The Current World Peace Paradox

It’d be so much simpler if conservatives did ‘peace through small government doves’ and liberals did ‘peace through big government hawks’. But modern ideologies are so messed up it seems that anything is possible. Maybe Trumps not-so-grand military parade, without the familiar tanks and missile carriers, will be a nice compromise?

It’d also be simpler if we just knew who the real bad guys were. They’re getting pretty good at hiding their real intentions.

The ones I knew personally (in my humble little life) always had tactics. Their strategy may have been to live and die by the seat of their tactics. IOW, who needs to think things through when the thrill of risk and chaos is so much more fun? Regular guys have a hard time relating because they need to be able to sleep well at night, something the bad guys seem to have no problem with.

Maybe Clinton and Obama were a step to the left of their kind. (no pun intended) Same personal needs but more in the way of cause-effect reasoning?

Anyways, the real intention is power. Just power. Talk of race, religion, culture, gender, survival… are tools for them, things for the rest of us humble folks to worry about.

Liberals and some Leftists are dupes willing to believe they can stand for universal rights and freedoms by supporting corrupt and collapsing liberal states whose core illiberalism is no longer deniable and so deep it suggests liberalism as an emancipatory project was a lie all along.

White supremacist, ethno-nationalist, and antisemitic populists manipulated by kleptocratic elites decided to sacrifice “world peace” for their survival decades ago. It’s just now they do it openly enough that many people have a harder time engaging in denial.

A US-Israeli cooperation with Russia to put the squeeze on central Asia against China while holding down the middle east in its death throes is a long-term survival strategy Europeans will come around to or find ways to accept while pretending to object. NATO has no value, certainly not to the US which does not benefit from protecting largely pro-Russian central and east European nationalists from Russia. A US strategic pivot is long overdue, where China’s critical access points to markets and resources can be squeezed from all points of the compass.

“In a weird twist of fate”

The left fanatically favors out-groups, so watching them push for a conflict that would most certainly get U.S. citizens killed (including themselves) isn’t weird. What is weird is mindset required to embrace out-groups at the expense of your own in-group. Its looks like empathy combined with defective prioritization.

At least I understand conservative in-group preference (us vs them is easy to grasp and in some ways sensible) but the mental gymnastics of the left baffle me.

“American liberals … see this form of peacemaking as … opening the door to a form of intolerant, relativist nationalism that pushes back on notions of universal rights and freedoms.”

If American liberals had even the most microscopic intention of applying these principles generally and consistently then we might have something to talk about. Since there is no evidence of this in either history or current events we can dismiss it.

“Liberals?” What are those? All I see is Democrats and if thats all it takes to qualify for the term, they I submit it is both redundant and deceptive. When discussing the political spectrum in the U.S., one must keep in mind that it covers the center-right to the fairly far right. There is no left beyond token, storefront operations like the Green Party.

A Joke: Russian in NYC runs into a cousin from the Old Country.
Cousin: How is the political system in this country working?
Russian: In this country they are having two parties. One party represents interests of oligarchs, plutocrats, and such like capitalists. Republicans are same but have also preachers.

Liberal as it is used today is a vague, amorphous term, little more than pooh flung at a wall. It is often and incorrectly associated with New Dealism. Modern liberalism/neoliberalism instead marks a return to Wilsonian liberalism of the early twentieth century. Wilsonian liberalism was elitist, paternalistic, rabidly anti-populist, pro-corporatist, and interventionist. It was marked by the Red Scare raids, attempts largely successful to crush social movements, the creation of the Fed, and the entrance into World War I. FDR was a quintessential liberal but he was flexible enough to introduce some socialist programs to ensure the survival of capitalism. Once that was accomplished he did not hesitate to embrace financial policies which thrust the economy back into Depression in 1936 at the point when the country had just come out of Depression and to keep it there until World War II definitively took the country out of Depression and into the World War.

The important thing to remember nowadays is that both what we now call liberals and conservatives are really slightly different faces of Wilsonian liberalism. Traditional conservatism: small government, isolationism, and states rights is dead and gone despite the occasional lip service to pieces and parts of it.

Bill Hicks:

“The liberals, particularly the Hillary dead enders, also seem to prefer being incinerated in a nuclear Holocaust to having Trump be president.”

It’s you guys’ lack of hyperbole that impresses me the most.

This thread has gone bonkers. When the President chosen by God turns out to be a controlled spy for a psychopathic ex-KGB agent as part of some kind of global power prank (and half the NRA has had sex with his spies in exchange for god knows what), what else can you do but invent nutball hyperbole about “liberals”?

@Mandos

Without any irony, thank you for making your positions unambiguously knowable.

So it is Putin who seizes Crimea, invades Eastern Ukraine and Northern Georgia via proxies, attacks the US election process and it is the US or liberals or whatever who is risking nuclear war? More examples how progressives don’t understand foreign affairs and should not be trusted on them.

“Sure you can. All liberatory movements, “virtue-signalling” or not, entail risks for the objects of said liberation. Failed rebellions have always involved serious consequences for often materially uninvolved members of the would-be liberated populations. You can definitely care about the well-being of the people whose lives you risk.”-Mandos

If it is a liberatory movement, what is the “freedom from” or “freedom to” being proposed by the left in our recent interactions with Russia?

The bar for determining whether or not someone “cares about the lives they risk” should be set high and measured by the amount of risk they themselves are willing to take.

Wow, S., check your meds. They say that wrapping yourself in the flag is the last resort of scoundrels, also the reality challenged apparently. Everything I wrote was factually correct. The line being peddled by some here is don’t look at what Russia does, just criticize the US and condemn the US if it reacts. And of course, invoke nuclear war as the result of any reaction. This is both stupid and incredibly unrealistic, but again illustrates the essential bankruptcy and dishonesty of so much progressive foreign policy thinking.

On the continuing confusion and political chaos…

The point has been made but needs constant repetition: there is no Left in the US political firmament. US politics and government is conducted entirely by rightist factions. Democrats are not leftists and never have been.

Hugh brought up Wilsonian Liberalism, but that didn’t spring fully-formed from Zeus’s brow so to speak. No, it was an (inevitable?) evolution from TR’s progressivism which itself was an evolution from the Republican reaction to the largely Democratic Populist Movement of the latter 19th Century — which itself was a reaction to… so on and so forth.

Throughout all of these political evolutions, the Left (expressed variously through anarchism, socialism, communism, and what I call communitarianism) was subverted and suppressed, sometimes quite violently, such that even labor organizations (so long as they survived at all) were expected/required to toe the anti-Leftist line.

Today there is no real Left in US politics or government. Any sign that one might arise or emerge is met with fierce resistance from the Rs and the Ds alike.

But there are contending rightist factions, one of which is slightly less bloody-fanged than the other. Neither has the best interests of the Lower Orders in mind, and neither is particularly concerned about the Fate of the Earth except to the extent that they protect and defend their own prerogatives and power.

The current state of affairs with Ds loudly defending the security state establishment and the Rs appearing to trash it, violate its “norms” and so forth, appears to be anomalous, but I submit it’s not. It’s purely a factional struggle over who controls the security apparat, not — at all — a question of whether there should be one. Nor is it a contest over war or not-war. Imperialism or not-Imperialism. Oligarchy or not. Etc.

That was all decided long ago, and none of that has particularly changed with the advent of the current chaotic rulership. What is in dispute is who shall be master and for whose benefit, that’s all.

Forgot how many suck-ass Libertarians there are on this site. The Koch Brothers are in control of the US and anyone with half a brain knows their plans. And anyone who agrees with them is a scumbag. I hope the US goes full commie just to make your heads explode.

Hugh-

Even if Russia seized Crimea- a debatable contention in itself- explain to me where vital US interest is served in risking war with Russia?
As far as Ukraine is concerned, the US has its fingerprints all over that mess.

https://www.thenation.com/article/have-20-years-of-nato-expansion-made-anyone-safer/

NATO: Europe was once the toughest hood on the planet, with all the worst wars. It can be argued that it’s been relatively peaceful since NATO. But practically anything can get to be too big, to be too much, to be taken over and used by the wrong elements. As with political correctness, it doesn’t mean the original intentions or outcomes were bad and the entire concept a fail. It means that with initial benefit and success some people wanted more, and then came the harm from excess and corruption.

(The author of this comment believes that every unchecked concentration of power will eventually be corrupted.)

I always hated that phrase “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Maybe it should be more like: “The road to hell was originally paved with good intentions, and headed in the right direction, until the bricks became made of lies.”

I think I understood the Cold War — the U.S. wanted private market capitalist economies everywhere and the Soviet Union wanted state capitalist managed economies everywhere. And given the way third world areas had been plundered under European capitalist colonies, the third world was now heavily attracted to the Soviet model (which, whatever its long-term outcomes, usually immediately improves the lives of the previously exploited). Capitalist elites were frightened that the commies would come take all their money.

I don’t understand this new hysteria. What do people think Russia’s interests are? In what way will anything Russia appears to be trying to do damage the U.S.? In the dysfunctional American election system, there was a candidate from each party. If true, why would it be a disaster if a foreign country supported one of the two candidates? I’d like an open, honest electoral system, but that applies to the Koch brothers as well as any foreign rich men. What am I missing other than “Them’s furriners” xenophobia?

Maybe it’s the longer term picture. Think of the potential for long term damage to liberal democracy caused by an elite powerful few.

What keeps the Russians or any other nefarious organization from using increasingly effective social-manipulation technologies for the benefit of some highest bidder, to the detriment of humanity?

Gotta repeat the same lies as what they do on the teevee, otherwise you’re a kook.

The level of hysteria is startling, isn’t it? If it seems confusing just remember, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

@
How many referendums have been held in Chechnya or a hundred other places in Russia?
Uh, the same number as was held in Puerto Rico?

If you disagree with me you are a troll/Putin apologist/Russian bot/neo-con/useful fool/suck-ass libertarian/elitist/reactionary/dupe/and my dad can beat up your dad.

My take:

1) The Democratic leadership is not “liberal”, “left”, or “progressive” and hasn’t been in some decades.

2) The “RUSSIA!!” (TM) hysteria is embarrassing. Russian interference, as puny as it was (“maybe tens of thousands of dollars” in an election costing 6.5 billion), wouldn’t have mattered a whit if Clinton had been not so damned and determined to run as the self-styled “smart Republican” in the race, and treat the Sanders supporters at the Democratic convention with open hostility and contempt, all which drove down Democratic turnout. Gotta hand it to her; unlike Obama, at least she was honest about remaining the Goldwater Girl she really is.

3) Nor was “Russian interference” the worst thing that a candidate has done. What Nixon did in 1968 sabotaging the peace talks) was worse. What Reagan did in 1980 (getting Iran to hold the hostages in exchange for future arms) was worse.

4) Despite what Teevee “libruls” say, Trump’s interactions with Putin in 2016 and sense might well be illegal but certainly it’s not treasonous. When I last checked we weren’t at war with Russia in any conceivable fashion and to a large extent, Putin’s interests only conflict with ours because of US foreign policy overreach (like, why are we concerned about the Crimea, an ethnically Russian territory that voted to become part of Russia again largely due to fears what the Ukrainian nationalists might do to them, the same Ukrainian nationalists we spent $5 billion to overthrow a democratically-elected government to install into the Ukraine?). Oh, and we did this not to promote “democracy” but to put a government in that would let Western banksters loot the Ukraine. Here’s a look at the people we have enabled:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/

5) Now our Teevee “libruls” are saying there’s no such thing as a ‘deep state’ (or even, “God bless the Deep State”–Eugene Robinson), which is news to anyone who was left-sympathetic throughout the past half-century. Case in point–almost lost in all the hoopla over the 2016 election and “Russians!!” is the fact that the Trump team was also approached by representatives of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who also offered Team Trump help on a social media offensive against HRC:

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-run-social-media-firm-may-have-worked-to-help-Trump-get-elected-558033

What I fully expect is that Mueller’s team (who has sent investigators to Israel to look into this) will just meekly accept any denials of “we didn’t do it, of course!” by anyone they ask, and this line of investigation will be closed, so that TV attention can focus solely on that damn Putin and those dastardly Russians. Because, ya know, Israel is our “friend”. Even though it looks like if Israel did help, Netanyahu sure got some things he wanted (Iran deal torn up, US moves embassy to Jerusalem).

Of course, the same people who will meekly accept Israel’s denials of “an attack on our elections” will decry Trump meekly accepting Putin’s denials of showing Trump to be a fool at best and complicit at worst.

6) As for those dastardly Russians hacking the ballot machines–hell, there have been allegations of tampering since those things were put in. But, as we all know, using exit poll data is only a completely reliable way of detecting election fraud when it comes to elections in other countries (say, the Ukraine, 2004) but it’s completely unreliable when it comes to detecting ballot machine bias or fraud when it comes to US elections. Despite studies like this of the 2004 election, where the discrepancy between the exit polls data and the results in some key battleground states using electronic machines exceed the 95 % probability that it’s random chance.

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/1297/1297.pdf

Got to go back to worrying about the Russkies hacking out machines instead of just our usual domestic 1 %.

and this, to put Russian meddling in context

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-government-sponsored-cyber-militia-cookbook/

I used to love online consumer product reviews (I’m not very materialistic but must buy them for my customers). But then I started noticing that some reviews seemed phony. Then a friend told me the only job their daughter could get was writing fake reviews as a “Corporate PR Consultant”.

So now my current strategy is to look for patterns between the reviews which make consistent rational sense. IOW, I have to stay ahead of the intelligence of the fake reviewers.

But what about all the readers who lack that ability? We see their kind here all the time (but don’t tell them that).

It used to be one could trust government sources for these sorts of things but those days may be gone. I’d think that Trump constantly attacking non-government systems reliant on integrity (academia, science, media…) would be of grave concern to our visiting libertarians.

What happens when Zuckerberg and the Twitter boys move on, to be replaced by who knows what? Who’ll maintains the social integrity of those places then? The only solution is to make big money illegal in politics, and the review sites as well.

Um. Mandos. No.

Wow Mandos. I just saw the vindication of your item #7 in sickening detail.

Kos has a thread up on the recommended list about the imminent capture, I guess you could call it, of Julian Assange. The comments on the thread were sickening and vicious. It is an absolutely horrifying mob.

I’m done with Kos. Not going to link to it either. Check it for yourselves if you want, but have a stiff drink first.

Mandos may have started something here, maybe the Dems will add universal heat death to their party platform. If we’re serious about equality, why settle for half measures?

Mandos, I just reread the post again (I’ll try harder next time). Let me see if I got this straight.

Sixteen years ago in the run-up to Iraq, Republicans called “liberal” attitudes against “a very reactionary part of the US security and foreign policy state” treasonous. But today, liberals/democrats/whatever are calling Republican attitudes towards the same “reactionary part of the US security and foreign policy state” treasonous. Liberals didn’t think there was much of a threat from Iraq but do see a major threat from Russia (which seems better at knowing where to hit back).

Let’s set aside Arabs and Russians pissed off at the USA for its meddling habits and wanting it stopped (or payback), which liberals/democrats seem to understand better than most rank and file Republicans.

My question, is the rank and file Republican support this way and that, really about white power?

“When I say I would rather a mass nuclear inferno than a world peace of fascist autocracies, I am responding to a hypothetical. ”

This is the first time I have momentarily hoped American democracy is destroyed and the Democrats face death squads.

only a hypothetical, tony

SOP, Spot the Bot, Troll the Trolls

“This is the first time I have momentarily hoped American democracy is destroyed and the Democrats face death squads.”

And this is the first time I’ve seen a Republican reveal his true nature like this. So thanks for that.

I should add that I don’t like Hillary Clinton and I think there are many reasons why she lost (including multiple ones that were entirely her fault), but given Wikileaks’ conduct during the campaign, I think I’m on pretty solid ground in doubting their smug and self-satisfied claims of impartiality and journalistic standards.

NR, your Troll is showing.

but, who knows, maybe Mueller will get custody of Assange and he can be prosecuted for publishing something that wasn’t a press release or a carefully calculated “leak” to a well-groomed pet. you can hope.

of course, if only Assange had behaved better by your lights, lights carefully calibrated after the fact so that you can justify condemning the man for revealing the truth, you could support him — you being so high-minded and all. but, damn, he did not clean under his fingernails in the approved manner, he could not possibly be a journalist performing a public service.

Bruce Wilder, I see you have no answer to the facts I posted, so you simply call me a troll.

Ironically, that itself is the act of a troll.

See how quickly it flung that doody! Rock on Zippy!

NR

He said himself that he had information about Trump, but he refused to release it. He timed his releases in stages to cause maximum political damage to the Democrats. He sold official merchandise shitting on the Democrats. And he tweeted vague things implying that Hillary Clinton was responsible for Seth Rich’s death which ultimately turned out to be just empty bullshit.

Not true according to the Wikipedia article on Assange, Assange never said that:

“We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.” He explains that the website received pertinent information related to the DNC leaks and Clinton political campaign, but never received any information on Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson’s campaign, and therefore could not publish what they did not have.[241] Assange has consistently denied any connection to or cooperation with Russia in relation to the leaks damaging to Clinton and the Democratic Party.”

As for Seth Rich, Assange aceted dicey. Here’s a link that I think it fairly balanced:

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/guccifer-wikileaks-seth-rich/

So I have to question your sources. Where are you getting your facts?

If Assange is a libertarian, people need to be cautious. Not all libertarians are bad, being reasonable government overreach watchdogs. But if a somewhat popular messenger suddenly proclaims dogmatic libertarianism, the odds are pretty good they’re trying to enrich themselves via kleptocratic funding.

bruce wilder:

I\’m talking about Assange\’s ACTIONS, which were calculated to help Trump every step of the way. Assange even corresponded with Trump\’s son, offering him information to damage the Clinton campaign:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/

The difference between a pattern of actions taken and a single comment is pretty obvious, but apparently it\’s too difficult for you to grasp. So yes, you\’re right, you definitely aren\’t going to be disputing facts with me.

“An inconsistently applied good principle is worlds better than a consistently applied evil principle.”

I guess I’ll just call this discussion off because it’s like we’re speaking different languages. Everybody’s got bedrock good principles, at least in their own minds. Conservatives say they’re for “liberty.” Well, who the hell isn’t for “liberty?” I sure am. Write it down, I’m for “liberty” in the abstract. And (most of) the stuff American liberals say they’re for as well, I’m for it in the abstract. Glad we straightened that out.

So, what are Russians for? I can’t speak for them, but one thing I feel somewhat confident in stating is that they are AGAINST fascism (of the type we saw in WWII, anyway). Their history of being invaded, with tens of millions of deaths, at the hands of the Western European powers that invented these lofty abstractions we speak of, colors much of their thinking about the world. Maybe a lofty principle that could be added to the liberal canon is trying to understand the world from the perspective of others. In a real-world, not too abstract way. Just throwing that out there.

But I’ve already said too much. Since both of us are wholeheartedly for good stuff in the abstract we’re really just arguing about nothing at all. So, bye.

@highrpm
Sorry, no idea what you’re getting at here.