Why don't you have a go at drafting an anticipated answer, as if you were Putin? Let's see if:
1. Carlson asks this question
2. You have enough insight to anticipate Putin's response.
My money is on you being incapable of both, and your glib mockery clearly indicates you fail to understand the value of testing leader's views on the serious and important matter of sustained peace, which is a preferable state of affairs for the vast majority of the world's population.
In a few hours I'll get to judge Carlson's measure as a journalist and if he's any good, maybe an answer to one or both of my questions.
Odd how Putin has a track record of referring international matters to international law and only engaging in border disputes until formally requested to enter Syria i.e. Russia has been a more peaceful nation than the US hegemony.
PS I take your answer to be a lazy and inadequate deflection.
It is plausible that what we now perceive as chaos and conflict is in fact the agreed upon path to ‘world peace’. It is not possible to have world peace if 80% or even 10% of the population are murderers at heart; they are bound to kill rather than rationally resolve disagreements. If peace is not possible then the most just management of the murderous trait of humanity is to allow those who are murderers at heart to fight those who are also murderers at heart, and keep everyone else out of harm’s way. The only other way would be general oppression, one totalitarian order, because anyone could be a covert murderer until circumstances or ideology would reveal their true nature. I propose only a hypothesis, not making an assertion of fact.
Interesting concept. Unfortunately, or present reality is modelled on the even smaller number of psychopaths and sociopaths (sub 10%) having the power to send others from the more normal majority to their deaths.
There is a very quick legislative fix for this that I have been meaning to publish on for years. I'll get around to it.
Insofar as humans are conscious agents, nobody has the power to cause someone else to kill intentionally without the killer having the intention to kill. The majority can be persuaded to kill intentionally for the sake of national security, territory, or national pride, but many are happy to kill (including any civilians standing in the way) just for the pay, it is their regular job. There is possibly a small percentage who are constitutively resistant to killing ‘for a cause’, for any cause, and would aim not to kill even in self defence. Our ruthless masters would be powerless without armies of willing killers, many of whom would be happy to become a ruthless dictator if the opportunity presented itself. Under Covid mandates we discovered that 80% of the population would be happy to put everyone who defies the ruling power in concentration camps, or worse. The rulers are no doubt aware of this destructive predisposition of the many. The key question is whether they identify with it and see it as a virtue, or do they despise it and seek to humiliate and destroy it. Both scenarios would appear psychopathic from where we sit.
You can induce someone to kill who had no intention of ever killing by placing them in mortal fear for their own life or that of their offspring/family. The outcome isn't guaranteed (fight, flight, fright etc) but that threat and fear switches people from peace into something else.
65%+ of the world's population were switched into good Nazis in Covid and a large number effectively killed others and themselves by voluntarily pressing those around them to take gene therapies. Boil that down and it is fundamentally the same as convincing someone to kill others. The means of execution, manslaughter or murder may appear different, but the statistically guaranteed outcome (some people will be killed) exists in the same way.
The madness of crowds and the utter stupidity of individuals is real, and can be turned into death using fully known and long standing techniques.
I agree with this interpretation, but above i meant something else, a strictly logical presupposition of ‘intentional killing’: that one must be capable of ‘intending’ to kill before one may be at all persuaded to kill intentionally, and only this intentional aspect makes someone a willing killer. The ease with which people can be persuaded to kill intentionally, and the difficulty in persuading others, may be a relevant (moral status? value?) distinction to the ruling power. One could indeed imagine the individuals drunk on power to dish out the judgement reserved for divinity: “ For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Still, just a hypothesis, but something feels intuitively right about it, taking all the psychic chatter into account.
Covid vaccine mandates are an interesting case. From the beginning of the mandates it was officially acknowledged that these vaccines were killing a percentage of people. The mandates were still imposed in some settings, well after 14 people in AUS, 60 or so in the UK, we’re officially declared as killed by the mandated vaccines. The mandates were therefore an act of intentional killing of some people for the benefit of others, a trolley problem if you like, and someone has pulled the lever, intentionally, and the majority applauded. This was quite a test.
On the first concept, people joining the forces can't really fully conceptualize killing. If they got to kill someone in the interview process and then decide whether to continue with recruitment, most wouldn't. It's the training and deconstruction-reconstruction that forms the intentional killers in the forces. This is absolutely fundamental and well known doctrine. Thus, one might be ignorantly game for joining the forces but what you will become is what they ensure you become, especially if you have real combat.
This capability is in most of us if the buttons are pressed and held.
The Covid Good Nazi is a different facet of humans ability and will to other and marginalize a different minority, then exploit the protection of the herd to legitimise one's compliance or will to kill them. This is tribalism, racism, genocide, etc. These mechanics are intrinsic and linked to the above.
Humans are basic and fully programmable. Many have enough neuroplasticity at any age to be tipped via fear and threat of material or existential loss into the false paradigm/binary of "it's you or them", which is exactly what the Covid Good Nazi went along with, even though this wasn't a real dichotomy. That's how stupid fear and threat makes people across the entire intelligence spectrum, EVEN when they have years to think about what they are being subjected to and what they are doing.
It's now incredibly easy to utterly humiliate The self professed smartest guy in the room by simply asking if they dosed themselves and if they are up to date.
If you knew what happened in the aviation industry and you knew the personality types in it, you would laugh long and hard. All utterly predictable. Some of us predicted most every step. The ones who were right were shut down by the herd. The good Nazis in aviation numbered over 80% in the UK and in Canada & Australia it was 99%. Why? Fear, threat, risk of personal loss or exclusion. Selfishness was a true basal driver. Literal selfishness that combined with deep ignorance to blow up in their faces.
Now, think: aviation is a non force environment where one good Nazi can kill hundreds in seconds. And that industry is chock full of good Nazis who all made the absolutely WRONG decision, more than once.
Human society is built on far more facades than anyone wants to fully know or admit.
Putin's interview pokes another finger through a few more of our Western facades, into the eye of the "good Nazis". Denazification is one of his goals. See how that might work beyond Ukrainian borders and literalism?
Humans are programmable in steps, and each step involves a moral choice, typically a very small, almost imperceptible form of intentional submission, delegation of moral authority (which is always only partial renunciation of moral responsibility). We lose something of ourselves with every moral concession, some of our conscious agency, becoming more like deterministic forces of nature, only reacting. Once humans are so programmable that they become puppets of the ruling power then they can no longer be considered moral agents, but literal puppets, therefore have no moral status, and this is one way that the ruling power may justify using them as cannon fodder. This may be their argument why they are morally permitted to send them to be killed by others of the same kind.
On a side note, circumstantial evidence tells me that Putin/Russia is probably not the enemy of our rulers, but employee who plays a particular role, a strategic role, involved in a collaborative effort with NATO to re-engineer the breadbasket of Europe and the land bridge between Europe and Asia. Their enemy may be just the people they despise and see as an existential or moral threat, but this is bound up with my hypothesis at the top of this thread. I might be wrong, time will show.
EDIT: I watched only a random few minutes of the Putin interview, but one comment particularly struck me. I paraphrase: <Musk is a smart guy, so we must reason with him, come to understanding.> This implies that if someone is not smart then reasoning is pointless and we cannot come to understanding, therefore other means would apply. This may of course be just an awkward expression, but every expression has its basis in the mind, and sometimes expresses more than a careful expression was meant to reveal. No slip of the tongue is symbolically meaningless, but this is just a curiosity that I do not count as evidence of anything.
1. Who do you consider more of a threat to Ukraine and Russia, Victoria Nuland and James O’Brien, or the Military Industrial Complex? PS: This is a trick question.
2. What are your reconstruction plans for the area you’ve annexed from Ukraine? What economic future do you plan for those citizens, and how is migration being promoted from other areas of Russia?
3. How many ex-Ukrainians have accepted and been given citizenship? How are they being integrated e.g., subsidies, housing, job training.
4. Many young skillful Russians evaded the draft, or left in protest because of the war. So did others such as talented movie directors. I’m sure some countries, such as Georgia where rentals have skyrocketed for locals, wish they’d go back. How will you encourage their return after the war, and ensure that they are welcomed as contributing members of a united society?
5. Ukraine is headed for a crash. History shows that such situations are taken advantage of by the radicals, those that think nationalism means hating others. After the war, how will you extend a hand past the Banderites to your fellow Slavs?
6. How has your relationship with Armenia changed, and how can it be improved? Geopolitically, weigh that versus your intended trade route via Azerbaijan?
7. President Erdogan plays both sides for political convenience. What practical short and medium-term future do you see between Russia and Turkey.
8. You’ve helped bring in Iran from the cold shoulder of the world. No matter theirs and the USA’s opposing propaganda, the Persians are a force throughout the Middle East. What shared role is there for Iran and Russia to make the Middle East safer?
9. The destruction of Palestine has been good for Russia in that it pulls the mask off the “defending democracy everywhere” USA. But you and Saudi Arabia look like you’re sitting on the fence. How will you help Palestine beyond useless UN Security Council presentations?
10. What practical relationship, political and economic, do you seek with my country of South Africa? As it was in the Cold War (which was also hot for us), the Fake Libs have cast you as a demon, and the Fake Commies as a friend. In between, 60 million people deserve a more substantive view.
11. Do you agree that there are private economic powers greater than some countries, and that they decide foreign policy more than most presidents? If yes, then why does Russia engage with nefariously anti-human organisations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF)?
12. How will you respond to NATO, or the forces of individual NATO countries, entering Ukraine?
13. How will you get your $300 billion back?
14. Most importantly, I wasn’t able to phone into your annual teleconference, but I’m hoping your Mr. Fix-It reputation will be applied to the situation with Mr. Bald, a.k.a. Benjamin Rich. He’s a British dude who loves Russian people in places I’d previously never heard of. Will you find out which officials banned him, and correct that so millions of foreigners like me can continue watching his Russian travel videos?
"What do you think needs to happen, take place and/or be done in order to make lasting peace in the world? How, when and by whom?"
Lasting piece in the world? Do you think this is a Miss Universe finals contest, lol?
Why don't you have a go at drafting an anticipated answer, as if you were Putin? Let's see if:
1. Carlson asks this question
2. You have enough insight to anticipate Putin's response.
My money is on you being incapable of both, and your glib mockery clearly indicates you fail to understand the value of testing leader's views on the serious and important matter of sustained peace, which is a preferable state of affairs for the vast majority of the world's population.
I'm sorry, but no. Look up von Clausewitz.
In a few hours I'll get to judge Carlson's measure as a journalist and if he's any good, maybe an answer to one or both of my questions.
Odd how Putin has a track record of referring international matters to international law and only engaging in border disputes until formally requested to enter Syria i.e. Russia has been a more peaceful nation than the US hegemony.
PS I take your answer to be a lazy and inadequate deflection.
If you don't aim for peace, you will never realize it. Look at your life and telll me I'm wrong.
Hear, hear
But...
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Very well thoughtout questions, thank you.
It is plausible that what we now perceive as chaos and conflict is in fact the agreed upon path to ‘world peace’. It is not possible to have world peace if 80% or even 10% of the population are murderers at heart; they are bound to kill rather than rationally resolve disagreements. If peace is not possible then the most just management of the murderous trait of humanity is to allow those who are murderers at heart to fight those who are also murderers at heart, and keep everyone else out of harm’s way. The only other way would be general oppression, one totalitarian order, because anyone could be a covert murderer until circumstances or ideology would reveal their true nature. I propose only a hypothesis, not making an assertion of fact.
Interesting concept. Unfortunately, or present reality is modelled on the even smaller number of psychopaths and sociopaths (sub 10%) having the power to send others from the more normal majority to their deaths.
There is a very quick legislative fix for this that I have been meaning to publish on for years. I'll get around to it.
Insofar as humans are conscious agents, nobody has the power to cause someone else to kill intentionally without the killer having the intention to kill. The majority can be persuaded to kill intentionally for the sake of national security, territory, or national pride, but many are happy to kill (including any civilians standing in the way) just for the pay, it is their regular job. There is possibly a small percentage who are constitutively resistant to killing ‘for a cause’, for any cause, and would aim not to kill even in self defence. Our ruthless masters would be powerless without armies of willing killers, many of whom would be happy to become a ruthless dictator if the opportunity presented itself. Under Covid mandates we discovered that 80% of the population would be happy to put everyone who defies the ruling power in concentration camps, or worse. The rulers are no doubt aware of this destructive predisposition of the many. The key question is whether they identify with it and see it as a virtue, or do they despise it and seek to humiliate and destroy it. Both scenarios would appear psychopathic from where we sit.
I disagree.
You can induce someone to kill who had no intention of ever killing by placing them in mortal fear for their own life or that of their offspring/family. The outcome isn't guaranteed (fight, flight, fright etc) but that threat and fear switches people from peace into something else.
65%+ of the world's population were switched into good Nazis in Covid and a large number effectively killed others and themselves by voluntarily pressing those around them to take gene therapies. Boil that down and it is fundamentally the same as convincing someone to kill others. The means of execution, manslaughter or murder may appear different, but the statistically guaranteed outcome (some people will be killed) exists in the same way.
The madness of crowds and the utter stupidity of individuals is real, and can be turned into death using fully known and long standing techniques.
I agree with this interpretation, but above i meant something else, a strictly logical presupposition of ‘intentional killing’: that one must be capable of ‘intending’ to kill before one may be at all persuaded to kill intentionally, and only this intentional aspect makes someone a willing killer. The ease with which people can be persuaded to kill intentionally, and the difficulty in persuading others, may be a relevant (moral status? value?) distinction to the ruling power. One could indeed imagine the individuals drunk on power to dish out the judgement reserved for divinity: “ For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Still, just a hypothesis, but something feels intuitively right about it, taking all the psychic chatter into account.
Covid vaccine mandates are an interesting case. From the beginning of the mandates it was officially acknowledged that these vaccines were killing a percentage of people. The mandates were still imposed in some settings, well after 14 people in AUS, 60 or so in the UK, we’re officially declared as killed by the mandated vaccines. The mandates were therefore an act of intentional killing of some people for the benefit of others, a trolley problem if you like, and someone has pulled the lever, intentionally, and the majority applauded. This was quite a test.
On the first concept, people joining the forces can't really fully conceptualize killing. If they got to kill someone in the interview process and then decide whether to continue with recruitment, most wouldn't. It's the training and deconstruction-reconstruction that forms the intentional killers in the forces. This is absolutely fundamental and well known doctrine. Thus, one might be ignorantly game for joining the forces but what you will become is what they ensure you become, especially if you have real combat.
This capability is in most of us if the buttons are pressed and held.
The Covid Good Nazi is a different facet of humans ability and will to other and marginalize a different minority, then exploit the protection of the herd to legitimise one's compliance or will to kill them. This is tribalism, racism, genocide, etc. These mechanics are intrinsic and linked to the above.
Humans are basic and fully programmable. Many have enough neuroplasticity at any age to be tipped via fear and threat of material or existential loss into the false paradigm/binary of "it's you or them", which is exactly what the Covid Good Nazi went along with, even though this wasn't a real dichotomy. That's how stupid fear and threat makes people across the entire intelligence spectrum, EVEN when they have years to think about what they are being subjected to and what they are doing.
It's now incredibly easy to utterly humiliate The self professed smartest guy in the room by simply asking if they dosed themselves and if they are up to date.
If you knew what happened in the aviation industry and you knew the personality types in it, you would laugh long and hard. All utterly predictable. Some of us predicted most every step. The ones who were right were shut down by the herd. The good Nazis in aviation numbered over 80% in the UK and in Canada & Australia it was 99%. Why? Fear, threat, risk of personal loss or exclusion. Selfishness was a true basal driver. Literal selfishness that combined with deep ignorance to blow up in their faces.
Now, think: aviation is a non force environment where one good Nazi can kill hundreds in seconds. And that industry is chock full of good Nazis who all made the absolutely WRONG decision, more than once.
Human society is built on far more facades than anyone wants to fully know or admit.
Putin's interview pokes another finger through a few more of our Western facades, into the eye of the "good Nazis". Denazification is one of his goals. See how that might work beyond Ukrainian borders and literalism?
Humans are programmable in steps, and each step involves a moral choice, typically a very small, almost imperceptible form of intentional submission, delegation of moral authority (which is always only partial renunciation of moral responsibility). We lose something of ourselves with every moral concession, some of our conscious agency, becoming more like deterministic forces of nature, only reacting. Once humans are so programmable that they become puppets of the ruling power then they can no longer be considered moral agents, but literal puppets, therefore have no moral status, and this is one way that the ruling power may justify using them as cannon fodder. This may be their argument why they are morally permitted to send them to be killed by others of the same kind.
On a side note, circumstantial evidence tells me that Putin/Russia is probably not the enemy of our rulers, but employee who plays a particular role, a strategic role, involved in a collaborative effort with NATO to re-engineer the breadbasket of Europe and the land bridge between Europe and Asia. Their enemy may be just the people they despise and see as an existential or moral threat, but this is bound up with my hypothesis at the top of this thread. I might be wrong, time will show.
EDIT: I watched only a random few minutes of the Putin interview, but one comment particularly struck me. I paraphrase: <Musk is a smart guy, so we must reason with him, come to understanding.> This implies that if someone is not smart then reasoning is pointless and we cannot come to understanding, therefore other means would apply. This may of course be just an awkward expression, but every expression has its basis in the mind, and sometimes expresses more than a careful expression was meant to reveal. No slip of the tongue is symbolically meaningless, but this is just a curiosity that I do not count as evidence of anything.
1. Who do you consider more of a threat to Ukraine and Russia, Victoria Nuland and James O’Brien, or the Military Industrial Complex? PS: This is a trick question.
2. What are your reconstruction plans for the area you’ve annexed from Ukraine? What economic future do you plan for those citizens, and how is migration being promoted from other areas of Russia?
3. How many ex-Ukrainians have accepted and been given citizenship? How are they being integrated e.g., subsidies, housing, job training.
4. Many young skillful Russians evaded the draft, or left in protest because of the war. So did others such as talented movie directors. I’m sure some countries, such as Georgia where rentals have skyrocketed for locals, wish they’d go back. How will you encourage their return after the war, and ensure that they are welcomed as contributing members of a united society?
5. Ukraine is headed for a crash. History shows that such situations are taken advantage of by the radicals, those that think nationalism means hating others. After the war, how will you extend a hand past the Banderites to your fellow Slavs?
6. How has your relationship with Armenia changed, and how can it be improved? Geopolitically, weigh that versus your intended trade route via Azerbaijan?
7. President Erdogan plays both sides for political convenience. What practical short and medium-term future do you see between Russia and Turkey.
8. You’ve helped bring in Iran from the cold shoulder of the world. No matter theirs and the USA’s opposing propaganda, the Persians are a force throughout the Middle East. What shared role is there for Iran and Russia to make the Middle East safer?
9. The destruction of Palestine has been good for Russia in that it pulls the mask off the “defending democracy everywhere” USA. But you and Saudi Arabia look like you’re sitting on the fence. How will you help Palestine beyond useless UN Security Council presentations?
10. What practical relationship, political and economic, do you seek with my country of South Africa? As it was in the Cold War (which was also hot for us), the Fake Libs have cast you as a demon, and the Fake Commies as a friend. In between, 60 million people deserve a more substantive view.
11. Do you agree that there are private economic powers greater than some countries, and that they decide foreign policy more than most presidents? If yes, then why does Russia engage with nefariously anti-human organisations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF)?
12. How will you respond to NATO, or the forces of individual NATO countries, entering Ukraine?
13. How will you get your $300 billion back?
14. Most importantly, I wasn’t able to phone into your annual teleconference, but I’m hoping your Mr. Fix-It reputation will be applied to the situation with Mr. Bald, a.k.a. Benjamin Rich. He’s a British dude who loves Russian people in places I’d previously never heard of. Will you find out which officials banned him, and correct that so millions of foreigners like me can continue watching his Russian travel videos?
Interesting list, thanks for sharing.
You should forward to TC. I suspect he'll have a round 2 in time and Ukraine won't be the major focus.
Nah, if there's ever a round two, I'm asking Putin for the telephone numbers of my favourite actresses :)
But, for fun, I'll obey you and send it.