Trump Consciousness

Tucker ignoring the memo?

Good video, one sensible voice.
However, what hasn’t been mentioned at all this far is this. Is it really Washington that’s driving this war, or is it Israel? I think the USs foreign policy has been controlled by Zionist neocons for decades. Americans are too brainwashed to see it, as are many others. There will be great excitement in Jerusalem at the very thought of Americans dying once again on their behalf. Iran should really be attacking Israel, not the US Imo.

General Clark told us years ago what was going to happen, it’s all going to plan, even if it wasn’t as fast as they’d like.

1578200357228.jpeg
 
Last edited:
And there’s this too...

View attachment 1484

History repeats itself.

In most cruel and idiotic ways.

Once again, countless ordinary people would suffer and die because a few power-hungry types on the top cannot decide how to distribute the power and attack ones who are lower in the power hierarchy than them to obtain in advantage in the conflict.

In Russia, there is a saying that may be roughly translated as "When lords fight each other, it is serfs who get beaten". An exact description.

As an anarchist, I keep wondering why we're not still in the midst of full-blown revolution...
 
As an anarchist, I keep wondering why we're not still in the midst of full-blown revolution...

Probably because we’re not affected directly enough. We’ve been programmed to be content as long as...
1)we can shop
2)watch sport or celebrities
3)have just enough

That sort of thing. We don’t give a shit as long as its others that are being blown to bits, preferably Muslims of various flavours.
 
So the point is to trust that Trump is a war avoider and is only responding with force as a last resort from the noble high ground while most (all?) prior presidents, especially Democratic ones, were war mongers using military force to advance political and/or self interests?

Feels like its simply a matter of one's own perspective and biases.
 
Probably because we’re not affected directly enough. We’ve been programmed to be content as long as...
1)we can shop
2)watch sport or celebrities
3)have just enough

That sort of thing. We don’t give a shit as long as its others that are being blown to bits, preferably Muslims of various flavours.
That's a bit over the top in my view Steve.

We should at least be somewhat balanced and acknowledge that compared to any other time in history, this is by most objective measures I've read, the best time to have been alive. That doesn't mean people are sheep and simply shop and watch sports/celebrities. Lots of people are doing lots of really good work, by any definition, in a lot of societies across the globe.

So while we may not have eliminated all armed conflict, it would seem like we've made strides in most (all?) areas. I tend to be more optimistic in my view of the future as I base it off the progress that has been made over the past few centuries.
 
That's a bit over the top in my view Steve.

We should at least be somewhat balanced and acknowledge that compared to any other time in history, this is by most objective measures I've read, the best time to have been alive. That doesn't mean people are sheep and simply shop and watch sports/celebrities. Lots of people are doing lots of really good work, by any definition, in a lot of societies across the globe.

So while we may not have eliminated all armed conflict, it would seem like we've made strides in most (all?) areas. I tend to be more optimistic in my view of the future as I base it off the progress that has been made over the past few centuries.

My view of the future is deeply, even abysmally, pessimistic: I think that we have just two perspectives, one of them literally a hellish nightmare and another not so hellish, but still quite ugly. More here, in my previous post:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...r-illusion-of-control.412/page-73#post-137874

What do you think of that?
 
That's a bit over the top in my view Steve.

We should at least be somewhat balanced and acknowledge that compared to any other time in history, this is by most objective measures I've read, the best time to have been alive. That doesn't mean people are sheep and simply shop and watch sports/celebrities. Lots of people are doing lots of really good work, by any definition, in a lot of societies across the globe.

So while we may not have eliminated all armed conflict, it would seem like we've made strides in most (all?) areas. I tend to be more optimistic in my view of the future as I base it off the progress that has been made over the past few centuries.

It may be viewed as ‘over the top’, but I think it’s a fair assessment of the consciousness of people taken as an average in the country I live in, England. The other countries I think I know a little about are Scotland and the US. Of these three, I think that Scotland appears to be ahead in this dept. This is only my opinion of course, so it is probably miles away from ’the truth’ - whatever that might be.

Of course there are ‘lots of people doing really good work’, but equally, there are those on the other side of the bell curve. I think that those on the low side of average are more affected by fear than anything. I really think that the average has been dragged down by the ‘progress’ of communication in the past fifty years. Television has brought mass brainwashing to the world. The internet and social media has introduced a tsunami of complication into our world. Will we manage to deal with it or will it lead us down a darker path, or even to destruction?

My worldview is a positive one, as like many here I tend to believe that there is purpose to our lives, and that consciousness continues - where the ultimate destination may be, I really don’t know. So I am not as negative as Vortex, if we fail to learn the lessons ‘this time’, there will be others.

I believe in Love, as I have found that being kind to others bring out the best in both parties. It’s not that simple though, one of my favourite sayings is ‘The road to hell is paved with good intention’. All we can do is try our best - and enjoy the ride.
 
It may be viewed as ‘over the top’, but I think it’s a fair assessment of the consciousness of people taken as an average in the country I live in, England. The other countries I think I know a little about are Scotland and the US. Of these three, I think that Scotland appears to be ahead in this dept. This is only my opinion of course, so it is probably miles away from ’the truth’ - whatever that might be.

Of course there are ‘lots of people doing really good work’, but equally, there are those on the other side of the bell curve. I think that those on the low side of average are more affected by fear than anything. I really think that the average has been dragged down by the ‘progress’ of communication in the past fifty years. Television has brought mass brainwashing to the world. The internet and social media has introduced a tsunami of complication into our world. Will we manage to deal with it or will it lead us down a darker path, or even to destruction?

My worldview is a positive one, as like many here I tend to believe that there is purpose to our lives, and that consciousness continues - where the ultimate destination may be, I really don’t know. So I am not as negative as Vortex, if we fail to learn the lessons ‘this time’, there will be others.

I believe in Love, as I have found that being kind to others bring out the best in both parties. It’s not that simple though, one of my favourite sayings is ‘The road to hell is paved with good intention’. All we can do is try our best - and enjoy the ride.

Steve, I want to add that there is a dimension we all must consider. We can act to unite or we can act to divide. The fact that we can and do disagree in our analysis of what is going on is not at all surprising. But what is surprising, and worrying, is that the old capacity to disagree and remain together has been eroded over time. There are some who profit from disagreement and division - and they are a minority. Mostly the majority profits from disagreement and unity.

This trend is spectacularly manifest in the USA at the moment, but it is present everywhere. Your commitment to Love is the right path to take. But we must ask why others favour division and contention. Who profits from that momentum?
 
So the point is to trust that Trump is a war avoider and is only responding with force as a last resort from the noble high ground while most (all?) prior presidents, especially Democratic ones, were war mongers using military force to advance political and/or self interests?

Feels like its simply a matter of one's own perspective and biases.
I look at it differently. As I see it, the decisive use of overwhelming force quickly saps any interest in war on the other side. The slow avoidance of conflict by not responding to acts of war only stretches out a war until such point as open hostilities become unavoidable. In the meanwhile, a half-hearted defense over a considerable span of time is more costly in every way than if it had been done quickly.

In the case of Iran, we have essentially been sitting around while they kill or maim American soldiers and their allies, damage or destroy our facilities, and cause economic harm through manipulation of oil and cyber attacks. There have been a few responses but they have been weak, none of which clearly demonstrated a will to resist Iran's depredations. From my point of view, even if Iran hadn't been doing all those things, supporting terrorism, handing IEDs to enemies in Iraq, kidnapping sailors, etc, I would have been inclined to respond to their threats of violence. For forty years they have been threatening to do violence to and destroy the United States. Even if it was absolutely clear they had no chance of accomplishing the goal, I would like to think our government would have responded to the threat alone with such force that Iran stopped making the threats entirely.

It does us no good as a nation to allow threats against our people to stand unchallenged because it can only encourage others to do the same. That said, Iran has engaged in many acts of terrorism that have cost hundreds of American lives to date, so we know their threats aren't idle and they have the means to do harm to our people. They may not be as well-armed as the US military, but war isn't fought by the rules of a sporting competition. The stakes are too high for that. Instead, one either fights to win, or does not, and loses. America was within weeks of winning the Vietnam war, and thus saving millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians from summary execution, loss of property, and other depredations of war, when US peace protesters killed the political will to finish the war in the United States. That war was lost because of peace protesters, whose efforts resulted in large numbers of innocent civilians being executed, and the ascendancy of Communism and all the horrors it brought with it to the southeast Asia region. "Peace" in that case caused all of the horrors that a successful war would have prevented. The protesters of that era should be ashamed of what they did but instead they are hailed as heroes by people who know too little of the circumstances to understand the harm they caused.
 
I look at it differently. As I see it, the decisive use of overwhelming force quickly saps any interest in war on the other side. The slow avoidance of conflict by not responding to acts of war only stretches out a war until such point as open hostilities become unavoidable. In the meanwhile, a half-hearted defense over a considerable span of time is more costly in every way than if it had been done quickly.

In the case of Iran, we have essentially been sitting around while they kill or maim American soldiers and their allies, damage or destroy our facilities, and cause economic harm through manipulation of oil and cyber attacks. There have been a few responses but they have been weak, none of which clearly demonstrated a will to resist Iron's depredations. From my point of view, even if Iran hadn't been doing all those things, supporting terrorism, handing IEDs to enemies in Iraq, kidnapping sailors, etc, I would have been inclined to respond to their threats of violence. For forty years they have been threatening to do violence to and destroy the United States. Even if it was absolutely clear they had no chance of accomplishing the goal, I would like to think our government would have responded to the threat alone with such force that Iran stopped making the threats entirely.

It does us no good as a nation to allow threats against our people to stand unchallenged because it can only encourage others to do the same. That said, Iran has engaged in many acts of terrorism that have cost hundreds of American lives to date, so we know their threats aren't idle and they have the means to do harm to our people. They may not be as well-armed as the US military, but war isn't fought by the rules of a sporting competition. The stakes are too high for that. Instead, one either fights to win, or does not, and loses. America was within weeks of winning the Vietnam war, and thus saving millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians from summary execution, loss of property, and other depredations of war, when US peace protesters killed the political will to finish the war in the United States. That war was lost because of peace protesters, whose efforts resulted in large numbers of innocent civilians being executed, and the ascendancy of Communism and all the horrors it brought with it to the southeast Asia region. "Peace" in that case caused all of the horrors that a successful war would have prevented. The protesters of that era should be ashamed of what they did but instead they are hailed as heroes by people who know too little of the circumstances to understand the harm they caused.



you have an extremely short historical perspective. Lets start in 1953. Within weeks of winning the Vietnam war? Whatever you are smoking I want some.
 
you have an extremely short historical perspective. Lets start in 1953. Within weeks of winning the Vietnam war? Whatever you are smoking I want some.
I don't smoke. Such a gibe, the implication that I have (ever) experienced drug-induced delirium, is not a credit to this forum. And for the record, the only people I know of that make such gibes are people who know what it is like from personal experience to experience drug-induced delirium, whereas I have never done so, nor have I ever been curious enough to try. From the standpoint of sobriety, I can confidently say it is unlikely you have met more than a handful of people in your life who have had as little contact with drugs (in my case, zero contact outside of general anesthesia for two surgeries), or alcohol (a lifetime grand total of about six glasses of wine, the last of which was imbibed in 1985) as myself.

As for "let's start in 1953", you should elaborate if you want any kind of serious response. I assume you refer to US involvement in supporting the man who became the Shah of Iran, later deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeni. If that is what you mean, I assume that you wish me to infer that the US should not have helped install the shah and therefore the Islamic government that replaced his more democratic government was justified to seek the total destruction of America. If that is what you are suggesting, it means that you advocate the destruction of America and all Americans, the stated goal of Iranian policy, as payback for the Shah. That comes across as treasonous, unless you aren't American, in which case it is simply despicable.

As I understand the history of that time, and I have read quite a bit about it, though long ago, the Shah was a much better ruler than the Ayatollah. That is, the Iranian people were much better off under the Shah, however he came to be in power, than they are now under the Ayatollah.
 
As I understand the history of that time, and I have read quite a bit about it, though long ago, the Shah was a much better ruler than the Ayatollah. That is, the Iranian people were much better off under the Shah, however he came to be in power, than they are now under the Ayatollah.
I think the relevant question is whether the Saah was a better ruler than the previously democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. After all, this was the man that the US overthrew.

David
 
I think the relevant question is whether the Saah was a better ruler than the previously democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. After all, this was the man that the US overthrew.

David
The reason I haven't engaged on that point, true or not, is that it is not relevant to the current situation. Right now, and for the past forty years, Iran has been calling for the death of Americans and the destruction of the United States. Those are threats to our people and sovereignty. Practically speaking, whether they have a justifiable reason to wish these things, they represent an immediate hazard to the life and liberty of Americans. Unless one wants to surrender life and liberty, regardless why, Iran must be opposed. Therefore, Iran's reasons, whether valid or not, are of no interest to Americans who wish to preserve their lives and their way of life.

As for Mossaddegh, I'll grant for the sake of argument that it was a terrible thing for the US to overthrow his government, installing the Shah in his place. I will further assume, again for the sake of conversation, that the overthrow of Mossaddegh in 1953 was the reason for the Ayatollah's constant threats to America. I will go farther and assume for the sake of argument that the Iranian reaction to the overthrow to Mossaddegh is justified. Regardless, Iran most be opposed because of the threat they pose to Americans now.

As for all those assumptions, my actual positions on the three points are:

1) Mossedegh was a Socialist who himself suborned and overthrew the monarchy that he was subject to at the time. Therefore, why be upset with his overthrow rather than how he took power from the then-current royal family? Also, Mossaddegh crippled the Iranian economy by stealing outright control of British petroleum refineries, essentially the same thing that happened in Venezuela. Having done that, it is no surprise to me that Britain and its ally, the USA, would want to recover their stolen assets through the coup they orchestrated. In the meanwhile, with British and other foreign technicians unavailable to manage their infrastructure, the Iranian economy was crushed. This was, in other words, monumentally stupid on the part of Mossaddegh and the Socialists who supported him. The same thing happened in Venezuela when they decided to nationalize the oil industry, in Israel when the Gaza strip was given to the PLO, and every other place where Socialism has been attempted. The Socialist theory seems to be that they can steal a successful industry and become themselves successful thereby. They don't stop to think that the reason the industry was successful was connected to the specific people who ran it, now run out of the country. It's a bit like the thinking behind a back alley mugging. In that situation, the most that can be gained is the amount of money carried by the victim at that moment. The cost is his future productivity, which is far more valuable.

2) overthrow of Mossadegh as reason for the ire of current Iranian regime: I do not think this is true. My impression is that it is the commonly stated reason but the more salient issue to Iran is that the US supports Israel and (at one time) Iraq as well, preventing them from overpowering both countries in offensive wars. Add to that the fact that the US and Israel are not Muslim, let alone Shia, and they want to destroy us for that reason also.

3) Iran's threats are justified: I don't think so. The reason is that our primary offenses are our opposition to their expansion by military force, opposition to the destruction of an ally (Israel), and our Christian-majority nation. Those are not adequate reasons for the murder of Americans and destruction of US property.

EDIT: I'll add my impression that if the US and England hadn't intervened in 1953, Iran would have become a Soviet protectorate instead. The Soviet Union was certainly interested in Iran and neighboring countries at the time. Without American and British assistance (in the form of Mossaddegh's overthrow) the country would have failed, much as Venezuela has. At that point, with no money or economy to speak of, the Soviet Union would have stepped in to "help" the Iranian people. That would have resulted in an atheistic regime in the center of Muslim-held territory. They likely would have been freed in the eighties when the Soviet Union fell apart, but the Ayatollah, or any Muslim theocracy, would have been impossible before then. If any attempt at creating one were made, it would have been crushed by the Soviet military.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top