D Benton Smith
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A Clear (and possibly fortunate) Case Of Mistaken Identity
I share your nonplussed discombobulation. Commentator @OldAndTired read my inspired and inspirational world class geopolitical analysis, recognized it’s genius immediately, and naturally ascribed authorship to the equally brilliant, Boscohorowitz. An easy and natural error to make. I was certainly not offended.
On the other hand, maybe his opinion of my comment was that he had never read anything so dumb in his entire life, in which case I am simply grateful that he pinned the blame on you.
What you said bears repeating, “Frontal attacks on the “all powerful” is foolish.
“We” are working to rule so that we can survive to continue another day.
flourishing – Underground, cash transactions, trading, black markets”Exactly right, in my opinion. Spot on.
@DocRobinson
I think you are right, and I will try to reform, but don’t expect me to get better all at once.
The Powers That Be have openly declared that they have the power to take away ALL of the power of the people who constitute their respective countries. In response to that proclamation the people of those respective countries have replied, “WHAT power are you thinking about in particular? The only power that you have as the government is the directed power of us, the people of the country. That’s all the power that there is. There isn’t any other source of material power, so if WE the people do NOT have the power to live, or eat, or stay warm, or make and sell things, then where is all your ‘Official’ governmental ‘Power’ going to come from, exactly?”
In other words, the “All Powerful” elite leadership of a SHITHOLE, is as “powerful” as a hole full of shit…… please pardon my French.
Reality has come knockin’ for the late great Western Empire . . . . . and quite possibly most of the depraved lunatic Cabal that’s been running it into the ground.
Things could get real salty during the transition, or maybe not, but one thing is for damned sure EITHER way : The “West” is OVER for a long time to come, and will not be coming back at scale anytime soon either.
The roles have been reversed in this fading Age of Empires, The West is no longer the center, and all those who covet power will gravitate to the new center (wherever that settles out to be) to remain players in the Great Game. Most will very quickly forget that the sun used to rise and set in Brussels, London, and NY/DC. They will forget because it doesn’t matter, and there will be REAL present-time things that DO matter, so that’s where their time, attention and treasure will go. They will be too busy at that to giver their old stomping ground much notice, except as a colony to be exploited.
The game now for PEOPLE is to protect our interests against the new Centers of Power. And the word “our” does not apply to the former U.S. government. Screw the old government. They are EVAPORATING faster than the mind can follow. I’m talking about us, the people.
We’re faced with the likelihood of becoming a rustic outpost of easily ripped off local yokels if we don’t keep our eyes open stick up for our rights.The basic position (pro or con) that people take in the Russian war-zone referendums is an excellent barometer of where those same people stand on all of the other existentially “hot” topics swirling around all over the place.. That’s kinda interesting, dontcha think?
If your sense of humor is as dark as mine then you will see how amusingly funny it is that all of these people ferociously demanding the democracy and free speech that they think are being denied to them, are living smack in the middle of total democracy and absolutely free speech. By the way, such a free speech democracy would have to be one in which EVERYONE (no exceptions!) has a say and can say any damned thing they want . . . which INCLUDES free speech and a democratic “vote” for the guys who want total authoritarian dictatorship and absolute censorship of all wrongthink.
You asked for freedom of speech and deed?
Well, there your have it. Any complaints?
@TonySmyth
Well, I must say that your commentary on my commentary put me in the extremely peculiar position of disagreeing with your conclusion by agreeing with almost everything you said.
I think the only significant difference between your comment and my comment has to do with what I consider “conquering” to mean, and what you think I meant.
What I meant is NOT that Russia is going to march roughshod across Europe laying waste and raising a flag of New Empire. I do not see Russia in those terms at all. I APPROVE of what Putin is doing (for the most part) under extremely challenging circumstances, and I AGREE with the factual points you raised in your comment.
What I had meant to say (and apparently did not succeed in saying well enough) is that the Russian Federation is poised to emerge victorious from the current conflict, will thereby escape from the hegemonic deviltry of the so-called “Collective West” ( US, UK, NATO, WEF, WHO, Big Tech, Big Pharma, etc. , etc., etc.), and will then participate with other free and sovereign nations in a much improved World Order that is considerably better than the old dying one.
It is a severely flawed strategy to become existentially dependent upon things that are controlled by one’s enemies, because those enemies will of course use that dependency as a means of control.
One way to defend against this is to make the enemy totally dependent upon something that YOU control and which THEY need. This usually backfires if the enemy decides to just steal it from you with force of arms.
The better way is to simply NOT become dependent. This typically results in a more rustic lifestyle (e.g. wood heat , book-reading-instead-of-internet, home grown food, etc.) but that sure beats starvation, vaccinicide, or being herded off to the crematoriums in cattle cars.
The absurdity has become so extreme that it’s nearly impossible to make up jokes about it because the plain facts are funnier than anything you could make up. For instance, the EU has decided to “punish” Russia with a sanction that prevents Russia from selling toilet paper to Europe (where all the toilet paper comes from China, using Russian wood pulp).
Europe shakes a fistful of of rather odorously soiled rags and tree leaves defiantly towards Russia and yells, ” We’ll show you! We’re going to stop wiping our butts until you buckle under and surrender!”
@VeraciousPoet
Does being abusive towards me make it easier on you? I think the estimate you expressed about my viewpoint is way off the mark, but it’s your mind, so its alright with me for you to think what you want.
I am repeatedly re-amazed at how the so-called “Masterminds” of the Cabal are capable of pulling off such absolutely BRILLIANT ways to do the most incredibly stupid things. I mean the intricacy and coordination of “moving parts” is just awe inspiring. And the sheer idiocy of their objective is just as impressively moronic beyond comprehension.
Take the Nordstream sabotage, for example. Years in the planning. Incalculable covert and clandestine machinations necessary to pull it off at the moment it was planned (many years ago) to be pulled off.
And yet, what does the sabotage of Nordstream actually accomplish other than the deaths of millions of Europeans this winter?
Well, here’s ONE other thing it accomplished. It removed the last lever of influence that the collective West could bring to bear to persuade Russia to stop conquering. There is now ZERO reasons for Russia to do anything else other than continue conquering. (first Ukraine, then Europe, and almost immediately thereafter the US and UK). After Ukraine falls there will not even be very much need for employing extreme violence. Why spend good money and priceless lives to destroy the West, when the Collective West is destroying itself all on its own. I don’t mean that facetiously or as a throw-way comedy line. I mean it literally and pragmatically.
The Russians are very good at war because they know that’s what war is. They will diligently attempt to use only the precisely sufficient amount of violence that is deemed necessary to achieve the objective.
So that’s what’s going to happen. Well done, Cabal. Brilliantly stupid.
Annihilation is what they wanted and annihilation is what they’re going to get . . . but not annihilation of us (as they plan) but instead annihilation of themselves, by their own hand. Maybe that’s what they really wanted all along.
The big fear seems to be that this “World War 1; The Final Years” (WW1TFY) could quite possibly knock humankind back into the Stone Age. Hmmm. Yeah, I suppose that’s a remote but possible possibility.
But from what I’ve gathered from the historical and archeological record (not to even mention what I’ve pieced together from my own two eyes and life experience) humankind lived through the Stone Age just fine. It then went on to thrive and conquer the planet.
So, not to worry. Just keep yourself and loved ones alive as best you can and everything is going to be alright, overall, in the long run, if we’re lucky.
@Red asked, “How about WW1TFY, world war one the final years.”
That works. A Trilogy, like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.
In the game of playing both sides against the middle the two sides fighting and suffering devastating losses is not bad news. It’s business as usual.
Will we wake up in time to suss out the folks who make that their business?
The Cabal, gentle reader, the Cabal.
@JohnDay “The Nordstream pipelines are shut down.”
I concluded from the kilometer wide column of bubbles in the Baltic (which I stupidly called the North Sea in my previous comments) evidenced that Russia’s pumps were still running. I believe those pumps must keep running, despite the leak, in order to prevent pipeline collapse at the extreme depths where pipeline runs. I know that line pressure maintenance is high tech and quite complicated, and thereby WAY above my grade level, BUT, there IS a lot of gas leaking into the Baltic, and those bubbles DO belong to Russia, and that no one is paying for those bubbles except Russia, and that Russia losing money is high on the list of US/NATO/WEF/Cabal goals.
We will soon see who dunnit, and I for one am VERY interested because it really really is a very very big deal at this stage of the WW3 that the Cabal seems so intent upon.
Incidentally, now that we’re on the topic of nomenclature, do you find (as I do) that calling it WW3 shows a distinct paucity of creative imagination and branding skills?
I think we should jazz it up a little, especially since this is gonna be the last time for a LONG time that humankind will be able to muster up enough energy to do war on a global basis. Let’s show a little panache!
Lets call it Word War Last or something like that.
@JohnDay regarding speculation on who blew up Nordstream
I just encountered this from somewhere out on the Interwebs from a dude with the avatar handle of “Feldwebel Schultz” (cool handle, like Field Marshall, only sillier)
“Feldwebel Schultz • 39 minutes ago
I doubt it was the Russians as they control the tap.
I doubt it was the EU as they need the gas.
I doubt it was Ukraine, as they have their own problems.
I wouldn’t put it past the US to do this.”The Feldwebel’s thoughts do have the twin virtues of simplicity and coherence. Sounds plausible to me.
@JohnDay
Cui bono, and look at the strategic locations of the blasts, and ask why in all three locations the result was a massive but sustainable leak (VERY precise demolition required, difficult to accomplish ) rather than complete destruction of the whole pipe (relatively easy, just use a BIG explosive. Overkill it.) The sabotage did NOT stop or slow current delivery. How is Germany being attacked if current demand is being fully met ? (which it is.) German orders are being filled. Germany has always and still does have the ability to buy all the gas it wants. Hell, the valves are even ON German soil. All they have to do is place the order and pay in rubles.
NATO’s precisely limited sabotage damage to Nordstream is diabolically brilliant in one sense, and suidal (as usual) in another sense.
Here’s the brilliant part: Russia has made one hell of a lot of profit FULFILLING CONTRACTS to deliver gas to Europe through Nordstream. The only gas they get paid for, however, is the gas that actually gets delivered. They don’t get paid for any billions of cubic feet that “accidentally” get pumped out into the North Sea.
Because the pipeline is merely damaged, not utterly destroyed, it can still deliver the contracted amount of gas, regardless of the leak, just so long as Russia keeps the pumps running . . . which, by law, they are obliged to do. Of course by keeping the pumps running they are also pumping uumpty uump millions of cubic feet of their valuable natural gas into the north sea, for no return payment.
Thus, NATO pulled off a piece of brilliant economic hardball warfare. Economically speaking in the short term. Russia is being kicked hard in the crotch by that fabulously costly Nordtream leak. Financially speaking it’s like a hemorrhage of the coronary artery.
Yeah, well, so much for the “brilliant” part. Now for the drooling-on-shoes stupidity.
NATO has literally bet the farm that Russia will yield and comply with all of NATO’s demands that Russia be dismantled and removed from the world stage. That IS what the collective West is demanding. It is demanding sovereignty OVER Russia. BUT it has , by sabotaging Nordstream, removed any reason that Russia might have previously had for surrendering.
If Russia bankrupts itself by keeping the Nordstream pumps running (feeding Europe AND feeding the leak) then it is tantamount to surrender. Russia will bankrupt and the Collective West will scoop it all up via the “probate court” of the Collective West’s financial system. If Russia no longer owns and commands the affairs of Russia, then Russia as a sovereign nation is no more. It might retain the place names on maps, like they do with old half forgotten empires, but it won’t be a sovereign state.
If surrendering equals 100% certainty of death as a nation, and fighting has a 50 % chance of victory, then choosing to fights is not a difficult choice for a currently sovereign nation to make. What’s the worst that could happen, “surrender”?
Talk about the ultimate no brainer. Of course they will fight, AND ( if you look at the game board with the cold eye of unflinching reason ) they are also going to WIN the fight. Knowing that they are going to win is yet another pretty damned good reason to choose fighting over surrendering. I mean , DUH!
One way they could win (and there are many ways) is that they can simply close the pipelines for repairs. This exempts them liability for failure to fulfill contracts (Force Majeure, ya know?) , and it does not cost them even one red ruble more than the current state of affairs is costing them. In fact, they actually SAVE money by saving the gas which (because they were saved) can then be sold at some time in the future for even MORE advantageous prices.
Thank you Mr. NATO, why bother to fight when we’ve enemies like you to do it for us?
It’s all over but the hospice. And be sure to sign up early for good seating at the burying .
What an excellent and concise analogy, and I would even extend it to include Person B enlisting the assistance the others (with appeals to their self-interests as motivational persuasion) to collaborate in enforcing their authoritarianism over person A. The foundation of authority is, after all, “ganging up” as the main means and method of acquiring power in order to win, which we see so pervasively in so-called “cancel culture”, dictatorships and empire.
But we also know, however, that the logical and psychological mechanisms of such authoritarian strategies always and only end in those systems eating their young and failing in horrible paroxysms of suicidally bizarre insanity.
“Nature’s” answer to these failures is, of course, evidenced in the observed inevitability of alterations of the strategy, such that a later “new and improved” version thrives more than the earlier version and either supplants or replaces it. Version 1.0 gives way to Version 1.001a , And so it goes. “Evolution” if you will.
The world (indeed the Universe) is what it is, and will only be incrementally different in each of it’s future iterations. So if there was centralized control by ruling elites yesterday then there will certainly be such things tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow . . . . and so on, too.
It looks repetitive and inevitable unless one stands back and notices that it is changing, and that the state of affairs tomorrow is NEVER the same as the state was yesterday, and that over the long haul (even a “long haul” as brief as the one on Earth) that there seems to be an ‘All Natural Ingredients’ world developing that is in some indefinable way actually better and more gratifying to individuals of all species than the more primitive versions.
The tooth and claw “law of the jungle” which is necessary to the continuance of organic life is unlikely to go away anytime soon (we fervently hope), but at the same time, and very much in addition to it, is the undeniable fact that there does distinctly seem to be a kind of progress which is running in the other direction, away from authoritarian elite hierarchy and toward spiritual (if you will) sovereignty and freedom.
Should that spiritual sovereignty ever be fully achieved it will be “Game Over”, of course, but I don’t think we have to worry about that happening any time soon either. And it would certainly be a less agonizing way to check out of this “Hotel California” than what the WEF has in mind.
I do believe there is a way out of this place that does not involve winding up as a line of digital code in some monstrous AI, or as a meal in the belly of a predator.
Perhaps a balance is possible, wherein we have the benefits of abstract reasoning and so-called “intelligence”, without literally identifying ourselves as BEING the tools that we are merely USING.
That’s the direction which interests me.
@MichaelReid
@MichaelReid
Thank you for clarifying the puzzle for me. I think I get it, and (if I am getting it right) it also seems we’re in close enough accord on the main issue (monarchy being intrinsically flawed) that muskets can be lowered.
Incidentally, you also asked, “What is a man to make of it if he does not believe in god?”
My answer is that belief in god is not a prerequisite to finding God, so long as you just keep asking the right questions and insisting on true answers. Prejudicially ruling out the possibility, such that it is dismissed before fair and full inspection would close the door of course, but otherwise you might be on your way to God and not even know it until some future moment of enlightenment. Who knows?
For myself, I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of the existence of existence, but even if I were not yet convinced of that, the way I approached life’s problems guaranteed that the conclusion was inevitable: an informed and unequivocal awareness of the existence of divinity. I could prove it to anyone willing to listen . . . . but that’s a heap of listening and an even bigger heap of willingness than I have any right to expect of anyone and so I expect it of no one.
Getting back to those ancient Kings claiming a reserved seat in God’s line-up and a hot line to God’s ear. Well of course they would say something like that. They’d say anything if it kept the peasants in line and the coffers filled. I wouldn’t believe a word they said. I would not believe it was Tuesday, on Tuesday, if it were a King who told me so.
@MichaelReid “You lost me right there.”
I’m unclear on why or how I lost you.
To recap the event and my proposed explanation. The event that happened is the first slow and now rapid dissolution of the wealth and power of the British Crown monarchical system, and the explanation is that monarchy is an intrinsically flawed concept which always fails because authoritarianism is based on misconception that monarchy makes logical sense (it does not, even though monarchs claim that it does.
Your comment continued with, “Just because things are, why does that require there be an explanation? Explanation that is the truth? Can the explanation change with each occurrence?
What do you think the probably [probability] of the explanation being the truth actually is?
I don’t think this knowledge is required to live a beautiful life.”I fully agree that this knowledge is not required to live a beautiful life, but I do not see the connection between that statement and what I posted about the reasons for the ongoing ‘centuries-in-the-process’ collapse of Monarchy throughout the world.
I would be happy to discus it, but first I would need to better understand your objections.
I think that the entry point for debate about censorship of free speech should not revolve around whether censorship is good or not. It should first be a discussion addressing the question of whether it is censorship or not.
@DrD
That treatise was not just masterfully logical (and scientifically true) but entertaining and soul satisfying into the bargain. No wonder they call you the Doctor.
What is playing out on the grand stage of Earth is nothing less than the final death throes of of the institution of Monarchy as an accepted (or acceptable) means of ordering the affairs of human beings. Perhaps it is even the first highly visible stage of the end of hierarchy itself (let’s hope so) but that would be in a distant future. Today we are observing (and participating in) the inevitable self-immolation of Kings and Emperors. Thank God. And I do not say that facetiously. We literally have God to thank.
Here is my evidence.
Definitions: (from the Oxford Dictionary)
noun: evidence
1)The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Etymology : Middle English: via Old French from Latin evidentia, from Latin evident- ‘obvious to the eye or mind’, seen.To the dictionary definition I will add my own observation and comment.
2) There are certain “First Principles” of this Universe, which require no further evidence of their truthful factuality other than their existence. Primary of these is that there is existence, itself. There are other First Principles as well, whose factuality cannot be challenged without negating the reality of the challenger. For example, the claim that you, or me, or someone else is “aware”. That claim requires no further evidence, and yet is literally impossible to logically dismiss. In fact, the word “evidence” itself falls into that same First Principles category. It literally means “that which can be seen”, but seen by whom? Seen by a sentient entity that is aware that it is seeing, that’s who. And that’s that.There are two ways that this subject must be addressed. The first is a specific and broadly observed event that is undeniably transpiring in full view of billions of people who all concur that something distinct and important is taking place. This approach is very “current events news” and mundane in its nature.
The second approach is a generalized explanation of that event in terms of First Principles, so that all can see that the specific event is mere evidence, of the more important First Principle which resulted in the event happening in the first place. This approach is quite Logical, Scientific, Philosophical and Spiritual in nature. It’s not weird in the least but it is quite foreign territory for most people (who prefer mundane) , so people are prone to skipping that part.
This time, don’t skip that part, but don’t worry! The philosophizen’ part is VERY short and VERY painless. You’ll get through it.
Now down to business.
Legal claim (literally provable in Courts of Law) to just slightly less than half of ownable things in the world are “owned” by Monarchs (or by their myriad witting and unwitting vassals) whose justification is nothing more than the Monarch’s claim of ownership in the first place. There is no other basis to that claim than the claimants mental and physical ability to defend that claim, so to accomplish this huge feat of defending such a huge claim Kings gather around them various persons to help acquire and then defend their assertion, by force of arms if necessary, which is ALWAYS necessary because earnest and legitimate counter-claims arise from those who must DEFEND THEMSELVES from the King’s crime of thievery.
Fundamentally, Monarchical claims are only as “valid” as they can be successfully defended by intellect, wealth and force of arms. When the Monarch can no longer successfully defend the claim of ownership then the claim has no meaning. In a sense it is “voided” by the simple REALITY of folks taking their stuff back when the Monarch is no longer able to stop them. Like Russia just took back Crimea and Ukraine. Like China is taking back Taiwan, and how Italy just told that Imperial Prussian Junker von der Leyen that Italy belongs to Italy and does NOT belong to her Nazified “Union”.
Legally speaking this causes a real mess, because within all monarchy based systems ALL validity under the law depends for it’s judicially decisive force upon the keystone notion that the Monarchy’s claim of ownership and control is valid. If that claim is not valid then all claims that depend upon his claim are not valid either. And that fact extends all the way down to the shoe-shine boy who owns a brush! “If he is not a King who owns the kingdom, then that other guy is not a Duke who owns the duchy, and so on down the line.”
To be very VERY specific, the British Crown directly (and it’s vassal monarchic system) claims ownership (in an extremely messy but entirely provable legal way) to something like a fourth to a third of everything that can be owned. A different way of saying that would be that the “legal” claims of ownership of nearly half of everything are in one way or another DEPENDANT upon the validity of the English Crown’s CLAIM of monarchical authority.
That claim has always and only been the British Monarchy’s ability to defend that claim against counterclaims, by force of arms if necessary, which it has resorted to every single day since it came into being. Well, folks, it is obviously and measurably LOSING ITS ABILITY TO DEFEND ITS CLAIM.
In other words its assertion that “The Crown” owns a bunch of places and things, is being PROVEN falser and falser with every day that passes. Soon it will be proved ENTIRELY false, and all claims based on THAT claim will become unenforceable malarkey right along with it. When grandeur is demonstrated in reality to be delusory, then folks who still believe it are said to have “delusions of grandeur” , which is symptomatic of serious mental illness.
If you can cold bloodedly contemplate the ramifications around the TANGIBLE fact that the British Crown and Empire are losing their power, wealth, holdings (and grip!) you will see that the entire Western Empire is inextricably dependent in almost every legal, financial and physical way, upon that SPECIFIC ‘now-demonstrated-as-false’ claim of Monarchical sovereignty over half of the Earth and all who walk upon it. Arguments over true ownership and who’s the boss are currently, and will continue indefinitely, to increase hyper-ballistically at an accelerating rate until the readjustment of sovereign power has run its course. And the end state will NOT be a monarchy.
Hell is out for breakfast, and it’s a feast.
Oh, yeah, the philosophy stuff, right? Well I told you it would be short and painless, so here it is:
It is not possible, in reality, for a free will to impose itself upon the free will of another against that other’s free will, so the very idea of a national or imperial monarch (other than God himself) is just ludicrous nonsense, and therefore never stands for long.
@Oroboros about that shoulder to shoulder phalanx of “immigrants” marching toward Edirne, Turkey.
I suppose it’s a purely rhetorical question to ask who’s providing the enormous logistical support for such an operation. Food, water, sanitation, transport, sleeping accommodations and coordination are on the scale of moving armies. I don’t suppose Soros or WEF are writing any checks?
@upstateNYer asked quizzically, “Point is, what’s the point to the debate?”
That’s a really good question, and the answer is that by initiating a debate about whose fault it is (“Did human activity cause the Climate Change Crisis?”) just skips merrily right over a number of crucial questions that now won’t be asked.
I would compare it to discussing gallows construction and rope strength estimates being done before any capital crimes have been committed. Looks like someone wants a hanging and has gone looking for plausible excuses for having one.
I am completely indifferent to whether or not someone is a troll, a fool or an outright moron. They are whatever they are. Perhaps they are saints and geniuses and it is me who is the idiot.
What matters to me is that they are HERE, and that they are COMMUNICATING (in a manner of speaking). Well, alight then! We’re all here. Let’s communicate for as long as participants are willing to.
But I would very strongly suggest that manners, respect and less emotional sensitivity to disagreement has a LOT to do with how long the willingness to be here (and/or communicate) will last, and whether or not it remains a worthy thing to do.
Late yesterday you posted a comment [ #116768 ] that began with the sentence, “We can always tell when fuckwits have lost arguments: they resort to insults:”
Oh my goodness, AFKTT, do you not see that your sentence BEGINS with you throwing an insult, calling unnamed persons “fuckwits”?
I’m not having a go at you personally, I’m having a go at the logics process you’re using.
If what you say is true, in other words IF “We can always tell when fuckwits have lost arguments: they resort to insults”, AND the assignation of “fuckwits” is an insult, THEN that would make you a fuckwit.
I repeat, I am NOT saying this with any rancor towards you personally. I simply draw your attention to the contradiction and ask that you show appropriate respect to the others of us here on TAE who communicate that they do not agree with something you wrote.
@AlexanderCarpenter
That’s an impressive and useful bullet list. Thank you for doing all that direct observational research and taking the time & effort to write it all down. You’re obviously not scared of a little hard work. I will be investing quite a bit of time now, studyin’ on it.
EU Prez Ursula von der Leyen’s unveiled threat against Italy’s election of self-determined nationalist government is actually quite a bit bigger deal than is being acknowledged.
It’s pretty much a stake the heart for the vampiric New World Order. Italy is a big country and a big economy (with a warmer winter climate !!) and it just told it’s unelected “Prussian Imperial Junker Gang Boss” von der Leyen to either piss up a rope or go fuck herself, her choice.
And it’s playing out across the headlines of mainstream media, right out in full public view. Oh, my!
In other words, just as much of the illusory “Ukraine” is now Russia, Europe is now just the gaggle of poor little nations once again, and is simply NOT a powerful European “union” in any way but lip service.
V
All the land currently controlled by Russian ally troops (and a good deal more real soon now) are de facto Russia now. The vote, the Western wailing in the press, world opinion, my opinion, your opinion . . . . . none of those things makes one scintilla of difference because the fact is that they are Russia now, and that’s that.
In a year or two no one outside of the region will care enough about what existed before that fact became a fact to even bother thinking about it, because it’s just another fact and they will have newer, bigger ad more important fish to fry.
It’s Russia now. Just like it has been for a thousand years or so. Time to move on to today and tomorrow’s business.
@ArmenioPereira Opined that, “None of these answers is reassuring; regardless, the first one is more aesthetically appealing, IMHO.”
And trends less painful in the long run.
@boscohorowitz publicly confessed (or was that a brag?) that, “One thing I can say, however, is that a “man” “good” enough for my purposes wouldn’t blink an eye at my remark. The person I would deem “good enough” wouldn’t much care what I thought of him or others, knowing that it takes all kinds and that a consensus definition of what a “good man” is fails upon close definition . . .”
Aw, Jeez, Bosco. Just about the time I accept that you really are for, all practical purposes, irredeemable you go and say something that makes me fall in love with you all over again.
@AlexanderCarpenter regarding your call for thoughts and comments about your work-in-progress titled Epistemological Engineering
First of all, I think that it is very good work. If you just continue in similar vein with similar rigor I believe you’ll achieve an excellent product that others (especially engineers) will benefit from.
In critique, however, I saw three small but important items that probably should be addressed in order to avoid significant predictable missteps.
The first is that although the work references epistemology it does not specifically address epistemology in its process or findings. “Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues” (quoted from Wikipedia . . . my apologies).
To address engineering (or any other subject ) epistemologically is setting the bar pretty high. I would never discourage anyone from attempting such a heroic feat, but if they do choose to attempt to connect the vast field of epistemology to the study of some lesser field (like engineering) then the burden of proof is upon the guy who makes the claim. I other words, the claimant is obligated to show the “epistemological” aspect of the engineering (or other) points that are being made.
The second potential pitfall is contained in the unchallenged acceptance of what you called “The epistemological razor” [ i.e. “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. And its inverse corollary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”]
It is unfortunately the case however that neither of those two assertions, comprising the razor, are true. Indeed, they can be easily challenged and arguably proven to be untrue (in the lingo one would say that they are easily falsified.)
For example, the statement that “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” is not true. Descartes did a pretty good job (and famously concise) on that one when he asserted “I think, therefore I am.” He asserts it without evidence, and yet the assertion cannot be dismissed. It is simply irrefutably true and has stood as true since he said. Thats the way it tends to be with “First Principles” kinds of axiomatic facts.
Further, the assertion that “ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is great for public speaking engagements, but has little other use. The oratorical line rolls off the tongue like a 50 caliber argument , but it too, is simply not true. The word “extraordinary” is the culprit on this one. Adding that modifier is superfluous and misleading. A claim is simply a claim. To call a claim extraordinary is to interject a prejudicial (and anthropomorphized) value judgment about the claim BEFORE the claim has yet been evaluated. That’s bass-ackwards, in the logical sense, and the same applies when it’s attached to the word “evidence”. Evidence cannot be extraordinary. Evidence is only evidence. It can be true evidence, false evidence or irrelevant evidence, but it cannot be extraordinary evidence. In fact, the only extraordinary thing about evidence is its rarity.
So basically there isn’t any razor. There is only the simple statement that “Claims require evidence”. I’m good with that, but I’m also compelled to note that under certain circumstances the evidence presented might be one of those darned “First Principles”, which require no further evidence other than their existence. For example, the claim that you, or me, or someone else is “aware”. That claim requires no further evidence, and yet is literally impossible to logically dismiss. In fact, the word “evidence” itself falls into that same First Principles category. It literally means “that which can be seen”, but seen by whom? Seen by a sentient entity that is aware that it is seeing. And that’s that.
Europe’s reluctance and “foot-dragging-style” refusal to give visas and safe passage to young Russians fleeing the draft will prove to be the worst mistake they’ve made since attacking peaceful business partner Russia (by means of “Ukraine”) in the first place, and then destroying their own lives and economy by shutting off their own access to Russia’s gas and oil and lobbing artillery shells into Donbass grade schools.
Soon the ghastly enormity of that incredibly homicidal evil will sink in. By refusing to let those young men leave Russia Europe forces those young men (de facto) to soon become soldiers whose new job will be to defend Russia by killing Europeans.
“Oh, no,” Europe is saying. “You can’t come in to Europe to escape being drafted into an anti-Europe army. You must stay where you are until you are drafted and sent back here to kill our sons, wives and children.”
How crazy is that?
I think it is crazy enough to make a LOT of people start wondering the same thing. They might even start asking WHO the fuck would be crazy enough to insist that another country come in to conquer them, and WHY would they do it.
@zerosum wishfully lamented, ” It’s too bad that those in power don’t read TAE and make different decisions.”
The evidence very strongly suggests that they do (read TAE, I mean, and other sites like it . . . . although few . . . . which I say with saint like humility . . . .are as good as we are, .) , and it also suggests that what they read in places like this scares the living shit out of them, and that fear of the truths we (and others like us) speak is what motivates those elite authoritarians to do the things they do in an effort to squelch such terrifying truths.
In other words (and I quote) “It’s too bad that those in power don’t read TAE and make different decisions. ” Reminds me of the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.”
But fear not! In this case getting what we wished for is a good thing (albeit it a bit scary) so please keep at it.
