Trump Consciousness

The reason I haven't engaged on that point, true or not, is that it is not relevant to the current situation. Right now, and for the past forty years, Iran has been calling for the death of Americans and the destruction of the United States. Those are threats to our people and sovereignty. Practically speaking, whether they have a justifiable reason to wish these things, they represent an immediate hazard to the life and liberty of Americans. Unless one wants to surrender life and liberty, regardless why, Iran must be opposed. Therefore, Iran's reasons, whether valid or not, are of no interest to Americans who wish to preserve their lives and their way of life.

As for Mossaddegh, I'll grant for the sake of argument that it was a terrible thing for the US to overthrow his government, installing the Shah in his place. I will further assume, again for the sake of conversation, that the overthrow of Mossaddegh in 1953 was the reason for the Ayatollah's constant threats to America. I will go farther and assume for the sake of argument that the Iranian reaction to the overthrow to Mossaddegh is justified. Regardless, Iran most be opposed because of the threat they pose to Americans now.

As for all those assumptions, my actual positions on the three points are:

1) Mossedegh was a Socialist who himself suborned and overthrew the monarchy that he was subject to at the time. Therefore, why be upset with his overthrow rather than how he took power from the then-current royal family? Also, Mossaddegh crippled the Iranian economy by stealing outright control of British petroleum refineries, essentially the same thing that happened in Venezuela. Having done that, it is no surprise to me that Britain and its ally, the USA, would want to recover their stolen assets through the coup they orchestrated. In the meanwhile, with British and other foreign technicians unavailable to manage their infrastructure, the Iranian economy was crushed. This was, in other words, monumentally stupid on the part of Mossaddegh and the Socialists who supported him. The same thing happened in Venezuela when they decided to nationalize the oil industry, in Israel when the Gaza strip was given to the PLO, and every other place where Socialism has been attempted. The Socialist theory seems to be that they can steal a successful industry and become themselves successful thereby. They don't stop to think that the reason the industry was successful was connected to the specific people who ran it, now run out of the country. It's a bit like the thinking behind a back alley mugging. In that situation, the most that can be gained is the amount of money carried by the victim at that moment. The cost is his future productivity, which is far more valuable.

2) overthrow of Mossadegh as reason for the ire of current Iranian regime: I do not think this is true. My impression is that it is the commonly stated reason but the more salient issue to Iran is that the US supports Israel and (at one time) Iraq as well, preventing them from overpowering both countries in offensive wars. Add to that the fact that the US and Israel are not Muslim, let alone Shia, and they want to destroy us for that reason also.

3) Iran's threats are justified: I don't think so. The reason is that our primary offenses are our opposition to their expansion by military force, opposition to the destruction of an ally (Israel), and our Christian-majority nation. Those are not adequate reasons for the murder of Americans and destruction of US property.

EDIT: I'll add my impression that if the US and England hadn't intervened in 1953, Iran would have become a Soviet protectorate instead. The Soviet Union was certainly interested in Iran and neighboring countries at the time. Without American and British assistance (in the form of Mossaddegh's overthrow) the country would have failed, much as Venezuela has. At that point, with no money or economy to speak of, the Soviet Union would have stepped in to "help" the Iranian people. That would have resulted in an atheistic regime in the center of Muslim-held territory. They likely would have been freed in the eighties when the Soviet Union fell apart, but the Ayatollah, or any Muslim theocracy, would have been impossible before then. If any attempt at creating one were made, it would have been crushed by the Soviet military.

https://attackthesystem.com/united-states-of-mass-murder-only-mao-killed-more/
 
Sorry, this article isn't credible to me. That said, even if it were true (and I don't think it is), I would still defend America because I am an American. It is not appropriate to sacrifice one's life or livelihood for the sake of someone else's mistake. I also don't think it is approprioate to assume responsibility for someone else's decision. We forgive modern Germans, Japanese, even Russians, for the atrocities of past wars. There is no reason to withhold the same courtesy from Americans. That said, I do not find the article credible.
 
Sorry, this article isn't credible to me. That said, even if it were true (and I don't think it is), I would still defend America because I am an American. It is not appropriate to sacrifice one's life or livelihood for the sake of someone else's mistake. I also don't think it is approprioate to assume responsibility for someone else's decision. We forgive modern Germans, Japanese, even Russians, for the atrocities of past wars. There is no reason to withhold the same courtesy from Americans. That said, I do not find the article credible.

The problem is exactly that this is not a "past" war, but the one that is going on right now, without any end in sight.

As for "I defend America because I am an American"... Under such standard, Russians who stood against Stalin, Germans who stood against Hitler, etc. (in the times when these totalitarian leaders and their regimes were still alive and well), were traitors to their own countries and shouldn't do what they had done.

Or should they?

P.S. Modern Russian Stalinists (sadly, there are still a lot of them in Russia) think in a surprisingly similar way to you. I suspect, (justification of) imperialism is much the same everywhere, be this imperialism Russian, Chinese or American.
 
The problem is exactly that this is not a "past" war, but the one that is going on right now, without any end in sight.

As for "I defend America because I am an American"... Under such standard, Russians who stood against Stalin, Germans who stood against Hitler, etc. (in the times when these totalitarian leaders and their regimes were still alive and well), were traitors to their own countries and shouldn't do what they had done.

Or should they?

P.S. Modern Russian Stalinists (sadly, there are still a lot of them in Russia) think in a surprisingly similar way to you. I suspect, (justification of) imperialism is much the same everywhere, be this imperialism Russian, Chinese or American.

Again, I don't find the article you posted credible. Put another way, I don't agree with the premise that America is, or has been "imperialist". The closest you can get to that is expansion into western states in North America. Since the time of the Civil War, America has the unusual habit of getting into wars for the sake of defense or to resolve disputes but has never taken property or land after victory. As I see it, America actually does promote freedom around the world. Comparing it to Stalinist regimes is perverse at the least.
 
The problem is exactly that this is not a "past" war, but the one that is going on right now, without any end in sight.

As for "I defend America because I am an American"... Under such standard, Russians who stood against Stalin, Germans who stood against Hitler, etc. (in the times when these totalitarian leaders and their regimes were still alive and well), were traitors to their own countries and shouldn't do what they had done.

Or should they?

P.S. Modern Russian Stalinists (sadly, there are still a lot of them in Russia) think in a surprisingly similar way to you. I suspect, (justification of) imperialism is much the same everywhere, be this imperialism Russian, Chinese or American.
I'm curious about your positions on parapsychology. My general observation is that parapsychology skeptics are more likely to support liberal/atheist politics while people who accept parapsychology as a legitimate science that studies genuine phenomena (for the most part) tend to be more conservative. That might just be because of the tiny number of people I know but I am curious to know the answer. Posts on this forum lead me to believe that the more vociferously anti-Trump posts come from many of the same people who are vociferously anti-psi.

The reason I find that interesting, if the observation could be borne out in a valid study, is that the obvious connection between those two positions is the willingness to ignore evidence while believing in ungrounded theory.
 
I'm curious about your positions on parapsychology. My general observation is that parapsychology skeptics are more likely to support liberal/atheist politics while people who accept parapsychology as a legitimate science that studies genuine phenomena (for the most part) tend to be more conservative. That might just be because of the tiny number of people I know but I am curious to know the answer. Posts on this forum lead me to believe that the more vociferously anti-Trump posts come from many of the same people who are vociferously anti-psi.

The reason I find that interesting, if the observation could be borne out in a valid study, is that the obvious connection between those two positions is the willingness to ignore evidence while believing in ungrounded theory.

That’s an odd reading of the thread tbh.

I’m curious how someone steeped in ‘big picture’ extended consciousness gets taken in by populist, nationalistic, border-based tub-thumping patriotism.
 
That’s an odd reading of the thread tbh.

I’m interested in how someone steeped in ‘big picture’ extended consciousness gets taken in by populist, nationalistic, border-based tub-thumping patriotism.
You're using too many code words to make a coherent sentence. You may want to reword your post.
 
Last edited:
That’s an odd reading of the thread tbh.

I’m curious how someone steeped in ‘big picture’ extended consciousness gets taken in by populist, nationalistic, border-based tub-thumping patriotism.
All cuteness aside, the following words used by you, are ill-defined in this context: "Populist", "Nationalistic", "Border-based", "tub-thumping", and "patriotism".

The implication is that each of the adjectives used is pejorative and that they collectively describe a conspiracy to deceive. If that is your meaning, and it is how I read it, then I disagree with your premise. I also object to how you have used this sequence of words to, in effect, engage in name-calling on the forum. Consider this a warning.

There is a difference between a perceived correlation between disbelief in psi and liberalism and your linkage of pejoratives to what appears to be your way of describing psi, which is condescending. If you had wanted to write something that had a similar meaning without the pejoratives, you could have written, "and I am curious why someone who accepts psi as genuine would also be conservative." If you had written that, it would not have been insulting. It is a valid question and something that can be discussed without inviting an emotional and unwanted response.

My take on the question is that, if there is a positive correlation between conservatism and acceptance of psi, it is because both demand research that goes beyond hearsay. Likewise, my impression of a positive correlation between disbelief in psi and liberalism is that both depend on the avoidance of serious research while susceptible to hearsay and speculation. That is my impression but it would take some real research to determine whether it is true.
 
All cuteness aside, the following words used by you, are ill-defined in this context: "Populist", "Nationalistic", "Border-based", "tub-thumping", and "patriotism".

The implication is that each of the adjectives used is pejorative and that they collectively describe a conspiracy to deceive. If that is your meaning, and it is how I read it, then I disagree with your premise. I also object to how you have used this sequence of words to, in effect, engage in name-calling on the forum. Consider this a warning.

There is a difference between a perceived correlation between disbelief in psi and liberalism and your linkage of pejoratives to what appears to be your way of describing psi, which is condescending. If you had wanted to write something that had a similar meaning without the pejoratives, you could have written, "and I am curious why someone who accepts psi as genuine would also be conservative." If you had written that, it would not have been insulting. It is a valid question and something that can be discussed without inviting an emotional and unwanted response.

My take on the question is that, if there is a positive correlation between conservatism and acceptance of psi, it is because both demand research that goes beyond hearsay. Likewise, my impression of a positive correlation between disbelief in psi and liberalism is that both depend on the avoidance of serious research while susceptible to hearsay and speculation. That is my impression but it would take some real research to determine whether it is true.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

Hard to draw broad conclusions. Hindus (reincarnation based worldview) appear more liberal.

I’m more curious to understand how someone who sees souls as something way beyond their physical incarnation can distinguish between a Russian, a Swede, an American, a Mexican or an Iranian?
 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

Hard to draw broad conclusions. Hindus (reincarnation based worldview) appear more liberal.

I’m more curious to understand how someone who sees souls as something way beyond their physical incarnation can distinguish between a Russian, a Swede, an American, a Mexican or an Iranian?
On the soul level there is no difference at all. What we are talking about when it comes to nations could be likened to our assigned teams. If you are a member of the Denver Broncos team but go out of your way to play against them whenever you are on the field, then you aren't helping your team. After the game is over, you can all go out for pizza and enjoy each other's company but on the field you are a liability to your team. In the same way, when you go on the field to play against the Chargers, you either play against them to win or you get off the field. We all have our roles and we learn from them. Rejecting our roles to play for the other side rarely does us any credit. There are exceptions to this, as the life of Oscar Schindler illustrates well. One must remember however, that the Oscar Schindler's of the world would be ill-treated if they were found out by members of "their team". What Trump has done is to show how America has been almost thoroughly taken over by political rot and that it must be corrected.

My impression is that one of the hardest things there is to life is to discern truth from falsehood. If you can do that, you will understand God and our purpose here. Every problem we have in these incarnations can in some way be linked to our ability or inability to spot the difference between truth and falsehood. Either we cannot see the difference and set ourselves against those who can, or vice versa. We do our best and after we die, we have our life review and see whether we played the game well or not. Often this leads to the desire for a rematch or another game, and then we have the benefit of reincarnation in a life designed to test us.

What I think I am seeing with the presidency of Donald Trump is a strong corrective to decades of falsehoods promulgated in western society. Feel free to interpret that any way you wish. Whether you think Trump is honest or not, he has been a significant disruptive force. He forces people, more people than I've ever seen affected by one person, to take stock of their positions and defend them, whatever they are. From my point of view, it reminds me of when lawyers take depositions that force deponents to sign their names to their version of events, thus making them fully responsible for any errors or omissions. People have gone to such lengths on all issues related to Trump that the ones who turn out to be wrong will discover that they have done wrong in defending those positions and attacking those who disagree. I will state right here that I believe that members of Antifa and other disruptive and violent leftist groups have stained their moral standing through their purposeful and dangerous excesses in defense of falsehoods.

As may be obvious to anyone reading my posts, I believe that Trump has been seriously maligned and slandered. I do not believe the majority of what I have heard or read about him. If I did, I would support liberalism. The reason I disbelieve this material, quite apart from the many admitted errors on the part of the media and politicians, is that none of it matches what I see and hear when I see Trump speak. He does not come across as racist to me. Far from it. If anyone does, it is the Democrat politicians who seem to think of every person on earth as trapped by their race, gender, religion, or other immutable characteristics. Trump speaks and behaves like someone who is genuinely "color blind." He is not, however, blind. One consequence of atheism as I see it is that it introduces uncertainty. Uncertainty breeds lack of self-confidence. Lack of self-confidence breeds weakness, and weakness fosters blindness. When I write the word, "blindness", I refer to an inability to see things as they are as opposed to simply what they look like. There is a significant difference between the two. Just as a parent pushing a baby carriage and the baby in the carriage can look around and see the same things, the parent will know what those things are, a bakery, a shoe shine stand, a car, a dog, etc, but the baby just sees shapes.

When I read what liberal politicians have said or what their adherents say in support, they focus on superficial characteristics of what they have seen, missing the larger picture, causing misunderstanding and strife. Trump's call to the Ukrainian president, for instance, strikes me as a perfectly legitimate exercise of his duties as president. That his attempt to encourage the Ukrainian government to investigate corruption happens to involve a man who might become his opponent in the 2020 election is the fault of Hunter Biden and the Democratic Committee, not Trump, because they are the ones who engaged in questionable activity. Trump might benefit from the investigation but that is a side effect of the more important purpose: to discover what happened so that the same type of corruption doesn't happen again. Also, it prevents the needless waste of US treasury funds on corrupt players. The way Democrats have interpreted the call is bizarre to me, just as the way they have reacted to conservatives who have pointed out their (in my view) totally reasonable grounds for doubting their narrative.

When I look at the way skeptics discuss psi, it is clear that they have made either no effort to inform themselves, or have fallen for superficial explanations for psi phenomena that in many cases are completely contradicted by individual case history data. Finding the truth in anything is a difficult process that requires some degree of skepticism, even a high degree of skepticism. It is when that skepticism is applied to serious investigation that truth can be found and well-grounded confidence is formed. As many of you know, I began my study of psi believing that it was a pseudo phenomenon, not genuine. It was, I thought, fraudulent to its core. That was my starting point. After looking into it, even going to the trouble of earning a PhD from one of the world's highest ranked universities along the way, I have developed a high confidence level that some phenomena collectively described as "psi" are genuine, even if not in every reported instance.

The process that led to that conclusion showed me conclusively how little I knew at the outset and how careful one needs to be to understand the subject. When I look at the writings of James Randi, I see an extremely sloppy research method that invites deception. Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore, on the other hand, appear to be self-deluded rather than creating intentional deceptions. The work of Hans Holzer and other authors of ghost stories and the like, are no more rigorous than James Randi and have the same low level of credibility. Then you get to writers like Robert McLuhan, who does an excellent job as a reporter of investigating how skeptics have misrepresented data, research, and spontaneous reports of psi. A comparison of McLuhan's book "Randi's Prize" with James Randi's "Flim Flam!" should yield the impression that McLuhan knows his subject well but Randi hasn't made a serious effort to understand it. McLuhan has gone to the trouble of reaching out to discover evidence that would illuminate the subject while Randi reaches deep inside his own mind instead, to manufacture theories based on his limited theories. Then you get to scientists like William James, Rupert Sheldrake, and Ian Stevenson, all of whom apply a much more rigorous investigative methodology to their work than the comparatively haphazard work of Wiseman, Blackmore, and their ilk.

In psi as in politics, people commit to positions based on their beliefs. What are those beliefs based on? I would suggest it is their perception of truth. One person sees Trump as a racist and another does not. An interesting effect I have seen on that subject is that many liberals who have written on the subject have made the argument that because Trump is racist, so are his supporters. However, if his supporters don't see him as racist and perceive racism to be repugnant (as is the case with me), then they are transparently not only wrong about his supporters but quite possibly about Trump as well. This may explain one of the aspects of conservative support for Trump that must infuriate liberals. They not only don't back down in their support for Trump when he is accused of these things, but he acquires more support. One of the reasons I think this is true is that it creates a kind of test whereby the truth of the accusation can easily be discerned. For instance, if Trump and his supporters are accused of racism but those supporters know they aren't racists themselves, then it is natural to be skeptical regarding the claim that Trump is racist. Moreover, this test works its magic on liberals as well. They see past videos of Trump's many friendships and business partnerships with people of various races and genders, giving them the ability to see for themselves that the claim is false. Making claims like that is, in the end, a good thing because it gives everyone an opportunity to test what they are told against what they can see for themselves so that they can discern the truth. If, on the other hand, they commit to malicious and repugnant behavior defend their slanders against Trump, they bear the full burden of guilt and its attendant responsibility because they had their chance to see for themselves but rejected it.

I am surprised the connection between psi and politics hasn't been brought up much, if at all, before. The way I look at it, the skepticism we see of Trump on the part of non-conservatives behaves in identical fashion to the kind of psi skepticism we see here on this forum every day.
 
I'm curious about your positions on parapsychology. My general observation is that parapsychology skeptics are more likely to support liberal/atheist politics while people who accept parapsychology as a legitimate science that studies genuine phenomena (for the most part) tend to be more conservative. That might just be because of the tiny number of people I know but I am curious to know the answer. Posts on this forum lead me to believe that the more vociferously anti-Trump posts come from many of the same people who are vociferously anti-psi.

The reason I find that interesting, if the observation could be borne out in a valid study, is that the obvious connection between those two positions is the willingness to ignore evidence while believing in ungrounded theory.

There is no correllation between pro-psi / anti-psi positions in science and reactionary / conservative / progressive positions in politics. Pro-psi people can have any position on the political spectrum, anti-psi people as well.

I, personally, a strong psi proponent and non-materialist (idealist, to be precise). Steve and Laird are also pro-psi and non-materialist. I may describe myself as the Libertarian / Anarchic Leftist. I'm also progressive, yet a highly critical, rather than dogmatic, progressive, one that takes common "progressivity"-associated positions critically and thus somewhat selectively. Steve and Laird, I suppose, will describe themselves as Libertarian / Anarchic Leftists and critical / selective progressives as well - if they do not, they are free to correct this assertion of mine (well, Steve right now, Laird when he is unbanned).

P.S. "Political Compass" is not the best test - I find it rather limiting and restrictive - yet it gives at least some indication where I stand:

minicomALL.gif
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

chart
 
Steve and Laird, I suppose, will describe themselves as Libertarian / Anarchic Leftists and critical / selective progressives as well - if they do not, they are free to correct this assertion of mine

As I recall, I’m somewhere in the green too, but I find all these labels quite confusing. I think I’m basically a pro-Socialism, anti-war type, but I‘m no fan of this leftie PC stuff. Perhaps that’s because of my age and where I was brought up. As well as Laird I would say that Michael is pro psi, Alice too, but I would prefer to let them confirm or clarify that. I believe in ‘God‘, it’s about the only thing that I truly believe. Just don’t ask me to clarify, I am not conventionally religious.
 
As I recall, I’m somewhere in the green too, but I find all these labels quite confusing. I think I’m basically a pro-Socialism, anti-war type, but I‘m no fan of this leftie PC stuff. Perhaps that’s because of my age and where I was brought up. As well as Laird I would say that Michael is pro psi, Alice too, but I would prefer to let them confirm or clarify that. I believe in ‘God‘, it’s about the only thing that I truly believe. Just don’t ask me to clarify, I am not conventionally religious.

Neither am I, Steve - my take on the current Authoritarian Left PC / SJW stuff is derisive and cynical - exactly because I know what was the message of the anti-racism and anti-sexism in its beginning, and I see that modern SJWs turned it on its head; in fact, they reinforce racism and sexism rather than combat them - without any insight in their own actions.

Yet to explain it to them is quite impossible, since they refuse to listen - as much as Authoritarian Right. Critically thinking persons are rarity everywhere.
 
Neither am I, Steve - my take on the current Authoritarian Left PC / SJW stuff is derisive and cynical - exactly because I know what was the message of the anti-racism and anti-sexism in its beginning, and I see that modern SJWs turned it on its head; in fact, they reinforce racism and sexism rather than combat them - without any insight in their own actions.
Spot on!
Yet to explain it to them is quite impossible, since they refuse to listen - as much as Authoritarian Right. Critically thinking persons are rarity everywhere.

I think the whole Left/Right cliche has become outdated. To be anti-war - as I am - used to be considered Left wing, now some would actually call it Right wing. I'd hate to be homosexual right now, because I sense there will be a strong backlash against anything that might be called a 'perversion' in the near future. This will have been generated by the actions of the SJWs. If you go back 25 years in Britain, homosexuals were well tolerated and integrated into society, it was a success story started about 50 years ago by brave politicians who stood up for an end to the laws against homosexual activity.

David
 
To be anti-war - as I am - used to be considered Left wing, now some would actually call it Right wing.

That’s why I much prefer to clearly state what I stand for, rather than label myself using subjective terms. Anti-war is quite obvious in its meaning, where right wing or left wing are open to much more interpretation. I think we ought to learn to be more careful in our use of language.
 
Back
Top