified. If the kids a bully, give ‘em some karma.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

[Pam wrote: There is no 'may' about it. By definition, a belief is not absolute. Knowing this, one has right view. Belief in 'my truth' is wrong view. There is only THE truth. No wiggle room allowed]

And then what happens?

Doesn’t one ever get to take the straight jacket off.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

[Anyway, it's not a very interesting topic, also because I've no dog in the race: I don't care where someone is born for his right to become elected in a democracy.]

We agree on something then.

Nahh.. bummer, I forgot the Russians. Scratch that.
Locked