I mean they thought they could go on and on in their stupidity, hedonism, total ignorance of virtue and pragmatism, — Agustino

What makes you think Trump is any better? What makes you think that by being President he will make America more virtuous and pragmatic?

Is a New York billionaire going to save the interests of the people? — Marchesk

Fuck the interests of the people! Survival is above the interests of the people - what use if the interests of the people are satisfied and in 20 years America disappears off the face of the Earth? China is already a larger economy than the US. In 20 years, if the current rates continue, China will be TWICE as big as the US. You can calculate this yourself. The rise of Islamic terrorism, slow economic growth, ever increasing debt, a population which loves hedonistically indulging itself and has less and less concern about virtue and the harshness of reality, - all these problems will cripple America very soon if not addressed

What greatness was destroyed? — Marchesk

America's global hegemony.

Last hope for what? — Marchesk

For the survival of the United States of America and their continued hegemonic status.

What makes you think Trump is any better? — Marchesk

Trump is pragmatic. He represents the hard virtues, such as discipline, pragmatism, getting the job done, facing reality, taking tough decisions, courage, etc. much better than Clinton :-! I actually laugh when I compare Trump to Clinton on these criteria. He will not get Americans to be virtuous, but he may get them to stop being hedonistic by getting them to work. Trump is stupid in spiritual matters, but not in worldly matters.

Russia celebrated Trump's win, for the obvious reason that it weakens America and also might undermine NATO and the European Union. There are many 'pro-Russia' trolls operative on the internet, you never know where they might turn up, although they're not that hard to spot.

There are many 'pro-Russia' trolls operative on the internet, you never know where they might turn up, although they're not that hard to spot. — Wayfarer

My country is the first to lose if Russia's influence grows. Don't play dumb Wayfarer. That doesn't mean that I fail to see that Trump is good for America. Trump isn't good for me and Eastern Europe - but does America give a shit about Eastern Europe? Should America give a shit about Eastern Europe? No America should give a shit about itself. You know what Eastern Europe is for America? A pawn on the chess board of global politics.

China is already a larger economy than the US. In 20 years, if the current rates continue, China will be TWICE as big as the US. — Agustino

What do you expect? They have 5 times as many people, and we found it in our economic interest to trade with them. Expect India to follow suit, and Africa after that (granted, it's a continent not a nation). That's globalism for you, and that's countries realizing they need to catch up and modernize.

America's global hegemony. — Agustino

That existed due to the outcome of WW2, and it led to a cold war with thousands of nukes hanging over our heads. But the rest of the world was going to catch up.

What do you expect? They have 5 times as many people, and we found it in our economic interest to trade with them. Expect India to follow suit, and Africa after that (granted, it's a continent not a nation). That's globalism for you, and that's countries realizing they need to catch up and modernize. — Marchesk

No. It's China having outsmarted the stupid US and the stupid Russia. China - everyone depends on them, no economy can do without China. They're becoming indispensable, and they're very quiet about it, they don't make a big noise. Have you even heard that China is now the world's biggest economy? Many people haven't. China will become a global hegemony very soon if things don't change drastically. Trust me, I've studied Chinese history for a very long time, these people are the biggest snakes out there. The political manipulations that exist in China's history dwarf anything in the West - their strategic mind is phenomenal. They hide great ambition under a mask of humility. China's people are also virtuous, keenly aware of the dangers and difficulties of life, willing to bear hard labour and hard lives with little satisfaction. When will you see Americans doing that? >:O >:O

That existed due to the outcome of WW2, and it led to a cold war with thousands of nukes hanging over our heads. But the rest of the world was going to catch up. — Marchesk

No it existed because of staying quietly out of the war, only to join at the end - in BOTH World Wars, and then dictate the terms after the war. It also existed because of the long-time reliance on slavery which enabled production at virtually no material cost.

This thread is called 'post-truth'. Recall why that neologism was chosen as 'word of the year':

The concept of post-truth has been in existence for the past decade, but Oxford Dictionaries has seen a spike in frequency this year in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States. It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase post-truth politics.

Now, we have two presidential spokespersons telling blatant lies on the first and second days of the Trump presidency - and, when challenged, calling those lies 'alternative facts'.

All of the above obfuscation ought not to becloud this elementary fact: that the USA has elected a proven liar, who sorrounds himself with liars, and continues to attempt to prevail by telling lies.

Over and out.

:s

As I have explained, "post-truth" is a liberal meme. In order for liberals to deny the TRUTH of the cold reality out there, they curse reality, and call it "post-truth" - it's a mechanism of psychological denial. They can't accept the situation as it is. They must find a way to cling to their fantasy. So they call fantasy true, and reality post-truth.

It also existed because of the long-time reliance on slavery which enabled production at virtually no material cost. — Agustino

Isn't that what the migrant workers are for? Get paid slave wages way below minimum requirements and no benefits? You have to ask yourself why no Republican administration has done anything other than saber rattling about illegal immigration.

The North in the US was doing quite well industrially without slave labor leading up to the Civil War. The South was more agrarian, and being the virtuous souls that they were, decided to have other human beings do the work for them.

Isn't that what the migrant workers are for? Get paid slave wages way below minimum requirements and no benefits? — Marchesk

There are hidden costs associated with this, including large future costs.

The North in the US was doing quite well industrially without slave labor leading up to the Civil War. The South was more agrarian, and being the virtuous souls that they were, decided to have other human beings do the work for them. — Marchesk

And the US is bearing the costs for it today.

So in a post-truth world we have "alternate facts"

Laugh or cry? :-}

It's beyond laughter at this point. The Joker has the Button.

I thought Landru's campaign against realism was supposed to save us from a world or right wing memes? Wasn't realism responsible for slavery, oppression and Hitler?

You think I jest, but man some of those old forum discussions were doozies.

That's the thing - when there is no distinction between true and false statements, anything goes - which means that equity looses; the powerful have their power reinforced.

Landru is more a progressive than a liberal. I suspect he would say "realism" (or rather the obsession with "rational truth" ) is responsible for failing to build an identity and culture which serves the oppressed. In other words, the people running around in a panic about "post-truth" are misdiagnosing the problem. The issue is not that "truth" has no respect, but the valuing of an oppressive culture has taken hold.

Though, I don't think the question of realism has a lot to do with "alternative facts." I think he would have no hesitation in saying the "alternative facts" were falsehoods. His opposition to realism wasn't a question of saying there are no such things as falsehoods, but rather opposing a metaphysic that replaces awareness of the subject with worship of "objective knowledge" that supposedly sits outside reaction to anyone.

Trump's inauguration cake.

Why?

Landru is more a progressive than a liberal. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Actually, Landru is paradoxically opposed to reason-skeptical conservatism, and not so much opposed to my type of conservatism. I think Landru's focus was more economical than otherwise, and a fight against conservatism in-so-far as it is oppressive (anti-reason).

In fact, I remember a discussion with him in which he admitted that there may be something of value in social conservatism.

More to the point I think Landru was a progressive living in a very conservative environment (he was from Texas). If I lived in such an environment, I would be a fucking progressive as well >:O

I don't think that's particularly paradoxical. There is a certain "social conservativism" within the progressive side. Perhaps not one you would respect all that much, but concerns about the impact of actions on others occupy a significant space. The liberal narratives of "do what ever you want" or "you're the only one that matters" would get you tarred and feathered in many progressive circles. I mean most of the progressives I interact hold positions which are not too far removed from your own-- e.g. no cheating, people above status or desire, intimacy and respect in sex(just not necessarily with one person)--at least with respect to individual behaviour.

I mean I, the arch progressive, aren't opposed to much of what your conservativism circles. It the obsessions of vengemce, jealously and image which I cannot abide.

respect in sex(just not necessarily with one person) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well according to my position a person is of infinite value and thus they cannot be respected without full devotion to them. That would be equivalent to not recognising their full value as a person - their deserving status as an end-in-itself.

It the obsessions of vengemce — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think vengeance, if by this you mean reprisal outside the law is just. If someone kills my wife, and because they're powerful the police does nothing to them, and I take it upon myself to annihilate both them and their entire family, then I am taking revenge and that is not just, but neither is what happened to me just. Revenge is just a (wrong) reaction to injustice.

Jealousy for that matter is also a (wrong) reaction to injustice.

The important fact is that both of these - jealousy and revenge are motivated by an actual and real injustice, which is what makes them so complex to deal with in practice.

It's beyond laughter at this point. The Joker has the Button. — Wayfarer

(Y) (Y) (Y)

I think the Master would have told you this Wayfarer if he was still alive. I bet during the Cold War you were one of those people so concerned about the threat of nuclear war >:O - but as Osho tells you, you shouldn't be worried - you'll have the cockroaches to keep you company! :D

Should America give a shit about Eastern Europe? No America should give a shit about itself. You know what Eastern Europe is for America? A pawn on the chess board of global politics. — Agustino

That's bad chess strategy right there. Pawns are important, pawns are valuable, and the player who sacrifices them for no or little advantage will quickly lose.

Washington Post excerpted Chuk Todd (Meet the Press) conversation with Conway yesterday
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/how-kellyanne-conway-ushered-in-the-era-of-alternative-facts/?utm_term=.fb51df157064:

KELLYANNE CONWAY: Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What-- You're saying it's a falsehood. And they're giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains--
...
“Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods.” — Chuck Todd in his interview with Kellyanne Conway, Trump's top spokesperson

Fake news is a serious problem. Psychology Today (1/22/17) proposes that it might be treated as a disease. a disease which one can be vaccinated against.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201701/fake-news-vaccine-inoculates-against-alternative-facts The researchers used a fake news poll which indicated that

“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs stating there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions will cause climate change.

The researchers found that the most effective way to inoculate someone to potential misinformation was to take a two-pronged 'vaccination' approach:

First, the general inoculation consisted of a warning: "Some politically-motivated groups use misleading tactics to try and convince the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists."

Second, another detailed inoculation picked apart the Oregon petition based on specifics. For example, by highlighting that many of the supposed signatories are fraudulent, such as Charles Darwin and members of the Spice Girls. Also pointing out that less than 1 percent of signatories actually had backgrounds in climate science.

The Inoculation Theory, which developed by social psychologist William J. McGuire in 1961 was proposed for multiple contexts including politics.

Yea.. but the notion that Trump won because of post-truth doesn't square with my experience with the people who voted for him. None of them were interested in superficial info coming from either campaign. They were looking deeper and their distrust of establishment bullshit was just a lot stronger than their distrust of Trump's. IOW, they knew Trump was fishy. They just couldn't stomach the alternative.

I voted for Clinton and I was queasy about it. So I think a lot of us were in the same boat... whomever we voted for.

OK, but he won, and his henchmen will be spinning "alternative facts" at us for the next 4 years. It may not affect all thinking people, but that said, how many in the general population think about such things? The majority accept what is said at face value.

It needs to be offset, otherwise misinformation will be taken as information by the many. The question is what can we do. I sincerely hope that Trump & the GOP get mired in litigation so deep that they cannot possibly act.

Ethical groups have already sued him for conflict of interest in regards to his Washington Hotel lease. He is in violation of lease terms, which prohibit political ownership. I think this is the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe so. I came out of news blindness last summer because I got pneumonia and ended up with some broken ribs. I was laid up on the couch in a weird state of mind and started watching the news for the first time in years. I've already sort of gone back to the blindness.

Meanwhile people around me are worried about conspiracies and the rise of the Antichrist. Truth? What is truth? :)

That's bad chess strategy right there. Pawns are important, pawns are valuable, and the player who sacrifices them for no or little advantage will quickly lose. — unenlightened

Yes pawns are indeed important, however, clinging to pawns may very well lead to defeat. The paradox of strategy is that any path can lead to defeat. America has bigger concerns than Eastern Europe. If Eastern Europe can be gambled for Syria and exterminating ISIS, America hasn't lost much, but has gained quite a bit.

I'm part Czech. I work with a lady who was born in Poland. I have an Italian/Russian friend. Lasagna and cabbage. Mmm. We've got lots of Eastern Europe.

The Establishment has always lied about the size of crowds against them. This seems to me an odd issue on which to make a case or cause.

Many lies were told in the news in my youth. People got power through slogans and untruths. Am i suddenly supposed to remember Tony Blair and the Clintons as truth tellers?

To be clear, I'm nervous that Trump is indeed a Fascist. But i don't think we should kid ourselves about truth-telling.

a.. but the notion that Trump won because of post-truth doesn't square with my experience with the people who voted for him. None of them were interested in superficial info coming from either campaign. They were looking deeper and their distrust of establishment bullshit was just a lot stronger than their distrust of Trump's. IOW, they knew Trump was fishy. They just couldn't stomach the alternative. — Mongrel

But why couldn't the stomach the alternative? What was so very bad about Clinton, or Obama before her? I don't see anything so terrible that Trump becomes the appealing alternative. Not that I'm a big fan of Hillary, and she can be criticized, but let's be clear about what has gone on the last 20 years.

Fox News, right wing radio, and the Republican party in general has sought to demonize Hillary, even more so than her husband and Obama. She was the one person the right could not allow in the White House. Hillary is evil incarnate to conservatives, basically. And having the Democrats get the first woman after having the first minority in office would have been devastating.

Pretending that all the propaganda from Fox News and right wing radio didn't have anything to do with Trump winning is naive. Now this isn't to say that Trump was their ideal conservative. He's not, not at all. But he's much better ally in power than another Clinton, who would be the enemy.

All you have to do is listen for five minutes once a year to those stations. Same shit about liberal conspiracies, Obama wrecking America, etc. Blatant propaganda, and lot of people eat that stuff up. I have relatives and family friends who certainly do. You would think Fox News was the bible.