Trump is not offering peace in Ukraine

[Atla]

Whatever Obama did, his presidency couldn't have had an impact this big. The main cause of the chaos in the US has to be 9/11 which was staged. The US government killed 3000 of its own people, lied to hundreds of millions, and the whole world.

Hoo boy! Atla I knew the “true you” would jump out at some point!

What's really perverse is that I doubt that a Democrat government would have gone that far. It was the Republicans that mainly caused the current global mess, and the Democrats had to go along with it. And yet it's the Democrats that are vilified and a Republican, Trump is supposed to be the saviour. That's some twisted shit isn't it.

[henry quirk]

the Nobel committee (and 98% of educated readers) agree with me.

Ah, the bellwethers of American Civilization: Swedes, Norwegians, snobs, and you.

Where do you get that from?

Dispassionate observation.

Some sort of settlement involving Ukraine ceding territory seems the likely solution.

Seems to me that is exactly what RED MAN DEFIANT is workin' for.

[henry quirk]

Fair enough. You do understand, though, a great many Americans are not married to Right & Left distinctions, yes? Theirs is an American sensibility which I've described in-forum as distinctly libertarian (lower case, non-political, non-ideological), a mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself...or else frame of mind.

I see your point. I agree mostly. What you describe is what my outlook has always been.

[Atla]

You should know that whatever Obama did, his presidency couldn't have had an impact this big. Keep digging.

You deliberately — or is it unconscious? — desire to twist what I suggest. I point out that behind Obama’s public TeeVee face, that another “face” operated. His activism, whether understood as good or bad, set many currents in motion. And in a certain sense his activism evoked Donald Trump.

I liked Obama's non-activism, when Israel's leader called he refused to pick up the phone. He really hated that he was forced to take part in this international warfare plan that his predecessor put into motion.

[phyllo]

When we examine the thinking and perspective of Alexiev and Seeds, we discover at the core a deeply internalized universalism. It is impossible for these men to think, see or feel in terms that give validity to anything identitarian.

This is the universal attitude that is part-and-parcel of America’s ‘civil religion’ and it is expressed though all aspects of Americanism as that Americanism became the expansionist, deeply moralized, expression of “what is right and good” for the world.

Along with this — perversely! — is the normalization of the “globo-homo” ethos.

To understand the rebellion and reaction of the present (in Europe and America) one must become familiar with those ideologues that define anti-liberal positions which resist this spirit of universalism.

One quote from a talk by Jonathan Bowden is interesting because it calls for a metaphysical redefinition:

“Belief [metaphysical, religious belief] is an understanding that there are truths outside nature and outside the contingent universe that's in front of us that are absolute. The left-wing view that it's all relative or we make it up as we go along, is false. And the the more primordial we are, the more we live in accordance with what we might become, the more we link with those concepts which are eternal and that exist outside us.”

That seems to be confused.

A universalism would necessarily be absolute.

What is "right and good" would not be relative.

[Alexiev]

[
What are the positives?

I explained aome of the positives earlier: immigrants writing great English novels. For America -- how about all those rocket and atomic scientists (or don't they count because they are white Europeans)? The eloquence (in English) of my Pakistani cab driver is another example.

Perhaps diversity protects us from fanatics. Christian Europe in the 16th snd 17th centuries executed hundreds of thousands of witches. Don't you think religious diversity might have protected then?

What's so horrible about a little conflict? Maybe we should keep the conflict intellectual or political, instead of violent -- but conflict (and diversity) promotes change. Not all change is positive -- but neither is stasis.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, when was that?
_______

The 1970s. I wasn't quite old enough to be drafted -- by the time my student deferment ended the draft and the war was over. But in the late 1960s and early 70s America was very divided.

Yeah, that's the era I assumed you were referring to.

I too was of college age at that time (freshman at Eastern Michigan University in '67).

I and my family lived in a suburb of Detroit Michigan, and I remember being home (just a few miles away) from the '67 Detroit race riots.

My point is that there's no way we were far closer to civil war at that time than we are now, for at that time, the civil unrest was mostly focused on African Americans (and the Vietnam War) and wasn't nearly as broad as it is now.

In other words, America's bigots weren't that concerned with Mexicans, or Muslims, or other types of immigrants, nor was there much (if any) conflict and concern over sexual or gender issues (which were still mainly closeted).

But, most of all, the political divides were nowhere near as polarized then as they are now, especially with the freakin' Antichrist in the Oval Office stoking the flames of hatred and division.
_______

Well, January 6 wasn't really a revolution. Instead, it was an attempted coup-- which maintains the same system with a different leader. I remember hating Nixon just as much as I hate Trump (although Nixon was more rational). Perhaps you forget how polarized the country was in 1970, when the National Guard killed students at Kent State.

[seeds]

But, most of all, the political divides were nowhere near as polarized then as they are now, especially with the freakin' Antichrist in the Oval Office stoking the flames of hatred and division.

A long trajectory of events, and an entire causal chain, evoked as it were the manifestation of Donald Trump. You could say he is a manifestation from within the psyche of America. And that is a confused psyche and even a sick psyche.

Again, whether it is my old age senility, or that of a failure of my claims to gain any traction that causes me to constantly repeat things,...

...I nevertheless suggest that the (BigMikean-ish) "causal chain" that evoked the manifestation of Donald Trump, is nothing more than the plain old bad karma that America is now reaping from all of the imperialistic treachery it has been sowing across the planet for the last seven or so decades.

The “flames of division and hatred” were, in truth, stoked by the presidency of Obama. The origin of “anti-whiteness” for example and an activist’s program for the redefinition of America.

There is a huge difference between the "stoking of the flames of division and hatred" being caused by the unique "event" of a black man being elected to the presidency of the United States to the chagrin and disgruntlement of the white, so-called, "Christian" members of this society...

...and that of an obvious and avowed racist president who deliberately stokes those flames (for personal gain, no less).

A real conversation about what is happening and why would be intensely interesting and certainly worthwhile. Sad though that there is no one available who can see beyond the tip of their nose or that has any genuine interest in honest analysis.

Forget about not being able to see beyond the tip of one's nose,...

(and here I go again, repeating my tired old claims [deal with it])

...for the real problem lies in the fact that humans (in general) are simply not awake enough to see past the outer facades of these temporary bodies in order to understand that our eternal souls have no race or gender, and, in truth, are all equal familial members of the highest species of being in all of reality.

In other words, we are each and every one of us the same species of being as the Creator of this universe.

Until you realize that, AJ, then any "honest analysis" you may have in mind regarding the social problems being discussed in this and other threads, will always be from a lower perspective.
_______

[Alexiev]

the Nobel committee (and 98% of educated readers) agree with me.

Ah, the bellwethers of American Civilization: Swedes, Norwegians, snobs, and you.

Where do you get that from?

Dispassionate observation.

Some sort of settlement involving Ukraine ceding territory seems the likely solution.

Seems to me that is exactly what RED MAN DEFIANT is workin' for.

Do you read novels, Henry, or just mock people who like foreign authors. Your observations seem far from "dispassionate".

I said earlier that I don't object to Trump's attempts in the Ukraine (except for his obnoxious rudeness). Always change your game if it isn’t winning.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That seems to be confused.

A universalism would necessarily be absolute.

What is "right and good" would not be relative.

You are quite right of course. The Dissident Right, the Extreme Right, the “Trad Right” — all of them, and the people that are drawn to the ideas do so because they seek to re-establish “a ground under their feet”.

Identity politics, my land, my country, my body, my future, my destiny: these are the issues that cone to the fore.

And yes: it is confused.

And everyone writing on this forum is in the midst of dealing with confusing issues.

[Gary Childress]

When we examine the thinking and perspective of Alexiev and Seeds, we discover at the core a deeply internalized universalism. It is impossible for these men to think, see or feel in terms that give validity to anything identitarian.

This is the universal attitude that is part-and-parcel of America’s ‘civil religion’ and it is expressed though all aspects of Americanism as that Americanism became the expansionist, deeply moralized, expression of “what is right and good” for the world.

Along with this — perversely! — is the normalization of the “globo-homo” ethos.

To understand the rebellion and reaction of the present (in Europe and America) one must become familiar with those ideologues that define anti-liberal positions which resist this spirit of universalism.

One quote from a talk by Jonathan Bowden is interesting because it calls for a metaphysical redefinition:

“Belief [metaphysical, religious belief] is an understanding that there are truths outside nature and outside the contingent universe that's in front of us that are absolute. The left-wing view that it's all relative or we make it up as we go along, is false. And the the more primordial we are, the more we live in accordance with what we might become, the more we link with those concepts which are eternal and that exist outside us.”

What does "globo-homo ethos" mean? Are you using the term "homo" in the sense of the word "homogenous", or do you mean "homo" in the sense of LGBT people?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What does "globo-homo ethos" mean? Are you using the term "homo" in the sense of the word "homogenous", or do you mean "homo" in the sense of LGBT people?

A culture of faggotry in essence. An American export.

“Get back in that dark, sticky closet!”

Any other questions, Old Bean?

Had you been a normal child, you pervert, you’d have spoken bluntly as well!

[Gary Childress]

What does "globo-homo ethos" mean? Are you using the term "homo" in the sense of the word "homogenous", or do you mean "homo" in the sense of LGBT people?

A culture of faggotry in essence. An American export.

“Get back in that dark, sticky closet!”

Any other questions, Old Bean?

Had you been a normal child, you pervert, you’d have spoken bluntly as well!

Try to contain your hysteria, AJ. It isn't very pleasant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’ll do what I can …

[Alexis Jacobi]

You see, that’s what I’m talking about!

This is the closest they give us to an hysteria emoticon.

Once more I feel shortchanged!