Ukraine Crisis

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I think Putin has had an argument with his girlfriend and he's taking it out on Ukraine. He might even start using his nuclear toys just to 'show her who's boss and what a big man he is'.

Actually this isn't at all far fetched. World leaders (especially despotic ones) are generally the most inadequate and shallow of creatures behind closed doors and out of the public eye.

And you KNOW this HOW, EXACTLY?

The post starts with thinking, not with knowing. Anyway, the author naturally knows her own thoughts.

Which indicates a seriously flawed character. This is a shame, because after weeding out all the affectation and irritating 'style' you can find snippets of rationality and good sense.

[henry quirk]

if people watch a war, on television, they are being part of the war?

We're not watchin' a war: we're watchin' propaganda about a conflict we're told is a war.

We're an audience to another scripted event.

[commonsense]

if people watch a war, on television, they are being part of the war?

We're not watchin' a war: we're watchin' propaganda about a conflict we're told is a war.

We're an audience to another scripted event.

Is there even one iota of a chance that what you see on TV is real, actual mud and blood?

[commonsense]

Agree or not?

There’s a fake war in Ukraine that has the purpose of distracting the attention of Americans from domestic issues.

IIOT HQ will agree with the statement, but if ANYONE ELSE agrees, please reply.

Thanks,
RB

[commonsense]

IIOT = It is obvious that

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Agree or not?

There’s a fake war in Ukraine that has the purpose of distracting the attention of Americans from domestic issues.

IIOT HQ will agree with the statement, but if ANYONE ELSE agrees, please reply.

Thanks,
RB

Distracting the world. But who would 'arrange' that and how?

[iambiguous]

Tucker Carlson just noting what no doubt many more may well be coming around to confronting: their own existential fate if 1] Putin really is as "crazy" as some insist he is and 2] the "hot heads" succeed in pushing for an actual American involvement in the conflict and 3] America goes there setting into motion a Putin reaction that leads to a possible nuclear exchange.

And, of course, if this happens who among us is really safe?

Again, the part where we don't really know what is actually going on inside Putin's head now. Literally dasein and nuclear war.

And what if the sanctions succeed in doing truly significant damage to the Russian economy? This has an impact on Putin's popularity and, cornered, he threatens nuclear war to end them?

Suddenly this war might involve us far beyond the squabbles we have here. Our very existence could be threatened.

How then does that change your thinking about "the right thing to do"?

[iambiguous]

I believe God is watching over the world and will administer justice as needed. In the end, virtue and good will win. They always do.

Do you actually believe this?

Well, leaving Ukraine aside for the moment, if what you say is true, how then do you explain a point I raised over at ILP:

...you don't wonder why God created a planet prone to "natural disasters" that devastate the lives of millions year in and year out? Why He brings around the occasional "extinction event" from time to time? Why He created viruses and countless other horrific medical afflictions that take a terrible toll on the flocks down here.

On children for example. You can start here for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _disorders

And, again, that's assuming a God/the God is your God. And not one of the countless others that have worshipped and adored down through the ages.

Things like Ukraine -- and the Holocaust -- are precisely the reason that some like Rabbi Harold Kushner suggested that if God does exist, He must not be omnipotent. Otherwise, how is it not entirely reasonable to construe Him as a sadistic monster?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Are 7 billions humans really just going to sit back and let a couple of arsehole 'leader types' on an ego trip destroy the only home they have? Probably

[henry quirk]

Agree or not?

There’s a fake war in Ukraine that has the purpose of distracting the attention of Americans from domestic issues.

HQ will agree with the statement

No, I don't agree...not completely.

I said: We're not watchin' a war: we're watchin' propaganda about a conflict we're told is a war. We're an audience to another scripted event.

Sumthin' violent is goin' over there. There's a conflict of some kind. There's also a helluva lot of massagin' of info goin' on. Different folks with different agendas are skewin' info then presenting it. It's reality television: real events are recorded then the footage is edited to fit a storyline...30 hours of raw and unscripted is turned into an hour of polished and scripted.

Why? To distract from domestic woes, yeah, but also: these folks can't help themselves...they're as autistic as you-know-who...for them, the storyline is real, and what's actual is just fodder for the storytellin'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)

[henry quirk]

How then does that change your thinking about "the right thing to do"?

It doesn't.

[henry quirk]

Are 7 billions humans really just going to sit back and let a couple of arsehole 'leader types' on an ego trip destroy the only home they have? Probably

Mebbe so.

The story just might be gettin' away from them: the scripted Big Bad might actually be Big & Bad.

[promethean75]

"Is there even one iota of a chance that what you see on TV is real, actual mud and blood There’s a fake war in Ukraine that has the purpose of distracting the attention of Americans from domestic issues."

Even though they're staging the war at area 51, it's not for the purposes of 'distracting' anyone. History is proving that capitalism has been utterly failing the vast majority of Americans, Russians and Ukrainians and yet nobody's one wit the wiser. So no, there really is no need to create distractions. Besides, they already have a distraction up and running called 'religion'.

[Walker]

Also, because of 'generational child abuse' ALL of 'you', adult human beings, have a BELIEF that; "If MY RULES a 'disobeyed', then you WILL BE PUNISHED".

'you', adults, HAVE and HOLD this BELIEF and SAY this, now, because this is what 'you' ALL CONTINUALLY heard as children.

When 'you' STOP BELIEVING, "If you do NOT do as I TELL YOU, then you WILL BE PUNISHED", then those that ARE 'above you' WILL EVENTUALLY STOP having and HOLDING 'this BELIEF', ALSO.

For your sincere offerings, you deserve some attention-time on that frequency.

Interesting. I’ve also discovered a variation of this exact quoted thought, in the past. Since you discovered the thought, and I discovered the gist independently of you, I figure most everyone else has also discovered it. Thus the variable is what gets done with it, attention-wise, and philosophically.

There are exceptions, of course. It’s a tendency that doesn’t apply to every relationship interaction within the parent/child relationship, of course. Some parents rarely use bunker-buster persuasion, but to your point yes, it is used.

But this isn’t really the focus of your comment, is it. Your point is larger, and it involves the principle.

*

The thing is, this tendency you describe isn’t just from parent to child. The adult parent doesn’t drop the principle just because the methods that are used on a child, which can be blunt force after persuasion and patience fails, are different than methods used in the rest of the adult’s daily life.

The adult parent continues to use the principle on other adults, applied according to methods determined by the receiving adult’s capacity to be affected.

The principle is also used among nations, the method determined by its effectiveness. This I think, is your focus, considering the situation of the thread title.

What is the principle? It’s simple, of course. True principles are simple. The principle is, NO.

As you describe, all parents use the principle in child-rearing to varying degrees, sometimes needlessly. That’s the purest form of the principle, clearly obvious, stripped down, and applied during the formative years. And, you are correct in that it becomes ingrained, although you didn’t express it exactly as such. NO becomes a habit, and it is a bounded view of reality. The boundary is arbitrary.

Adult to adult, NO is called invalidation and permeates or flavours most every interaction. NO will work its way into every conversation if the conversation lasts more than a few clichés and sound bites, and certainly it’s active in those tuned to debate and attempts to scientifically falsify an hypothesis.

Depending on the nature of the relationship, invalidation, which is the adult method of applying the NO Principle, can be called contrariness, verbal jousting, trash talk, debate, Socratic-dialogue-applied-to-legal-truth-seeking, libel, slander, and so on. It can be called self-sabotage. It can even be called transmission-sabotage by making the vehicle of the message less than transparent when known alternatives are available.

The principle of invalidation is woven into the fabric of modern life. Those who always agree grow weary of the peace. Conflict is essential to growth. Pressure creates the diamond. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. And so on.

Nation-to-Nation? Invalidation is also conducted, in Nation-to-Nation methods. In the extreme, War.

This is why deal makers who know the psychology of the deal make good presidents. They’re not warriors out to conquer other nations, which is how they are viewed by those licensed to inspect from arm-chairs, and couches when the chair grows too small, inspectors who are conditioned from childhood to The Principle of Invalidation, that permeates so much of life, and is reinforced by so much media commentary passing itself off as news in airports, public places, and even government-school classrooms.

Deal makers are out for the Win-Win.
They build infrastructure. Civilization.
They are not destroyers or conquerors.

Some can even make Deal-Making into such an Art, so that peace and prosperity reign during their tenure.

[Walker]

Agree or not?

There’s a fake war in Ukraine that has the purpose of distracting the attention of Americans from domestic issues.

HQ will agree with the statement

No, I don't agree...not completely.

I said: We're not watchin' a war: we're watchin' propaganda about a conflict we're told is a war. We're an audience to another scripted event.

Sumthin' violent is goin' over there. There's a conflict of some kind. There's also a helluva lot of massagin' of info goin' on. Different folks with different agendas are skewin' info then presenting it. It's reality television: real events are recorded then the footage is edited to fit a storyline...30 hours of raw and unscripted is turned into an hour of polished and scripted.

Why? To distract from domestic woes, yeah, but also: these folks can't help themselves...they're as autistic as you-know-who...for them, the storyline is real, and what's actual is just fodder for the storytellin'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)

I get your drift, however, there are no reporters on the front lines. The numbers being reported indicate a lot of activity. Plus, filtered news is essential for war propaganda, which is an aspect of war more crucial than ever in the lightning-quick world of information dissemination and a 24-hour news cycle to fill, to fill so many minds that have been paying attention, whether or not they are young and freshly conditioned.

These narratives are put together to promote a larger narrative, sure, which is why it's necessary to first work with the known or as close to it as possible, the simplest of reports, which would be independent verification that intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying enough payload to destroy all but the outliers and probably some of them too (so the story goes), are indeed aimed at the vitals of The United States and other NATO countries.