The insanity of this is that Trump is funding a country who is supplying armaments to Iran, who the US is at war with.
-
RE: https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/117453794779199297
The insanity of this is that Trump is funding a country who is supplying armaments to Iran, who the US is at war with.
This is such a perfect illustration of the obscene veil of geopolitical nonsense when it's pulled back.
There are men who want to cling onto power. They will do anything, fund anyone, kill any number of civilians, ruin any number of healthy economies.... just to hang onto their own personal power a few minutes longer.
@Remittancegirl the Russians will manipulate the middle term elections big way.. he needs Congress and Senate to complete the remaining 45% of project 2025...
-
@Badgardener @Remittancegirl if you think #Vance is 'comparatively statesmanlike' I fear you're in for a painful disillusionment.
@simon_brooke Vance is not going to fly. He doesn't have the persona appeal that Trump has for the the MAGA crowd. @Badgardener
-
@Remittancegirl Nothing the Russians may have been involved with absolves at least a pair of generations of USAmericans of their willing embrace of the worst parts of their sociohistorical tendencies of racism, theocratic authoritarianism, and greedy selfishness.
@Illuminatus No question, but that was always present. Right?
-
RE: https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/117453794779199297
The insanity of this is that Trump is funding a country who is supplying armaments to Iran, who the US is at war with.
This is such a perfect illustration of the obscene veil of geopolitical nonsense when it's pulled back.
There are men who want to cling onto power. They will do anything, fund anyone, kill any number of civilians, ruin any number of healthy economies.... just to hang onto their own personal power a few minutes longer.
@Remittancegirl every day I silently thank all the americans who did not vote for Kamala Harris. Their actions two years ago is what brought us all here, and we should be thankful and proud of what they did to us. /s
-
In essence, Trump's rise and enablement has been an incremental destruction of the hegemonic liberal western geopolitical order.
If I had been a Stalinist operative looking to destroy it, this would be a very successful outcome.
This is, in every way, what consecutive heads of the USSR and Mao would have dreamed of - this kind of collapse.
I'm not ruling out contingency, of course. There were always the seeds of its own diminution nestled in the belly of the structure of the US. The UN never had any teeth because of the structure of vetos. The EU's unanimity provision was always problematic. Nato's overdependance on a single state has a built-in fragility.
All I'm saying is... instead of trying to psychologise the players, perhaps it is more helpful to look at the outcome and ask who benefits.
-
@Remittancegirl every day I silently thank all the americans who did not vote for Kamala Harris. Their actions two years ago is what brought us all here, and we should be thankful and proud of what they did to us. /s
@unkx
I want you to notice that you have posted a statement that cannot be replied to with any coherence. -
In essence, Trump's rise and enablement has been an incremental destruction of the hegemonic liberal western geopolitical order.
If I had been a Stalinist operative looking to destroy it, this would be a very successful outcome.
This is, in every way, what consecutive heads of the USSR and Mao would have dreamed of - this kind of collapse.
@Remittancegirl I have a half-baked theory about this. But I'm just a rando, so feel free to disregard.
It makes sense of quite a lof of what is going on, which is both good (it has explanatory power) and bad (maybe it has too much explanatory power).
My theory in sum is that what we might call, for lack of a much more precise and lengthy characterisation, the US foreign policy elites, have an essential disagreement between two factions I'll called optimist and pesimist.
Optimists are the people who were in charge pre-Trump. They are liberals, in the technical sense of upholding free markets and so on, and believe their own propaganda. They're the sort of people who think Fukuyama was right and which believe capitalism is more efficient and soft power matters. Who think GDP measures power, financialisation has no negative sides, and industrial production is something that can be done elsewhere and paid for. Who regard China as abnormal, and on a permanent edge of crisis, and consider it will inevitably adopt more capitalist forms because it will otherwise run into a dead end. Optimists trust the US's ability to ultimately outcompete its rivals and regard persuasion and diplomacy as key tools.
The pessimists have similar terminal values (US hegemony, private property) but aren't convinced that there's anything more efficient or automatically victorious about them. They see China as an existential threat to the model, and aren't invested in upholding rules if that means they might lose. They also see the present moment of US power as historically unique, a peak, and so they see its current allies as resource bases to be extracted from, and its military as a tool to create facts on the ground that cannot later be reverted. Under this frame, US power is fragile and temporary, so it makes sense to use it now before it's lost.
This makes sense of very strange things, like the urgency to intervene in Venezuela, the concern with Panama, Canada, Iceland, Greenland, and the otherwise inexplicable support for the war in Iran. The way I see it, this is the pessimist faction gaining the upper hand and deciding having a big and scary military is no advantage if you never do anything with it, and since the hegemonic status is ultimately temporary, this is the time to act.
-
I'm not ruling out contingency, of course. There were always the seeds of its own diminution nestled in the belly of the structure of the US. The UN never had any teeth because of the structure of vetos. The EU's unanimity provision was always problematic. Nato's overdependance on a single state has a built-in fragility.
All I'm saying is... instead of trying to psychologise the players, perhaps it is more helpful to look at the outcome and ask who benefits.
The only coherent answer I can come up with is that the super-rich, with their ability to inure themselves to the agony on the ground of a radically shifting landscape, do benefit.
-
@Remittancegirl I have a half-baked theory about this. But I'm just a rando, so feel free to disregard.
It makes sense of quite a lof of what is going on, which is both good (it has explanatory power) and bad (maybe it has too much explanatory power).
My theory in sum is that what we might call, for lack of a much more precise and lengthy characterisation, the US foreign policy elites, have an essential disagreement between two factions I'll called optimist and pesimist.
Optimists are the people who were in charge pre-Trump. They are liberals, in the technical sense of upholding free markets and so on, and believe their own propaganda. They're the sort of people who think Fukuyama was right and which believe capitalism is more efficient and soft power matters. Who think GDP measures power, financialisation has no negative sides, and industrial production is something that can be done elsewhere and paid for. Who regard China as abnormal, and on a permanent edge of crisis, and consider it will inevitably adopt more capitalist forms because it will otherwise run into a dead end. Optimists trust the US's ability to ultimately outcompete its rivals and regard persuasion and diplomacy as key tools.
The pessimists have similar terminal values (US hegemony, private property) but aren't convinced that there's anything more efficient or automatically victorious about them. They see China as an existential threat to the model, and aren't invested in upholding rules if that means they might lose. They also see the present moment of US power as historically unique, a peak, and so they see its current allies as resource bases to be extracted from, and its military as a tool to create facts on the ground that cannot later be reverted. Under this frame, US power is fragile and temporary, so it makes sense to use it now before it's lost.
This makes sense of very strange things, like the urgency to intervene in Venezuela, the concern with Panama, Canada, Iceland, Greenland, and the otherwise inexplicable support for the war in Iran. The way I see it, this is the pessimist faction gaining the upper hand and deciding having a big and scary military is no advantage if you never do anything with it, and since the hegemonic status is ultimately temporary, this is the time to act.
@modulux I'd never disregard this. It's not half-baked at all. It's a very coherent way of framing it.
-
I'm not ruling out contingency, of course. There were always the seeds of its own diminution nestled in the belly of the structure of the US. The UN never had any teeth because of the structure of vetos. The EU's unanimity provision was always problematic. Nato's overdependance on a single state has a built-in fragility.
All I'm saying is... instead of trying to psychologise the players, perhaps it is more helpful to look at the outcome and ask who benefits.
@Remittancegirl It's also worth considering why people voted for this stuff, notwithstanding that nobody asked for these specific outcomes...
The west seems to have trouble coming to terms with its own exploitativeness. We don't want other regions and developing economies to succeed, because we expect them to screw us over. Even on the environmentalist left we worry that the economic expansion yet to come will worsen the environmental crisis. We're riding a monster we can't get off. -
RE: https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/117453794779199297
The insanity of this is that Trump is funding a country who is supplying armaments to Iran, who the US is at war with.
This is such a perfect illustration of the obscene veil of geopolitical nonsense when it's pulled back.
There are men who want to cling onto power. They will do anything, fund anyone, kill any number of civilians, ruin any number of healthy economies.... just to hang onto their own personal power a few minutes longer.
@Remittancegirl Oh, he'll happily kill an indefinite number of US service members too. They've already signed away their rights, so are cheaper.
-
@Remittancegirl It's also worth considering why people voted for this stuff, notwithstanding that nobody asked for these specific outcomes...
The west seems to have trouble coming to terms with its own exploitativeness. We don't want other regions and developing economies to succeed, because we expect them to screw us over. Even on the environmentalist left we worry that the economic expansion yet to come will worsen the environmental crisis. We're riding a monster we can't get off.@kbm0 You know, I used to think it was worth considering, but I'm starting to feel it isn't.
A majority of people are short-sighted, weak and petulant. Which makes them easily manipulable and prone to gestures linked to identity rather than communality.
I'm not for a moment suggesting people don't have absolutely legitimate grievances. But they always have. Regular people have always been instrumentalised by those in power, with more or less misery attached.
-
@Remittancegirl @jaypeach53 When’s he divorcing Melania so he can marry a horse he’s just made Secretary of State.
@spanghero @Remittancegirl @jaypeach53
Are you trying to Incitatus a riot?
-
@unkx
I want you to notice that you have posted a statement that cannot be replied to with any coherence.@Remittancegirl yeah i added the sarcasm tag there for a reason.
However it does not change the fact that trump is in power because enough people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris, thereby ensuring that trump won, which resulted in the world now being a much less safe and enjoyable place for billions of people who had no say in the matter.
-
@spanghero @Remittancegirl @jaypeach53
Are you trying to Incitatus a riot?
-
@Remittancegirl yeah i added the sarcasm tag there for a reason.
However it does not change the fact that trump is in power because enough people decided not to vote for Kamala Harris, thereby ensuring that trump won, which resulted in the world now being a much less safe and enjoyable place for billions of people who had no say in the matter.
@unkx I know. It was just framed in a way that had no response. And while sarcasm can feel good, it really isn't terribly easy to engage with. I like your restatement far better. It's undeniably true.
-
RE: https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/117453794779199297
The insanity of this is that Trump is funding a country who is supplying armaments to Iran, who the US is at war with.
This is such a perfect illustration of the obscene veil of geopolitical nonsense when it's pulled back.
There are men who want to cling onto power. They will do anything, fund anyone, kill any number of civilians, ruin any number of healthy economies.... just to hang onto their own personal power a few minutes longer.
@Remittancegirl Of course that's not what executive orders are for.
-
@Remittancegirl The reason I think there’s kompromat is that he usually appears to respond to the last person he speaks to but in this instance it’s Russia all the way, regardless. In terms of the kompromat I don’t think it’s as salacious as some believe. I think it’ll be dubious and illegal financial deals over the decades.
Edit: which of course, doesn’t exclude manipulation of his ego.@spanghero @Remittancegirl
I *suspect* that Israel also has the компромат (or similar).An organisation like Epstein's would be an absolute MAGNET for infiltration by Mossad. And the KGB. (And La Deuxième, and MI6 too, no blushes here.)
And if you found The Opposition's cameras while installing yours, you do NOT alert them, just work around it.Multiple people have Trump's underage snuff movie.
(And there's no reason a stooge like Epstein would have been told. Why would you?) -
@Remittancegirl Of course that's not what executive orders are for.
@ariaflame Apparently executive orders are whatever the president of the US deems them to be.
If the Dems take back control of the House and the Senate, they should ammend the constitution to codify this. But they won't. I fear they will just go back to pretending things are normal.
-
@kbm0 You know, I used to think it was worth considering, but I'm starting to feel it isn't.
A majority of people are short-sighted, weak and petulant. Which makes them easily manipulable and prone to gestures linked to identity rather than communality.
I'm not for a moment suggesting people don't have absolutely legitimate grievances. But they always have. Regular people have always been instrumentalised by those in power, with more or less misery attached.
@Remittancegirl Yeah I sort of agree, but I try not to get too inevitablist about it. If the problem is both the people (too weak and petulant) and the "leaders" (too manipulative) then it's hard to know where to start.
In the UK at least, I do think there has been a slow shift away from an (albeit conservative) civic-mindedness, towards a more consumerist attitude.
