Originally posted by ardcarp
View Post
Chomsky on Trump
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostI am not sure whether I agree that mass destruction is cyclical. It implies that the phenomenon is dictated by mathematics or it's an astrological impact from a supermoon. Events are to some extent haphazard. In contrast, it is possible to speak reasonably about patterns - or lines - of progress. Part of the latter is simply narrative but for the most part it is - and needs to be - believable. In any case, the nuclear dimension is such that any substantial beliefs in a long term cycle of mass destruction have had to be made obsolete since WW2.
The fragility has always been in the fact the shield is also the sword. That isn't a choice. And the emphasis on non-proliferation, while wise, has always insisted on an ongoing inequality of power. Reliance of smaller countries on nuclear powers for their protection has been required of them as well as being the best they could hope for economically.
At times, similarities and differences in ideologies may be overstated. All one needs to do is recall the number of times the main objective has been to remove individuals from positions of power to know that they are principally the reason why military might needs to be in the hands of the few. For all of the grand democratic principles on which modern politics may appear to have been based, leadership is a magnet to messianic mavericks even in the west - see Blair and Juncker and Trump and Farage. Arguably, many of them are subconsciously motivated by a denial of their own mortality and consequently have an other worldly way with humanity in general. One of the more distinctive aspects of the past one hundred years is the manner in which those traits have been apparent not only in leaders but the commonweal. Democracy, wealth and - especially since the sixties - popular culture suggested to the masses that they had far greater power as individuals than was possible. Those who wished to change the world were often of good intention but - and I say this sadly - it is impossible to overlook that there is an undercurrent even there of megalomania. What strikes me is the lack of gratitude from all those who want more.
The biggest problem with neoliberalism isn't located in economic or social inequality. Rather it is in the aggressive nature of competition which would ultimately places too much strain on collaborative approaches. In isolation, it might have - or have had - greater longevity but it is required to work with democracy. Some of us who favoured the latter - and a European Economic Community of nine or twelve countries as rather quaintly now I still do - have been deeply troubled by the minimal accountability of EU institutions at a time when they have been in cahoots with American big business. There has also been alarm at the sabre rattling against Russia. I did vote for ongoing EU membership and I would also have voted for Clinton but my heart wasn't genuinely in either of those stances. Given that the majority of people are to the right of me politically, the outcomes were inevitable.Last edited by Serial_Apologist; 15-11-16, 18:47.
Comment
-
-
Trump is not a 'real' conservative - he has previously identified himself as both a Democrat and a Republican and has adopted varying positions on abortion and LGBT rights. On both of the latter, he has recently made statements that directly contradicted earlier statements, to bring himself into line with mainstream GOP thinking.
From this, I infer that Trump has few, if any, solid political convictions, apart from going where the money is.
His VP (who, if all goes according to plan, will serve nothing but a decorative function) IS a genuine conservative, who went into public office to serve (his) God's whims.
Trump is also close to several personalities from the 'alt right' movement - and has just appointed one such personality to his cabinet; others may follow. This may effectively mean that Trump's government will be an 'alt right' government rather than a Republican one, although until now the 'alt right' movement has not been taken seriously (even, arguably, by itself) - being largely a bunch of funsters and tricksters playing games online.
Despite being a self-made billionaire, Trump comes across as economically illiterate; mentally, he still seems to be living in the gilded age. Most of what he wants to do, I'd argue, is unachievable, even by someone a lot more competent than he is. But a lot of damage will be done to America by his making the attempt.
Trump will be a truly terrible CEO and the worst President that the USA has ever had - even worse (and more corrupt) than Warren Harding. The danger for a Brexited-UK is that it will find itself in the embrace of an America that just wants to use it as Air Strip One; and it will have to take that role, for want of any other appropriate role. Meanwhile, Putin can get on with his plans for carving up a weakened Europe; with a pal in the White House, he'll be able to do this with relative impunity.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostI wouldn't be too sure about that any more, given that what we now have, outside what has previously been only the figments of overinflamed disaster movie plot makers, and maybe for the first time ever, is a death cult with potential mitts on nuclear weapons. At least (it has been argued) in the past we had Mutually Assured Destruction [sic] and Games Theoreticians accounting for maintaining self-regulating tendencies between the Great Powers. Added to which, terrorist organisations such as the IRA or Baader Meinhof ostensibly had a better future for humankind in mind.
While as many millions watched "The Apprentice" as "The Simpsons", over 30% of Americans only obtain news from Facebook. This takes traditional media distortions onto another level. The bias isn't in one writer's chosen perceptions of what has occurred but rather in the version of events readers choose. The more "likes" an outright lie receives, the more it becomes seen as the authoritative account. There is some naivety on the damage that can cause but mainly there is either indifference or a childish, malevolent naughtiness in being a part of the manipulation. At its worst, the political drama in it is a revival and extension of the Victorian freak show. As for leaders, the idea of them being actors was rebooted with the packaging of Thatcher and the election of an actual actor in Reagan. With Trump, the Americans had a candidate who played up to a desire not to know what was being said was meant or not and for that to be defined as political authenticity.
I think at the heart of this is a widespread lauding of "the killer instinct". I am probably more inclined than you, s-a, to draw large distinctions between the workings of post war capitalism before 1979 and after it with a measure of the rose tinted about the former. One metaphor I would choose for the latter is the average 30 something who drives into work at 5am so as to travel at 55mph on a road with a 30mph speed limit. That sort of thing is a combination of fierce practical competitiveness and a "virtual gaming" shooting away of obstacles, both of which are tacitly endorsed even though the reality is that there is a greater chance of manslaughter. Trump may have had a need during the campaign to send out "revenge tweets" at that time in the morning but he would need to be very psychologically flawed to wish to demand a nuclear strike. And as someone used to being served by highly competitive foot soldiers he is more likely to require other countries to acquire nuclear weapons to deal with problem people closer to their own back yards. There is a certain sense to it for why should some of the other major players not pay more for their own defence? But, of course, the key point about the range of impacts from nuclear proliferation will be conveniently missed unless he is advised out of it by officials.
That a man in his seventies with a gaming mentality and to whom few have said no can be turned into Jim Hacker is unlikely. Trump is also caught between being the people's representative against the establishment and the establishment. He will probably be brought to heel on the finer points of side-stepping global responsibility. It isn't as if the United States will be getting rid of their weaponry as other parts of the world build up their own. But the man is surviving on two hours sleep per night. He is highly irritable and he takes things unusually personally. As with my own father now his father acquired dementia. It is four minutes between ordering the launching of a missile and its launch which is enough time on awaking to have a half-grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality.Last edited by Lat-Literal; 15-11-16, 22:25.
Comment
-
-
Which US playwright could pen something along the lines of Brecht's Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui ? It would be a gift for any dramatist to follow Brecht's idea of making 'fictional' characters (dangerous buffoons) easily identifiable. It could be both hilariously funny and, more to the point, scarily prescient.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostI am not sure whether I agree that mass destruction is cyclical. It implies that the phenomenon is dictated by mathematics or it's an astrological impact from a supermoon.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostI'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. 'Cyclical' can be no more than, for instance, an individual human life: it begins, it develops, it reaches its prime, it begins to fade, it ends. I'm not sure how that depends on mathematics or astrology. Or think of the various empires. And it isn't really a case of 'mass destruction' in any sense in which we use it now.
I thought the writer implied it in referring to the significance of three generations apart but I may have misread it. In another reading, those called up for duty in WW2 included all those who just avoided the call up in WW1 in age terms - to the year - which hardly seems a coincidence. And the year in question - 1900-01 - marked the end of the Victorian age.
(Those who were 18 plus were called for duty in WW1 ending in 1918 and those who were up to 45 were called for duty in WW2 ending in 1945)
S-A has made a number of other points which could lead to discussion about endings in a non literal sense - sadly I think there are now doubts around beliefs in moral democracy.Last edited by Lat-Literal; 15-11-16, 20:53.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostErm, perhaps......."cyclical events happen in a particular order, one following the other, and are often repeated" - I think I was taking "cyclical" as meaning on a specific time cycle.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostThough not quite mathematical, just 'at fairly regular intervals'; and 'generally self-imposed', so not based on astrology: we take actions which harm ourselves (even when we don't mean to!). I don't think a historian would be suggesting anything more than 'history repeats itself', though here it takes a particular form.
The word "biorhythms" is floating in my mind as a defence of the point I was making but I am not going to contest it.
It can all get very mixed up depending on how the cake is cut.
I accept, for example, that the economic depressions of the 1870s, the 1920s and the 2000s were not "mathematical" in time terms.Last edited by Lat-Literal; 15-11-16, 21:18.
Comment
-
-
This might be of interest to those who have heard upsetting things about the newly appointed Steve Bannon. I note the tone in the piece which doesn't appear to be discriminatory. But given that the thread is ostensibly about Trump's philosophy - or I think it is - I would dearly love to know what it is if Bannon's speech is supposed to be a detailed example. There is an extensive setting out of perceived problems - economic - but hardly a policy here. Consequently I am not convinced that these people are very much more than soap salesmen. Bannon says "right" after almost every sentence which may or may not have a purpose. God help us if it catches on here. Armageddon would be marginally preferable:
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostThis might be of interest to those who have heard upsetting things about the newly appointed Steve Bannon. I note the tone in the piece which doesn't appear to be discriminatory. But given that the thread is ostensibly about Trump's philosophy - or I think it is - I would dearly love to know what it is if Bannon's speech is supposed to be a detailed example. There is an extensive setting out of perceived problems - economic - but hardly a policy here. Consequently I am not convinced that these people are very much more than soap salesmen. Bannon says "right" after almost every sentence which may or may not have a purpose. God help us if it catches on here. Armageddon would be marginally preferable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BSrJv0IpHY
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostThere was an extraordinary defense of Bannon by one Joel Pollack on Today this morning, in which said person threatened the BBC with all manner of actionable things for its innocuous line of questioning here that I'd better be careful not to detail. Starts at 1 hr 09 mins:
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostI guess so, nevertheless the "shock" part certainly served its purpose on this pair of ears just then awakening to a new day!
Comment
-
Comment