Trump: King of Id

Post Reply New Topic

Bottom line: Putin has little global influence, compared to china.
"The Bear" is old and motheaten.
"The Tiger" is ambitious and arrogant.

Also, consider:
The story about russian influence in the "Trump" elections had no traction, ultimately, despite 2 years(?) worth of Democratic efforts.
Are you saying your "judiciary system" is crap?

Yeah, I am a “not very well closeted” Adam Curtis fan (apparently he’s got a new project in the works that was scheduled for release this year, expect it’s been delayed though).
Peter Pomerantsev, I’ve had a couple of his talks that have been uploaded to YouTube (by IWM Vienna if memory serves) on whilst doing things about the house, he’s on my list of authors to read with attention.
Also Masha Gessen on that particular line, several interviews with her: one in particular with Timothy Snyder stands out as having been quite illuminating in my memory. I’ve also read several of Carole Cadwallr’s articles on the social/cash networks she uncovered before she was forced into hiding by threats from a variety of far-right organisations.
There’s also a talk on this subject by Stephen Kotkin somewhere on YouTube from a few years back: he’s more skeptical of current Kremlin power and influence than the others, but not an advocate of complacency either.

Yes, I was in three minds as to whether the UK or the US or France if the western countries has succumbed further to self-radicalising influences: at present the US appears to be in the lead there I’ll agree.

Capitalism as institutional mechanism and channel yes, but I’m going with geopolitical theory as well as that: it may have developed as a conservative academic doctrine during the Cold War, but that doesn’t mean it lacks the potential for profound insight.

The Beijing Politburo is, you’re right, primarily focused on building up China industrially, economically and diplomatically: but long-term they can’t do that without subverting the US centred global order as we know it, a process which I doubt would be a peaceable improvement for the global poor beyond the PRC’s borders.

(I’ve trimmed down the quote stack to avoid posting a huge repetitive chunk of grey borders)

If only he were capable of doing so in a clearly systematic way whilst taking a sufficient number of other democratic leaders along with him.
I suspect his divisiveness amongst long-term US allies will leave his specific policy efforts largely impotent on a global scale.

Europe isn't happy Trump wants them to contribute more to Nato.
America has been "spoon-feeding" them for some time.
They are not happy the teat is not as forthcoming these days.

And didn't the EU shut down a lot of trade deals with America when it formed?
I not sure here.
Tell me if I am wrong.
They did put Australia out in the cold.
I'm still pissed off about that.

Bottom line: I don't think you can blame all the animosity on Trump.

BTW, Australia in on good terms with America, better than with Turnbull.

There's been plenty of traction. Republicans lost midterm elections which were a mandate on Trump, while state prosecutors in New York and elsewhere have accumulated plenty of evidence that can send Trump up the river.
Trump got exonerated by a docile, timid, Republican dominated senate out of fear of the backlash of Trump's cult rather than due to any evidence presented by the defense.
Yes, Russia is not an economic or military powerhouse, but Putin himself had spent years as a KGB spymaster used to playing the long game in which he has spread his tentacles throughout not just the former Soviet Republics, but also into the west, including the USA. Putin sees the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest catastrophe in Russian history, and he blames America first and foremost for that. His intention is to leave American world influence and power in ruins. Donald Trump, who Putin had bailed out with loans when no one in their right mind would lend money to, is now in debt to his benefactor. Trump had had no problem laundering money for Kremlin connected oligarchs and gangsters, and now he has no problem carrying out Putin's intentions that are purely detrimental to America.

That conversation between Gessen and Snyder is fantastic! Thank you for that.

And: yeah, of course the change away from a US-controlled world to a multipolar world is painful, and violent.
But for a lot of the world, so was US-control. From shock-doctrine to the "war on drugs" in south America, to the support of middle eastern Royals and dictators, to the enforcing of free movement of capital anywhere on the globe, to the detriment of the local citizens, all to syphon of wealth to facilitate a global inequality that is simply unsustainable - and guess what, it's collapsing, with our without Chinese or Russian interference. They are actively trying to influence the outcome, but they are not the cause.

There’s also a very interesting lecture by Snyder on Ivan Ilyin and Putin’s promotion of his works: I think that ones on IWM’s channel.

Think “collapsing” might be an overstatement, but US power is certainly a relatively less significant force than it was during the presidency of Bush Snr.
I’ve read Klein too
I think she has a tendency to see “design” where I see “blinkered ideological bloody-mindedness”: that aside she makes many valid points about why US soft power has been a gradually less valuable political currency as the decades from ‘45 have worn on.
I wouldn’t regard her as having the entire story of course

Ah, yes.
The American Pericles.

I was thinking more along the lines of his weird gambits to buy territory off European states, disrespect their institutions... and cosy lovely characters like Le Pen and Farage.

As far as higher military budgets go: well, I’d certainly prefer my countries to be a touch more (2.9% of GDP last time I checked, I think something more like 3.5% would be preferable)
Doubt his habit of commanding rather than requesting will produce it though.

I’m not sure about historical shutting down of deals with the US: I am aware that the UK’s joining was a blow to the export oriented industries of all the former colonies of the Empire... which was not our finest hour.

No, he’s not responsible for the situation he’s inherited: but he can do great harm to his own country long-term by looking like a self-pitying child about it.
Which he does from the perspective of being here on the edge of Europe: although improved US-Oz relationship? Yep, if he keeps it up that will be a positive part of his legacy to presidents to come.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

So, how do you explain the growth in jobs, in America?
Jobs that are particularly benefiting racial minorities?

I hate big business.
So many self-centred psychopaths in management.
But there *are* benefits to the working class.
Isn't it a trade-off?
After all, nothing is perfect in this god-forsaken life system we all have been dragged kicking and screaming into, right?



My sources of political commentary haven't mentioned any of this.
Could you elaborate?
Point to some articles, perhaps?



So, do you think Nato, as a whole, has been taking advantage of America?
If they have, why would it be wrong for an American President to pull them into line?
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the inherent *disrespect* the Europeans, as a whole, have been showing America.

Remember the incident where a group of leaders, at a social gathering, were snickering about Trump?
They looked like a bunch of kids ganging up on another kid.
That sort of behaviour is not exactly infused with integrity and maturity.

The inherent attitude of entitlement, of some in Europe, does more damage to them than Trump, from my perspective.

As in the ancient Athenian statesman: the one who sought to strengthen and expand the Delian League whilst upping the contributions from all other members, and shift it’s focus from Persia to Sparta... a hero to the Athenians, but antagonistic and unwelcome to many other Greek states at the time.
Cue Peloponnesian War and the diminution of Athenian power.
For clarity, I’m not expecting some kind of exact repeat on a larger scale, merely noting that Mr Trump’s foreign policy lead has some parallels with those of Pericles.

I think you’re shifting the discussion around a bit here
Yes, there does seem to have been an increase in employment in the US, and ethnic minorities have been amongst those who have benefited from this, I’m also aware there’s an argument as to whether this is due to Trumps policies, or the medium term effects of Obama’s: I suspect six of one and half a dozen of the other is most likely the case... with an extra two from Bush Jnr
I think the “big business” thing is a debate all of it’s own, for brevity: I don’t like it as a phenomena, but accept we don’t have a better alternative to hand for running and maintaining mass production and distribution.
It hasn’t escaped my notice that it’s brought a better standard of living to more folks than former systems, and that all attempts to improve upon it have failed, spectacularly.

Trump proposes buying Greenland from Denmark (WSJ)
(Seeking to abrogate the territory of an ally)
Trump changes stance on NHS re: post brexit trade deal (BBC)
(Threatening to use trade negotiations to undermine domestic institution of an ally)
Trump: “nobody treats us worse than the EU” (DW)
(Casual ignorance of the EU’s origin as a prop to US power, with a whiny bad attitude)
His cosseting and encouragement or “only-just-not-far-right” European political groups is common knowledge.
I think the worst instance was him retweeting the proscribed terrorist group Britain First: although he claimed ignorance of their true nature: tbh I believe him on that one, but it’s still unnerving to have the US President help spread their agit-prop, even if in innocence.

Well: I think many high ranking bods on this continent have the same attitude to US presidents as my late grandfather ”They’re all ignorant, rude, arrogant crooks: apart from the black one, he had manners.
Not exactly a great attitude for political leaders to have, you’re right: although it concerned me more that the footage was shot by a Russian agent here in Britain at what was meant to be a high-security event.
Why should Europeans pay out to aid the projection of US power if they’re no longer prepared to use it to ward off our principle regional threat? (Russia)
I will accept that from your perspective in Oz China is rightly the greater priority, and that some form of military-trading alliance specific to that threat is necessary... and this would probably mean the US according NATO lower priority... it’s not like we don’t have our own WMDs and so forth if we could but unify our military commands without US oversight.
As I’ve said: I think there’s potential for his rule to be good for us here in Europe, but entirely dependent on how our leaders proceed and most likely not in a way he himself would hope for.

Chile 1973 was designed. It's fair to think they tried this again and again.
Lenin's writings on imperialism have come true - what I mean eith collapsing is in that sense: a capitalist empire can only function as long as it's expanding, opening new markets for its overproduction. Remember: capitalism will always cause crises, and they are crises of overproduction.

Varoufakis, btw., Is also worth reading/listening to.

That's what Tom Bombadil said just before he got hit by a dustcart.#Legoreference