anthony
-
Posts
7,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by anthony
-
-
7 hours ago, Peter said:
edit. I quote from Eyal Mozes’ critique of The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, by Randy E. Barnett.
In the words of Ayn Rand, rights are "the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics." (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition, p. 92.)
Then statism is the antithesis to "individual morality in a social context"; statism "causes" wars (AR) and "needs" them. Individuals don't go to war, left alone they will happily trade with productive individuals abroad.
The statism of all parties concerned, nation on/against/with nation, caused this one.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:
Notice how persistently Peter ignores the well-informed material and commentary Tony keeps providing.
The applicable Objectivist term is "evasion."
Ellen
It's by way of the put-about media narrative. In effect - There was *nothing* of importance going on, in and with Ukraine until that day, 24 February, when Putin made his move. Nothing to see here. Therefore, Putin evil; Ukraine Gvt innocent. A fairly concretist, 'feelings' reaction.
Like any who wanted to know more, and avoid the media's warlike-indoctrination and moral sanctimony, I had to get a lot of factual education from a mix of sources to come even slightly up to speed. From O'ists recently, especially the ARI lot, there's an un-Oist-like dependency on (leftist) msm authority, and distrust of any 'alternate' sources.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, tmj said:
Fuck Russia , I’m not on a ‘side’ that is either for or against the Russian regime.
Why should anyone be on Ukraine’s ‘side’?
What specific reasoning determines that outside of either being Russian or Ukrainian me must pick a side , Ohioans need to pick a side?
That's about my position, and why I've been 'the dove' who argued for early, urgent diplomatic engagement. Primarily, for the Ukrainian people's best results. Diplomatic efforts which have been suspiciously unforthcoming since PM Johnson sabotaged one attempt.
But it seemed clear to me that the Russian invasion could not be defeated in its expressed, limited goals. A reality to deal with, practically and morally.
The emerged picture is of one side alone that's pushed *escalation* (conflict plus sanctions), and has done so, using Putin's ill-advised - not unprovoked - invasion as excuse. One side only, would not touch a cease-fire and talks (disregarding the cost to Ukraine's lives).
It is the western powers which gladly anticipated a win-lose zero-sum outcome: We/Ukraine win gloriously, Russia loses humiliatingly. I observed Putin at first clearly wanted to avoid that. i.e. Agree to xyz concessions (already promised by Kyiv) and there can be a peaceful solution, no one has to lose, no distinct victor nor a Ukraine surrender.
But the irrational need for personal 'satisfaction', and national hubris (esp. the UK) and the opportunity to "weaken Russia" (for later benefit to the West), dictated that evil Putin is beneath negotiating with, as an equal with national security concerns like any other leader - Who does he think he is, this upstart?! "Anyway, Russia will be beaten militarily and economically and he will be overthrown in a regime change". A gross wishful miscalculation and misidentification by 'experts', about Russian military strength, economic resilience and resolve. The costs of their evasions will be enormous. On Ukraine, but not only.
Now it may be sinking in that 'zero-sum' works both ways: The unthinkable, "they" might win... That would mean an ignominious and expensive defeat for "us". So the West hasn't been able to stop 'doubling down' its lethal aid and propaganda campaign to the bitter end. For an ounce of common sense, not facing the reality and the avoidance of diplomacy.
Today:
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Tuesday that a military victory for Russia in Ukraine would spell defeat for the entire Western alliance".
-
14 dead and scores wounded. 200+ missiles fired:
Therefore, ten to fifteen missiles/drones to kill one civilian.
Civilian "infrastructure" attacks, electrical grid, comms, etc., obviously, were very precisely targeted - not "civilian attacks".
And- there has been video footage of Ukraine anti-missile missiles, falling short and plunging into the populated areas, explaining some of the deaths and urban damage. e.g. a children's playground.
The New York Times believes their readers are dunces.
-
"The NY Times is lying": MoA
With Civilian Attacks, Putin Gives Hard-Liners What They Wanted
"'Civilian attacks' when, as the NYT itself reports, only 14 persons were killed and less than 100 wounded yesterday during 200+ missile and drone strikes":
>The attacks killed at least 14 and wounded scores of others, while countless more in cities across Ukraine were terrified by dozens of incoming missiles explicitly targeting civilian infrastructure.< NYT
"How many of those were killed by Ukrainian air defense misses is not known. It is sad that people get killed in a war but sometimes unavoidable.
The Ukraine military has killed way more civilians by its artillery strikes on Donetsk city".
-
5 hours ago, Peter said:
Do you have deep ties with the former communist but now despotic, and monstrous, Russia? A lot of journalists go to Ukraine from many countries..
There's been no journalism practiced in Ukraine, "journalists" are seldom allowed near the front lines, most being chicken to go. Kyiv hands out only the news they want you gullibles to hear, their atrocities concealed.
-
6 hours ago, Peter said:
Ukraine did not initiate force or murder Russians. Ukraine is STILL not invading Russia. What kind of an Objectivist can sanction bla bla
Murder? YES they have. The Russian-Ukrainians. Only for the last 8 years. Again, still now and in recent months, deliberately targeting Donetsk civilians, to the tune of a few hundreds killed. You are not told that in your media bubble, are you?
To see how -selectively- 'humanitarian and compassionate' that most people are, all of a sudden, is an eye-opener. 'Those' innocent civilians deserve our pity, but 'those' don't. That's bigotry.
But you think that "invasion" is the only initiation of force here. Add, death by government. What would any leader do, but try to end that dangerous Civil War before it spilled over into Russia, a conflict which NATO/EU etc. encouraged to go on, and armed/trained the Ukrainian Army for, for their underhanded purposes.
-
Nothing gets through to some, didn't see it, my trusted msm haven't informed me, therefore it could not have happened.
Maybe a song will help. "Initiation of force":
-
14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
During Trump's administration, how many times did they say, fearfully, that Trump had his hands on the nuclear codes? That he was going to cause nuclear war? That he did not know what he was doing and the world was going to be destabilized? That he was going blow up the planet and it's all his fault?
Here's the truth. We did not start any new wars under Trump. And the nuclear threat was tampered down big time all over the world, including in Russia.
Now we have Biden and what is there in the world? Hmmmmm?...
What's worse, it's obvious to everyone with eyes and ears that Biden doesn't know what the hell he is doing.
In the first case (the accusations against Trump), you have controlled narrative.
In the second case (the Biden planetary trainwreck), you have reality.
Chose what you will, but look at what you choose.
Michael
Thing being, Trump is not a sacrificer - of self (/the country) to others - nor, of others. He expects a return on his (USA's) outlay, as he knows others expect equally, or refuses to "make the deal". How "the invasion", prior to and in the aftermath, would have panned out with him at the helm? I believe, like you, he and many people - his detractors, reluctantly, included - it probably would not have happened; likely, he'd have contacted or met Putin in advance about his troop concentrations around Ukraine and heard Putin's concerns, and contacted Zelensky telling him to quickly sort out the Donbass mess or face trouble; Putin would have received some "security guarantees" he could be sure of, unlike all previous broken promises to Russia; if it had gone on, Trump would definitely have pressured for early negotiations; definitely - NOT have encouraged Zelensky, informed Kyiv NOT to expect endless military supplies, training and cash to make for an endless, Russia-draining war. Even when accused, no doubt, of Putin-appeasement or defeatism, from the right and the left and NATO allies and propaganda Press, I think he'd have not compromised. Possibly, he would have used sanctions more as a threat (to both leaders, I'd imagine) than punitively to wreck Russia. As for the West equally wrecking its own economies, industry and energy supply to 'get Russia'...never! And - he would not now be 'suggesting' and/or bluffing the use of nuclear weapons (also never entertaining the cynical western, false flag 'incident' to justify NATO involvement). Nor permitted other clandestine activities against Russia.
The deal-maker would have stopped this war the predators wished for.
The moral weakness of present leaders sometimes shows in their subconsciously trying to out-perform Trump, I think, but failing badly. Actions not rhetoric show one's (non-sacrificial) moral strength. *Character tells*, a fact not grasped by Binswanger's latest:
Selfishness Without a Self: Trump's True Colors Revealed by Harry Binswanger | Capitalism Magazine
WWW.CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COMThe Republican Party nominated, worked to elect, then stood behind a man who is amoral and unhinged, a man who is the tribal lone wolf... -
On 10/8/2022 at 6:51 AM, Peter said:
. Peanut butter. Plastic utensils. What did I forget . . . ?
...to KYAGB
);
Normalization of nuclear war. Post-apocalyptic advice. Big talking leaders taking it to the brink for their opinion polls. How did the 'think' tanks, NATO and western elected officials not see things turning out precisely this way when first starting, then going all in against Russia? - um, I meant, "for Ukraine". (Or - did they?) Incredible ignorance or premeditated evasion, either reason, all the experts and leaders need stringing up. Facts, in conventional war, Russia wasn't going to lose its stated objectives. Ukraine will be the worse for dragging the war out. The Russians this far had a policy of restraint and haven't started fighting a proper war yet. "Unprovoked?" Seeing, in retrospect, how suicidally extreme the West is prepared to go, proves Putin's "an existential threat" - they indeed were trying to provoke a response from Russia, a confrontation even at secondhand. Too late now, but conflict could -only- have been averted by "damage control", early talks (that western govts blocked, in more proof). If this goes "bad", I am not much bothered about my own survival chances, I'm disgusted at the mindless infants we put in charge of nations, taking a gamble on throwing away everything mankind was and will be for - nothing.
-
Backing up James Woods' query, a sober assessment of Biden's nuclear weapon rhetoric at Moon of Alabama.
For me, Putin was never the primary culprit for creating "a false flag event".
MoA - Biden's Fearmongers About A Russian Nuclear Threat That No One Has Made
WWW.MOONOFALABAMA.ORG -
Why are liberals so eager...?
That's an interesting one. I'm considering perhaps they, some, many, have such pathological narcissism/subjectivity that they can't conceive of their own dying by nuke-- other people (peasants) will be killed, but not me. We the elite class are too supremely special for that. Like a secularist form of a chosen by God complex. Something in that?
-
Yes, on that Twitter page, Pharma also are quick to cash in:
"US buys $290 million worth of of drugs in preparation for nuclear emergencies"
A vaccine against radiation poisoning coming next?
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
Don't forget how a nuclear war might be good to in the war against climate change...(but you didn't think about that, did you? No; you only think about yourself...;) )
"The cons seem to outweigh the pros in the event of global cooling caused by even a small nuclear war."
Yay for that! Maybe, a nuke war won't be such a good idea... On balance - but maybe a very "small" one could work...?
All part of the "normalizing" about nuclear exchanges suddenly prattled about. Get used to ¬some¬ of the human race being extinguished, too many of them anyway.
To even consider the horrendous notion shows scientists have lost a rational epistemology. (Rand: The physical sciences are still ruled by some remnants of a rational epistemology (which is rapidly being destroyed)..."
She should have seen the Covid 'scientists'.
-
1
-
-
This is what's called "prepping" the public - and not only by the psycho TV performer, Z.
Did a Brig.Gen. actually just say that? ... and on a nuclear power plant!! Off the scale panic from western powers, accepted calmly by a CNN flunky.
about 5min. in.
-
The 2019 Rand Corporation report. "Over-extending and Unbalancing Russia"
It's deja vu like the conferences on Covid 19 before Covid 19.
An analysis and critique:
-
1
-
-
How the media operates:
Various leaders and interviewees voice rhetorical insinuations about Russia possessing and possibly using nukes, adding "well - we have them too! So watch out!
Putin responds to the reports by stating Russia's "No First Use" policy. Only in the case of ... etc., etc.
The front page of New York Times next day exclaims: "Putin boasts about using his nuclear weapons!"
--and every paper and network worldwide echo with the news.
[Therefore anything which occurs on or near the battlefield will not be questioned - Putin's doing.]
-
1
-
-
US and UK Sabotaged Ukrainian Peace Deal – scheerpost.com
SCHEERPOST.COMThe West's aim "is not the victory of Ukraine, It's the defeat of Russia," Baud says. "The problem is that nobody cares about Ukraine. We have...-
1
-
-
This military 'campaign' so far has been a tightly limited effort with limited aims, using limited methods to avoid destroying civilian infrastructure, several analysts who understand full-scale warfare agree. Premised falsely upon Putin wanting to escalate the war, his brutal intentions, imperialism, apparent nuke threats, etc., towards Europe and the West - that he would blow his own pipeline may seem a strong possibility. Bizarre, out of touch with the observable reality and events. A product of western scholars and journalistic cover-up, blindly accepted because of Russians' caricatured inherent 'evil', deviousness and cunning. And so a false flag attack which gains Russia nothing. Not even a publicity advantage. "Look how Russian property is being attacked by evil Western forces!" So what - Who cares?
It's the West that's running short of options and needs to a). keep upping the ante or b). fold - and accept the negotiations they've stupidly and immorally rejected from Day one- i.e. 'admit defeat' after its massive investment, material and moral, in Ukraine. It is the losing side that always needs to "double-down" to get out of trouble and recoup losses, and no matter what one hears in the lying media Ukraine is steadily losing. Obversely, things are moving along quite satisfactorily for Russian objectives, with minor counter-attacks to contend with, most of the held territory is under control--Russia is staying. Certainly, in response to advanced arming and NATO close-support, Putin has needed to increase his out-numbered initial forces, the fresh intake required mostly for defense now.
Putin made very clear what he wanted, security guarantees and liberation for the Russian Ukrainians. No one was prepared to take him at his word--nor, to closely watch if his actions corresponded. Ultimately, one sees now in retrospect that, from his p.o.v, the "offensive" invasion was SELF-defensive (not always a self-contradiction) - protective of both Russia and the Russo-Ukrainian separatists. The insane, wider "imperialist" notion is being laid to rest by evidence. (Is it expected by fear mongers that Putin will shortly conduct referendums in western Ukraine and Kyiv, to also become part of Russia? Before, that is, he invades and conquers e.g. Poland? heh).
The NATO alliance was losing its economic-political grip on popular support in Germany. Their huge industry is crashing and winter is close. But after Putin openly told Schultz recently he would resupply them with gas, at any time he wanted - "just a push on the button", there clearly was western alarm that they might independently arrange that, and so lose a critical EU partner to "the other side". That had to be stopped, pre-empted to remove Putin's energy-supply edge over Europe. But the rewriting of the facts/motives to cause ambivalence and perhaps shift the public's blame and attention from the obvious culprits who alone benefit, was predictable. Like every step in this war, the embedded 'narrative' is too powerful to oppose. The West's single battle that's been won from the start is the propaganda war.
Put it this way, if done by a third party, the sabotage wasn't carried out without the Americans/British pre-knowledge and approval.
-
I thought the pipeline damage was "in no one's interest"? Today there is an unexpected tremendous opportunity. Something twisted about this man.
https://www.rt.com/news/563861-blinken-nord-stream-opportunity/
-
1
-
-
"The principle of self-determination depends for its realization on many things, the primary one being power.
In reality, the “right” to political self-determination is always a function of whether that right can be de facto exercised, and that is always a question of power.
The American South recognized this during the Civil War. The American Colonies recognized it during the War of Independence.
There will never be an agreed-upon or workable application of the right to such determination in international law, because international law is precisely law between states, but it is precisely the relative power of different states at different times that makes the “right” to such determination a real one, or merely a complaint".
--
Makes one realize how "self-determination" hasn't any de jure recognition, in international law, but it does have many precedents. A good many nations, most of them colonies once, exist today due to that original concept. A people has the right to elect to determine their future from Govts and rulers in a piece of land they live in, to break away. Which is "accession" (by the people) - not "annexation" - a "land grab" irrespective of existing people or the will of the people there. But presupposes they have the strength to keep it. When it comes to "the relative power of different states", *might makes right* and has always done so.
-
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive…!
-
The "mobilization" is from the pool of reservists (numbering 25 million) who have already had basic training, iow, they had all previously been "drafted" -- been given a mandatory one year training. They aren't lacking military experience, and 'green'. The media per usual plays on the fine distinction for dramatic, propaganda effect.
"Plucked from villages".
Conscription in Russia
("universal military obligation" or "liability for military service")
is a 12-month draft, which is mandatory for all male citizens ages 18–27, with a number of exceptions. The mandatory term of service was reduced from two years to one year in 2007 and 2008.[1][2] Avoiding the draft is a felony under Russian criminal code and is punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment.[3] Conscripts are generally prohibited from being deployed abroad.[4]" Wikipedia
-
The warmongers in Whitehall
Explainer: Britain’s proxy war on Russia
DECLASSIFIEDUK.ORGUK participation in the Ukraine conflict is far-reaching, involving military and intelligence support, arms supplies and information warfare. But...
Ukraine and Endless War for Profit
in 4 - Politics
Posted
Straight-talking Col. Douglas MacGregor joins the Morrises.
https://youtu.be/vav_pvzaEaY