I need to correct this thing that I said. Scandinavia also includes Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. Why didn't you point out this mistake that I made, ssu? — Arcane Sandwich

Because Faroa Islands aren't a sovereign state, they are part of Denmark. Even if they have autonomy, just like Greenland or Åland Islands have autonomy from Finland.

Of course there more regions to the Nordic countries too, so ask yourself, do you know all the flags and what regions they represent here?

All I'm saying is, don't deny me that right, because since I'm a South American, I have the same right as a North American to call myself an American simpliciter. But I just say that I'm from Argentina instead, just to avoid unnecessary rambling. — Arcane Sandwich

Actually it's quite telling of the attitude of people of the US to refer to themselves to be Americans, even if it logically refers to all people in the Continent and not just themselves. It would be like if people of the member states of the EU would refer themselves being the Europeans. What role then for the Swiss or for the Norwegians etc?

Hence when Trump is talking about Canada being part of the US, he is talking about annexation, not about a merger of states, where Canada's status would be diminished to be a state like Rhode Island with a governor.

Just how easy it is to prove these issues simply question just what on Earth this Flat-Earth nonsense is about. Is it simply trolling? Is it simply an attempt to try to make nonsense so credible, that people fall for it and have a laugh about it? It looks a conspiracy theory pushed to the extreme, as an outrageous extrapolation of the sum of all conspiracies. Or the intent is to get the "science people" to be angry about the ignorance of the common folk and thus show their hidden elitism and how they look down upon others.

It reminds me of Sasha Baron Cohen's skit playing the character Ali G interviewing a former US Surgeon General, who obviously didn't know who Cohen was (or his character Ali G), seemed to have genuinely thought that that the "hip hop rapster"-interviewer was as idiotically ignorant as Cohen portrays Ali G to be. It's just an extremely hilarious exchange about (def) death starting at 3:50. If you haven't seen it, worth watching.



Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? Or then it's simply the algorithms that make this discourse so talked about. When something is blatantly wrong, it gets a lot of replies of the issue being wrong.

So, if you were challenged, someone said "Don't rely on any experts, scientists, NASA photographs -- prove yourself that the earth is round," what do you do? Don't look up the answer, try to come up with one yourself. — flannel jesus

Go to the ocean shoreline on a clear sunny day and look at how outgoing ships simply "sink" into the horizon and incoming ships emerged from the horizon. If the Earth would be flat, the ships would just get tinier and tinier.



And this is why there's a very common "submarine sighting" on the ferries going from Helsinki to Tallinn. Observing people notice the "submarine" emerging, then slowly going past the ferry and later submerging again. Well, it's not a submarine, it's a well known rock that simply looks like a tower of a submarine.



Or if you have a friend, put your head on the ground (perhaps at the shore) and watch the sun go down while your friend is behind you somewhere higher, perhaps on the fifth floor of a building. Talk to each by phone and yell "now!" when the last glimpse of the sun's circle has dissappeared to the horizon. The difference is notable. Now I've done both of these "experiments" and have seen how large ships drop into the horizon as well as seen the difference between the sighting of the sunset.

There is a difference of about three minutes between the first sunset and the last sunset. For Islamic ritual purposes, the building is divided into three zones. In Ramadan, people in the highest floors have to break their fast about 2 minutes later than people on the lowest levels.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I understand this. What do you mean, when you say those words? — Arcane Sandwich

If the citizens of the US have this national identity of being "American", it's hard to tell that actually now you are going to be Northamerican and so put that antiquated Stars and stripes flag away as it's only a local flag and officially use another new flag. And refer to yourself from now onward as Northamericans when foreigners ask who you are.

If the European Union is Europe's best attempt at articulating European Continentalism, then it's not good enough, because if it was, people would have never even thought about Brexit as a concept, or even as "the right thing to do in such circumstances". — Arcane Sandwich

First of all, many Americans think about secession of their state, at least as a theoretical option. The Brits here can tell just how and why UK did Brexit happen, there's a whole thread about it. However do notice that actually Brexit showed other member states just how awful and economically disastrous such a stupid move would be. How badly it went and what UK citizens now think about Brexit is very telling and has actually been noticed by many people, who do have had their criticism against the EU in their own countries.

It's usually the American commentators who declare the imminent demise of the EU integration project, something that they have done now for decades.

Yet what is also telling is that those who really are keeping up the dream of the EU are Ukrainians and Georgians, who have seen how other neighboring countries have become stable and prospered inside the European Union. It's in these countries who want to avoid to be under the control of the Russian Empire that cherish the thought of European integration.

By contrast, Latin America is not a continent, it's just a group of countries in which the inhabitants speak a language derived from Medieval Latin — Arcane Sandwich

That does connect still somehow, even if there is Brazil. Of course, these countries aren't as in such good terms with each other than are for example EU members, but still especially the contrast towards the US is there. There's a lot of feeling to be together in Latin America than just being North American.

Yet the most important question is, for what would you need Northamericanism? What is the narrative of it? Where do you use it?

I'll take the loose definition of the Nordic Countries to explain this. First of all, it isn't Skandinavia, as Finland is not part of it and because when the idea of the Nordic countries emerged, the Baltic States belonged to the Soviet Union. Yet in order to have such a group, many things have to happen.

And above all, there ought to be a genuine feeling for borders being a needless division between friends. The states have to have cordial friendly relations and respect. Above all, there ought not to be any historical grunges and feeling that the other ones behind the border are totally different, even possibly a threat.

Not only with a bully like Trump, as his disrespect even towards Canada is evident, will there emerge anything like the idea of Northamericanism. Mexico lost huge amounts of territory in the Mexican-American war and the later US actions during the Mexican Civil War and afterwards is at the root of anxiety towards the "Gringos" in Mexico. And the imperialism that the US has shown earlier in Central American and in the Caribbean is there to be remembered. Trump's unabashed imperialist views that are meant to be a distraction only poke the fears and hatred towards the US.

And in the end, when states do have a national identity, this cannot be replaced. This means that there then should be a higher level identity above this, which the countries can relate to. Just like the North European countries that all are happy to use the term "Nordic" or like three European countries can be called "Benelux"-countries.

The English calling their country the "United Kingdom" and everybody accepting to being "British" have been successful in this (except for the Irish, that is). Yet the whole idea is now forgotten so badly, that even the English start to ask just what being "British" or "English" means. Yet it can be a possibility, a higher level identity binding together people with different national identities is possible.

This is something that the EU ought to put more importance to than it does. The EU may have a flag, even a hymn, but it lacks at the present the ideological zeal and purpose. It isn't marketed to the member state citizens as it ought to be. The EU has never been marketed to the people as a savior from our bloody past seen from our history, but just as a technical bureaucratic institution that is good for commerce. Bureaucrats in Brussells won't do that. Their effect is the opposite. The EU-citizen hasn't been involved in the experiment, only the elites.

I am horrified by Trump's announcement that he intends to take Greenland and Panama Canal and will use military force if need be. — Athena

Even if the main object is distraction and to dominate the narrative, this still would be closer to imperialism than actual war. But indeed this is the mentality that an aggressor needs to start wars. More likely is to use force in the case of Panama than in the case of Greenland/Denmark. Even as I'll repeat, the main purpose for this rhetoric is to distract and to get people to respond to your narrative and discourse.

Northamericanism ( — Arcane Sandwich

Northamericanism? What is that? Note that Mexico is part of North America, so why if logical with continentalism, then simply both South and North America? Mexico is actually very close to the US than to Europe.

And notice that many countries embrace that civic nationalism. Few truly embrace ethnic nationalism, like Israel does.

Since you never cite what you quote, — NOS4A2

Never? See here and Trump turnaround here

You also don't mention that Trump started to change his mind about h1-b's shortly after his comments in the debate you cite, — NOS4A2

You seem not to notice that I'm talking about policy implementations that Trump did during his administration, his executive order. Do you understand that? See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-work-visas.html

To try to deny what actual policy Trump implemented / tried to implement is telling of your intellectual dishonesty. Trump tweets and says things so much, that his changing rhetoric isn't that important. Anyway, Elon Musk has been very consistent on this while Trump has not, which is very typical for him.

Changing one's mind is probably tantamount to lying in anti-Trump world — NOS4A2

Lol. Well then, I assume then that no politician ever lies, because they just simply change their minds. Just like Putin said he won't invade Ukraine, but then changed his mind, perhaps on February 21st 2022 or so.

And oh, the references of this:

I believe it's often fear of what other governments might do that keep governments from becoming totally tyrannical, corrupt, and incompetent. — Brendan Golledge

I think that it's far more that the people working for the government want to serve well and the people that are governed themselves either accept or not the government. People who have some job usually want to do it well, those working in the public sector aren't different from others. Outside governments rarely check on the doings of other states or then there has to be dramatic violations from the ordinary.

Corruption and autocracy is something that people simply adapt to, it becomes "the way how things are", the "way of the land".

. In practice, all governments are rule by men. — Brendan Golledge

Don't generalize the US reality to the World. Women can have a considerable role.

Share of women in the US Senate: 25%
Share of women in the House of Representatives (US): 29%
Share of women in the Danish Parliament: 45,3%
Share of women in the Finnish Parliament: 46%
Share of women in the Swedish Parliament: 46,4%
Share of women in Mexican Congress: 50%

The whole of our society is based on instincts and biological drives similar to animals. We've just gone way forward from the hunter-gatherer pact, that basically smart species can form too. From family pacts to an elaborate specialization of work, agriculture and various industries and services that we call societies and cultures.

The same way has warfare as an institution evolved. The real question is just how much can we learn about our current institution from let's say observing two packs of monkeys fighting over territory? Does that really give us valuable insight? Do we use similar examples from the animal kingdom when we look at other human endeavours, commerce, science, leisure, whatever?

Some of it is about wiring and chemicals, especially testosterone, as triggering aggression. — Jack Cummins

We, just as many other animals, are quite inquisitive and curious about our surroundings. What does that tell of modern science? How much and what can you explain about 21st Century science, the scientific method and the scientific World view with humans being curious?



I would view that just as explanatory as curiosity is to modern science, so is "testosterone triggering aggression" is to war, perhaps with curiosity being far more explanatory to modern science. Especially when more an more armed forces do have women soldiers. Above all, being an soldier, a NCO or an officer is a role, just like being a teacher, a fireman or a nurse. The idea that women soldiers would be less aggressive because they are female, simply misses the mark of how modern armies operate. Again, I would argue that to emphasize "testosterone triggering aggression" as a reason for war is more of the view of pacifism, as the normative ideology puts great importance to this kind of reasoning.

Just as there's a lot more to the philosophy of science than "humans are curious", there should be a lot more to the philosophy of war than "men are aggressive". The logical start would be to look at the issues what Sun Tzu and Clausewitz among others have written, but also what generals from Ceasar and Napoleon to the present have done and said. They contribute a lot more to the understanding of war and the philosophy of war, just as a historian like Thomas Kuhn tells about the philosophy of science or contributing philosophers like David Hume or Rene Descartes argue about science.

It is funny, in a way, because Anti-immigrant Trump supporters fell for the lie that Trump was anti-immigrant just as anti-Trumpers did. — NOS4A2

What are you rambling about?

Opposing H-1B visas wasn't a Trump tweet, it was a policy implemented by Trump.

On June 22, 2020, the Trump administration issued a presidential proclamation suspending the entry of individuals to the United States on select nonimmigrant visas, including H-1B, H-2B, J-1, and L-1 visa holders, as well as their dependents.The order comes as an expansion of the Trump administration’s executive order from April 22, 2020, suspending the entry of individuals traveling to the United States on immigrant visas. The April 2020, order included a provision tasking the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security to review various nonimmigrant visa programs to determine their potential impact to unemployed U.S. workers returning to work as stay-at-home orders are lifted.

The June 22 suspension expands the travel ban to several core temporary work visa categories. The suspension will now cover persons holding H-1B, H-2B, J-1 and L-1 visas.

And btw the only one consistent here on the issue has of course been Elon Musk, not Trump:

Tech leaders have criticized President Donald Trump’s latest immigration crackdown on the visa programs that their companies rely on to employ thousands of staff.

Trump signed an executive order on Monday that suspends foreign work visas including the L-1 visa that allows firms to transfer staff from overseas offices and the H-1B visa that enables companies to hire highly skilled people in certain fields.

Google’s Sundar Pichai, YouTube’s Susan Wojcicki and Tesla’s Elon Musk were quick to condemn the restrictions, as were representatives from Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Musk said that he disagreed with the action “very much” on Twitter. “In my experience, these skillsets are net job creators,” he wrote. “Visa reform makes sense, but this is too broad.”

So I have no idea just what "lie" you are talking about. This is just a perfect example of Trump U-turns and how he lies about everything. Perhaps building the Wall was a similar lie "that Anti-Immigrant supporters of Trump fell for". Well then, what the hell does he stand for then? For his own enrichment I guess... How is the good for his voters?

After all, opposing H-1b visas was one of the reasons why Trump was so popular in the first place:



And btw, the ordinary Trump lie is that his company used H-1b visas (which ought not to be, according to candidate Trump), but actually H-2b visas, the one's for not so highly educated professionals. :grin:

Of course.

Yet denial is so sweet for the Maga-people.

I just love how Trump so clearly shows just what he is, even before taken the oath and before starting his administration:

“I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them,” Trump said by phone, referring to the H-1B program, which permits companies to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations.

“I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program,” added Trump, who restricted access to foreign worker visas in his first administration and has been critical of the program in the past.

I didn't change my mind, we have to have the most confident people in our country, we need confident people, we need smart people coming into our country and we need a lot of people coming in — Trump

:blush: :heart:

The best thing is how now all the Laura Loomer's (that are silenced in X after trolling free-speach warrior Elon) have to just shut up and suck it up to the infallible God-Emperor Trump. Because the next time they can voice their anger about how things are going in the US is only afterwards when the Democrats take to power. Only then can they say the truth. Now it's the time of faith and waiting... just like when Brexit happened, a wonderful economic revival was just around the corner for free UK. And still, same people believe in Nigel Farage (because he was so wise to go off from politics after the vote had been won).

This all before it has even started, before even the first gut punch against the poorer American from DOGE has not even swung yet. :lol:

Heck, I don't have even my popcorn ready and the show has already started.

If someone is about to kill defense is needed. — Jack Cummins

And that's the way you get down the rabbit hole: So defense from aggression is justifiable and understandable. If so, is then a pre-emptive attack justifiable, if there really exists that evident threat (and the threat isn't just proganda lies)? And when is an military intervention justifiable to another nation state? Was it justifiable for Vietnam to intervene in Kampuchea and overthrow the Khmer Rouge or the Allies to occupy and overthrow the Nazi regime in Germany and Japan?

Why are these questions important when talking about war and the underlying philosophies of it? The reason is that when talking about war, we easily fall into a normative view rather than an objective view, because people getting killed, even if they would be only soldiers, is a bad thing. Thus the viewpoint comes to be a normative one.

The trouble is that war is often not just about defense but an attempt to destroy a perceived 'enemy' and to conquer triumphantly. — Jack Cummins

Yet the vast majority of armed forces in the World during any time aren't engaged in actual warfare. In fact, the majority of sovereign states have not started wars and military actions and have been faithful to the UN charter, which actually starts with the words:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,

The majority of armed forces are basically training organizations that upkeep deterrence. Many simply exist for domestic security issues and would be very weak to engage in war with foreign armed forces. Only a few countries have the ability to fight a land war beyond their borders or neighboring states.

Attempt to destroy the enemy is an action. In events that we call wars enemies aren't just 'perceived'. The loose use of the word like with "War against Drugs" or "War against Poverty" do obviously have a vague or an undefined "enemy", yet in war that enemy is quite real. And when the enemy doesn't give up, when no other understanding can be found, then it's the turn of for the well rehearsed and well thought systemic violence perpetrated by armed forces. There simply has to be literally the conflict of interests that no political outcome can be achieved. Only then war ensues.

Hence if we ask "why war?", the reasons are political, not that "people are bellicose and want war".

Perhaps the admins were Finns and were disgusted about the idea that Sweden would have more heavy metal bands than Finland. :wink:

Well, I guess there ought to be at least someone else wanting that, and still my English is better than my Swedish. So thank you, but hold on still. :up:

Most Australians tend to see themselves as sophisticated city folk, urban hipsters, etc, emulating New York and London rather than any hic desert state. — Tom Storm

I think the stereotype of laid back friendly Australians is quite accurate. It's even more accurate when one compares Australians to the other down under people, the uptight old-school English colonists, that are said to be New Zealanders. (And no, I'm not talking about the Maori's.)

I love posting in Spanish with you, yet I think we are not entitled to do so in this thread. — javi2541997

Yep. No other languages allowed here.

I remember starting having a conversation in Swedish with a PF member and the PF-NKVD shut it down extremely quickly.

Unfortunately there's not enough Swedes and Finns (or other Nordic people) for a Swedish discussion site. And anyway, Swedish is usually worst for the Finns and the Danes, Norwegians do better.

I don't think it's even the classified part. Ordinary civilan government stuff is classified. Foreign relations has a lot of classified stuff and so does trade relations. It's not because that we simply don't know about it.

I come from a country were military service is compulsory for men and voluntary for women, hence military service is very normal. There's no division in the civilian male population between those who do their service and those who do not, as only a minority opt not to do military service. Hence there isn't this kind of support of "thank you for your service" as it's simply still viewed as an ordinary thing you ought to do. When you don't have compulsory service, any armed forces looks really different. Hollywood films hide how in the end normal the military is as in the end, it's made up of quite normal people. Societies where you have all volunteer forces create themselves this idea of a 'separate people'. Above all, if the country or nation state doesn't have an imminent outside threat, there's not going to be compulsory service and military service will look like an oddity.

Now if I would have been born let's say an American, I've never would have enlisted. Not that I'm against the military, but I wouldn't have thought I would have it in me as I suffered from very low self esteem as a young adult. I would sure be one of those supporting our guys and gals, but as I was lousy at sports in my class, I would have decided that military stuff really was not for me.

And actually armed forces usually make everything to be as normal. Above all, it's all very rational in a sense. You are put into stressing situations, because war is a stressing situation. You are taught handling your rifle by repetition that it comes robotic or nearly unconscious, because when artillery rounds start exploding, that are the things you member to do. It all has to be extremely well coordinated (as otherwise you will at worst accidentally kill each other, blue on blue), hence orders and time tables have to be kept. And then there's a paradox of while obeying orders, you also have to show initiative when it's needed. This all has logical reasoning because of warfare itself and this is not so much understood or simply thought about. For example Foucault views the rigid command system and military discipline as way to crush the individual to become a servant to the government.

But let's take another example: a symphony orchestra. There too is a rigid command system lead by the orchestra conductor and the various musicians play exactly when the conductor wants them to play. Not like you have a full orchestra of 80 to 100 musicians all playing their own tunes when they themselves feel like it. The coordination is essential for the sound to be great and that's the main reason for the conducter to be in such prominent position. But of course, you can view the role of the conductor and the musicians as merely a power play in classical music circles for something else than for the music...

So Russian men basically party full blast until they die. Is that a cultural thing? — frank

They don't only party. They drink to forget the reality. Just like with American popping pills and using drugs. Or do you think that all those fentanol use drugs to party full blast until people they die?

(2014) Russians may toast with the words “Na zdorovie” – "to your health" – but a new study finds that Russian men are often literally drinking themselves to death.

It shows that Russian men double their risk of dying over the next 20 years by drinking three bottles of vodka a week. It helps explain why Russian men have one of the lowest life expectancies in the world – 64 compared to 76 for U.S. men.

And vodka production has been a government monopoly for ages. Just like drugs in the US, it has a role in controlling the people. Drug users and alcoholics focus on their addiction and aren't politically active. Which for some political systems is a good thing.

Only two Russian leaders have tried to curb Russian drinking habits. Both were ousted and the whole nation collapsed in both occasion. No really, first one was Tzar Nicholas II and the second Mihael Gorbachev.

Now hopefully the younger generations don't drink as the older generations did, but the damage has already been done.

I would be fired on the spot for having sex at work. — frank

You work in a school, in a kindergarten or are employed by a church? But anyway, government programs that promote people having more children are a bit odd.

When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. — Jack Cummins

Then think just what we call the most successful military operations? They aren't called wars. They're just military operations.

Just like Operation Danube, the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union made, with perhaps in the Russian history comes the annexation of Crimea in second place. That military operation was done with thousands of tanks, a quarter a million men that later came to be half a million strong occupying force from various countries. The outcome of the operation? 96 Soviet soldiers were killed with 84 of them in accidents. Civilian losses? Negligble, only 137 civilians (and opposing soldiers) were killed with 500 seriously wounded.

It worked so well, that in the First war of Chechnya and in Ukraine 2022 that "Operation Danube" was tried to be mimicked by the Russian leadership. But it's not a war, because we know it as The 1968 Occupation of Czechoslovakia.

In fact, it was Sun Tzu himself that said: "The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” This tells a lot about the nature of war and it's relationship with politics as a continuation of policy, as Clausewitz argued.

Photos from a military operation that was a brilliant military success:


Even the Czechs got the message in the end: Before 1968 the Russians were their friends, aftewards they were their brothers, as the saying goes.

Hence in fact, Jack Cummins, I would argue that you are describing the nature of pacifism, not war. It is pacifism that sees peace and non-violence as the opposite of war and war as this great evil demanding human sacrifices to itself. It is the pacifist ideology itself that see war as an entity that has to be opposed, not a method that humans has evolved and put so much emphasis and hard work at. Above all, it is pacifism that doesn't want to go down the rabbit hole and ask just what war is if it's a continuation of our policies. Or that nation states even in peace do have armed forces. Pacifism see war and peace as opposite, while the vast majority of military leadership don't see it this way. For them, the best use of a military is like the use of nuclear weapons; that they aren't used in anger, but create that deterrence. After all, as the old Roman saying goes, Ci vis pacem, para bellum.

Military is an integral and essential part of historical and modern societies, even if we don't admit it. Even those few countries that don't have militaries, do have international agreements for defense and aren't without military capability (as usually the police has capabilities of acting in the role). Only the Antarctic is exempt of a military, but it's a continent without a real human society, but an assortment of researchers, just like space is now.

Armed forces will remain an essential part of the society, even if societies can are at peace with other simply for the reason of deterrence. And international efforts to counter the necessity for this deterrence is simply dwindling at the present when even war of annexation has become a reality again. We are simply backtracking now.

When we go from the individual to how groups and societies behave between each other, there comes much complexity to the situation.

Ample reasons why Australia wasn't a home for many millions of Aboriginals in 1788. When the English came around there were likely as many as there were Finns living in Finland then. With a less harsh environment, that wouldn't have been so.

Now Queensland has a population similar to Finland, even if it's five times larger. And we call our country rather empty (by European standards).

Only got to 30℃ yesterday. — Banno

Now, just back to dust, harvest detritus and grass/tree pollen. Plus 42C 4pm now. No need for the overcoat until later this evening,perhaps. Life in the rural regions! — kazan

The Aussie Christmas holidays. :sweat:

Even if the sun is shining (for the six hours it does today) and it's a clear day and not windy, -13 ℃ starts to be on the colder side in the South where I am. (In the north, no sun at all and -33 ℃.)

Ahhh, the h1b-visas :hearts: ! The cornerstone of US science and technology, that the nativists simply hate. Funny thing that DOGE hasn't even started and some Trumpers are having their fits against Donald's favorite native African.

In fact, when Elon naturally won't part from his businesses when working for the government (of course not!) it's going to be interesting to see just how much power a DOGE will really have. And if it's "trillions" of waste that is put away, I wonder just how appreciated most favorite immigrant will really be among the Trump base.

Yet they haven't got the reputation what the Belgians got after with their actions in Africa as "European colonists". Yet the Dutch are a perfect example of what a small country can do when focuses on commerce and trade over seas.

Warrior gene? That sounds to me like stuff that people with absolutely no knowledge of war and warfighting and a very negative view of "warriorhood" would give a name to something that is basically about higher levels of behavioral aggression in response to provocation. Especially when it's the certain mutations of this gene that have been linked to an increased risk of violence, when there has been abuse in early life, which seems to act as the trigger that turns on the dormant predisposition to violence with men. Easily provoked aggressive people (read men) are not the kind of methodological people that make good experienced soldiers. That aggressive psychopaths, criminals, outcasts make the best soldiers is more of an idea that Hollywood champions than what reality tells us. Even if you cannot be timid and afraid in war (which would basically be the opposite of aggressiveness), quick thinking, training, stamina, leadership and the ability to operate in a team is far more important than strength and aggression.

In fact, I view this as a misconception or that we simply do not think of the whole notion of war much. It isn't psychopatic violence, it is something that our species has simply perfected up to whole new level. It's not about the individual, it's about a group, society and nation. If for an animal hostility toward other animals is crucial in defending it's territory, it's flock or pack, our reasons for war are also totally on different level. Noah Hariri said it well when he said that we fight wars for the narratives we tell us. That is a long way from the agenda just being food security.

I don’t remember much about Dutch history, but I would guess that they haven’t done anything monumental towards the course of history. We are not talking about countries that merely survived but, rather, plummeted humanity into a new age or significantly expedited the development process. I am not sure if the Dutch count here… — Bob Ross

The Dutch have had their colonial wars, but it's usually said that the Dutch have been quite smart when it has come to their colonies. But they tried to hold on to their Indonesian colonies, and had their own lost colonial war also.

(Feb 25th, 2022) The Dutch government formally apologised last week for its role in “systematic and extreme violence” during Indonesia’s fight for independence from Dutch colonial rule between 1945 and 1949.

The apology overturns the official Dutch government position since the last state-sponsored inquiry in 1969. That inquiry held that Dutch military “excesses” during the Indonesian National Revolution had been irregular and exceptional. The Dutch government based the official apology on Dutch and Indonesian historians’ findings. Their project was funded by the Dutch government through three Dutch research institutes. The historians conclude that Dutch leaders in the late 1940s enabled extreme violence by fostering conditions of impunity for military perpetrators. Their atrocities went largely unpunished. The researchers were careful to emphasize the findings lay no blame on individual soldiers. Yet Dutch soldiers’ own records – especially amateur photographs, many thousands of which survive – have long contained evidence of atrocities. They also recorded other kinds of violence that have yet to receive proper attention.

The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars? — Jack Cummins

War in a way is legalized violence as the nations or groups that usually consider each other belligerents or enemies. It is also normalized: in a war, you can be a soldier and you kill enemy soldiers, that are also trying to kill you. This is deeply ingrained in every human society and we don't see how absurd it is. But it's very logical, even if absurd.

And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war?

How do you see the concept or definition of war? — Jack Cummins

And armed struggle between either nations or groups of people. Then you have the legal definitions of just what is conisidered to be a war. And all related definitions like "civilians", "enemy combatants" and "prisoners of war" etc.

An inner struggle of a person or his or her relationship with the society I wouldn't call war. Viewing this as "war" sounds quite dramatic or melodramatic, but I guess on a personal level it is quite different from the social-political (anti-social?) phenomenon of war.

I am writing this thread after discussion with a friend about outer and inner war. My friend maintains that he has had a 'ceasefire' from social situations as he was 'at war with the world'. — Jack Cummins

In my view this wouldn't be the first definition of use for the term "war". Inner struggle or something?

Thank you then for the +500 comments that you have made in this forum then. :heart:

But if there's a new annoying thread that we all have gotten all
wrong, please give your wisdom and insight to us, even if you have
vowed not to be active in the net again.

Happy New Year!

But I remember that even amidst all the hubbub, the average Americans that I knew were not very concerned about it. — Leontiskos

That's one thing that can happen with Trump 2 administration, if everything would go nice and well also.

Clinton's approval rating and Trump's reelection show that, for better or for worse, the electorate didn't take such proceedings seriously. — Leontiskos

Infidelity in the end isn't at all an issue, if you know the politician himself. It's just a thing that tells something about the politician before we know him.

The media will undoubtedly portray Trump’s administration as a chaotic mess of incoherent policies. — Number2018

Indeed they will. Just like as actually the people inside the Clinton administration did and as the people inside the 1st Trump administration told how it was inside the White House. Quite chaotic and incoherent. I assume that Trump 2 will be similar. In the end, these administrations will simply appear as they arey, which is rather chaotic. Even so, a lot of those "incoherent" policies done by the incoming Trump administration will indeed get picked on by the next administration (just like many policies wered done with the Biden Administration) and hence will be a part of the long tradition of US policy in then end.

. In the U.S. Clinton is remembered as a good president who did his job, was well-spoken, balanced the budget, was willing to shift the historical Democrat line when necessary, and was guilty of sexual misconduct. — Leontiskos

But do you remember the actual politics of the time?

The polarization between the Republicans and the Democrats started in earnest back then with creating what we now call echo chambers. And note that the impeachment charge was of lying under oath, not being unfaithful in marriage. And the various scandal "-gates" were considerable when you look at the reporting. For example, when Clinton attacked Al Qaeda sites (and a medical factory in Sudan by mistake), he was accused of attempting a "Wag the Dog" maneuver to get the media off his own scandals.

While Clinton’s lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky might be the most memorable part of the impeachment, that was not where it all started. Clinton had been under investigation by an independent counsel almost from the moment he took office, when he appointed an independent counsel to conduct an inquiry into a land deal he and his wife conducted long before he took office.

Among the many Clinton scandals...

Clinton later reached an $850,000 out of court settlement with Jones a little more than a month before his impeachment and a month after Starr had published his report, which included 11 possible impeachable offenses, ranging from perjury and obstruction of justice to witness tampering and abuse of power.

After all of the above, Democrats went with Hillary Clinton, even if she had angered the Republicans for so long earlier. This is something that usually is forgotten about the 2016 elections.

Yet looking at the Clinton year historically, yes, the Clinton years look a lot different. And likely so will be with this era, depending on what comes after this period. If things are worse, this will be "the good times" and if things improve in the future, then these are the "bad times". This is crucial also when looking at the Trump era.

Do you think that 'the whole 'MAGA' thing is a mess,' — Number2018

Trump administration will look like a mess, just as the Clinton administration looked like.

If you were too young to remember, the Clinton administration looked to go from scandal to scandal, had even an impeachment, and had dedicated Clinton-haters in the GOP (just as people in the dems really don't like Trump). Only on a broader perspective what the actions, policies and achievements of the Clinton administration can be seen, apart from sperm on Monica's dress.

Trump will continue things like wanting to buy Greenland from Denmark and other crazy tweets. Hence it's really hard then to see "long term policies" when the media focus is on what Trump has said and wanted today.

If you think so, does your second quote explain why Trump won the popular vote and became the second Republican to do so since 1988? — Number2018

Because Joe Biden isn't fit for being President, and especially not for another four years.

And because then the party leadership just put Kamala as the new candidate annoyed the voters. Remember that Americans do believe in the strange theater called "Primaries" and don't like the party leadership just selecting the candidate. In a multiparty system this isn't a problem as people just select between parties and don't care shit about the internal selection of the party candidates. But in a system where there are only two parties (or so Americans believe), it's very important.

Trump promised a return to the 1960s when there was job security. The US has since deindustrialized, so there's no way to go back. — frank

This is just an example of how people will desperately cling to the politician promising better times as they had before and turn away from the ones trying to make a realist effort on how to something when the change is permanent.

Rather than asking what the slogan 'MAGA' means to Trump’s voters, it might be more insightful to explore how the slogan 'MAGA' functions. What do you think? — Number2018

Trump has no political ideology. It's telling that Trump himself didn't last time think that "drain the swamp" rhetoric would go anywhere, but he can read his audience and notice how it sank to his base. Otherwise when looking at it objectively, the whole 'MAGA' thing is a mess. Isolationism and then wanting Greenland and the Panama Canal? How do those to fit together ideologically? Even more logical would be "KAG", hence "Keep America Great" as the US hasn't yet lost it's Superpower status.

Could you provide an example from recent Western history where mainstream political parties responded to the wishes of the population? — Number2018

I tried to make that example with the Nordic countries. Sweden has a) changed it's immigration policy dramatically. The populist "Sweden Democrats" haven't been in any administration. Naturally when parties like the social democrats stiffen the immigration policies, it also does make populist parties less "fringe". The "Sweden Democrats" have persistently tried to change themselves to be mainstream. For example the True Finns -party has been now twice in a coalition administration and the first time it was so hard for the populist party that the party itself broke into two. Denmark is also an example with a long tradition of not having so open borders.

This from the Swedish government webpage: https://www.government.se/government-policy/swedens-new-migration-policy/

Sweden’s new migration policy

Sweden’s migration policy is undergoing a paradigm shift. The Government is intensifying its efforts to reduce, in full compliance with Sweden’s international commitments, the number of migrants coming irregularly to Sweden. Labour immigration fraud and abuses must be stopped and the ‘shadow society’ combated. Sweden will continue to have dignified reception standards, and those who have no grounds for protection or other legal right to stay in Sweden must be expelled.

There isn't a "populist" administration running Sweden, the prime minister Ulf Kristersson comes from the Moderate Party in a coalition of his party, Christian democrats and liberals. The populist "Sweden Democrats" isn't either the largest opposition party as the Social Democrats are still larger. And it's noteworthy to point out that the change happened during the Social Democrats were in power. This is something that is totally silenced in the populist narrative where Sweden is just given as a country "that has been lost". Or to the "Europe is lost if not for populists" argument. Every other party than populist parties are painted to be the "establishment".

Could the most recent U.S. elections serve as such an example? — Number2018

Obviously the GOP has been taken over by populism. I view this as something that has saved the trust in the obscure "primaries"-system of the US and firmed the belief that Americans have in their two-party system. Americans believe that they can influence the two ruling parties working from the inside. In other countries people would simply form new parties and vote for the new parties. Not so in the US.

Is the problem systemic? Or is it just a particular set of circumstances? — frank

If mainstream political parties react to the wishes of the population, populism doesn't take over. Yet the reaction has to be swift and decisive, not just empty promises. I meek response will give the populists ammunition to portray themselves as the only solution to the political problems.

Just look at how for example Nordic countries, where democracy still works quite well, have changed their stance towards immigration very radically (Sweden, Finland) and have been quite strict from the start (Denmark). Yet in Sweden the populists have never been in power and for example in Finland only as a coalition partner, just as now.

There isn't actually any reason why mainstream parties could respond to the what people who vote for populists ask. Curb corruption, have some prominent politicians, bankers and "respected elite members" go to jail if they have broken the law. Be tough on immigration, you can close borders if you need to do that.

It is actually the populist themselves that paint the picture of the mainstream parties as ineffective lackeys of the richest billionaires and their lobbyists. (And as we can see from Trump having the richest person in his cabinet, the ideology isn't so important.)

However, unlike identity politics, the slogan MAGA does not primarily function to maintain a "them versus us" narrative. — Number2018

Yet Trump's agenda, starting with going after the "deepstate" that "robbed him from an election victory" seems to me quite strong "them versus us" narrative. What will come of it is another question.

Populism is at least for me a lousy word for this kind of politics. "Anti-elitism" would be far more proper term for this, because in fact many political ideas and ideologies that would be popular among the people don't strive for polarization and the "us the people against the evil elites" narrative that populism goes for. Populism and popular are quite different.

To your point though, it is worth asking: "have there been any peaceful and ethical movements that progresses just as rapidly and richly as the many barbaric ones that came before (or after) it?". Very few; in fact, I would say the only ones are the ones that are barbaric anti-barbarism: the violence of peace. E.g., Ghandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. — Bob Ross

How about international cooperation?

As usually we are obsessed in our focus on Superpowers and Great Powers and conflicts, we miss a lot that has been truly dramatic and peaceful, movements that have been a success by cooperation by independent states. European integration has pacified the union members (which don't look at each other as potential military threats and adversaries). The idea of EU came strong after the Continent had suffered two World Wars, something that anti-EU populist will totally ignore.

Or Nordic cooperation, where as early as 1952 Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland abolish the requirement for passports for travel between them. Or what the UN has also achieved, even if the organization is very bureaucratic and inefficient. In every Continent there is a desire for cooperation and for trade. The idea of shutting the country out of the World isn't popular anymore, as Japan tried to do earlier (and actually places like Oman, where one sultan was a very conservative guy who banned the use of bicycles in the 20th Century.) The wide assortment of international organizations that sovereign states participate has to be in it's entirety a noteworthy development.

It also begs the question just what values and agendas are shared in such way we could speak of Global or Universal values, not just Western values.

do they? I'm sure it's heresy and utterly crazy for many and people will refer me to take basic math lessons, but what if you have ∞ for infinity and 1/∞ for infinitesimal as Platonic objects in Math?

And we do have problems in understanding infinity, so how Platonic that is, is a question. Or otherwise I guess the Continuum Hypothesis has been solved.

Well, Russian population has been for a long time been decreasing, not that it's anything new. But now you have young men a) be killed on the battlefield and b) migrate out of Russia by the hundreds of thousands in fear of being sent to the battlefield. The Russian demographic collapse is a reality. It's just a question how much will the population of Russia will diminish. Will it be 25% or even 50%?

Russian demographics is really horrible. Just look at the life expectancy, which shows how bad the issue is, especially about the men:

The biggest challenge for Russia is to improve male life expectancy, which is starkly lower than the female statistics. Russian males on average live 66 years, whereas Russian females can expect to live 76 years. The reasons for such dismal numbers for males range from high alcohol consumption and smoking to poor healthcare and hygiene habits to dangerous driving and risky behaviors.

Add to the equation a conventional war, which basically is now killing in weeks the amount that were killed in the Afghanistan war. The huge attrition of the war can be seen in the fact that Ukraine has been protecting it's youngest generations and the Ukrainian soldier is on average very old, from 43-45 years old range, something basically similar to Hitler's Volkstrum. The age that Ukrainian soldiers are conscripted to the war is I think at 25 years old, when a large part have already been have had children.

Ukrainian soldiers, who look to be in their 40's or older.

I think it's very clear that "infinitesimals" do not qualify as Platonic objects, because they do not have the "well-defined", or even "definable" nature which is required of a Platonic object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do not qualify yet. Once infinity and it's opposite are well defined (and infinity isn't just taken as an axiom), they likely would be Platonic objects. At least I have enough belief in the "logicism" of mathematics that it is so.