[Tainari88]

It's like the interior of a church filled with kitschy luxury items, which could be a Russian oligarch's home perhaps. Donald Frederickovich Trumpov.

St Petersburg is a beautiful city. But a lot of what these tacky people with money buy with their millions is awful.

I think I went to an exhibit here of recycled things that were cheap or free used as decoration for a home and in a design by a Mexican designer. It was beautiful! I asked her if it was common to decorate a lot with inexpensive things? She said it has to be promoted because a lot of Mexicans are told some department store American style stuff was considered the middle-class standard. It looked like bad stuff from the PRC.

Mexican original design for everything is some of the most exquisite and aesthetic things in the world. And either free or extremely inexpensive. I am really impressed with it.

I just bought the most clever bookmarks for books made of recycled stuff and it is beautiful. It cost me about twenty-five cents.

All this reworked over the top ostentatious crap is terrible. Trump is known for bad, fake art reproduction. The one investment that would be smart in a bad economy--like original artwork? Is what the tacky conman does not want to invest in.

[Beren]

I'm sure Trump is notorious for his awful taste, especially in Manhattan and NYC, which he seems considering extravagance and uses as his brand.

[Rich]

@Rich is bonkers. Brilliant, but bonkers. He can see through all the hypocritical bullshit of Western politics, but his own ideas of what would be a sensible foreign policy are, well, bonkers. If he were in charge of the West, the missiles would have been flying decades ago….

A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client

Well at the risk of ignoring the above adage i will try and defend myself against senior prosecutor Potemkin.

So the way I see things, I don't know if its worthy of being called a philosophy.

Jason Bourne: You're acting like I'm trying to burn you. I'm just trying to do the right thing.
Marie Helena Kreutz: "Nobody does the right thing."

So to be a little more prosaic, in my view morality makes up at most 10% of our foreign / miliary / diplomatic / trade policy. The rest is made up of self interest, favouritism and reality.

1 Self interest This is perceived self interest whether perceived consciously or unconsciously. Nothing wrong with a good dose of self interest, its perfectly healthy, as long as its not dressed up as morality.

2 Favouritism There are a million and one injustices in the world inevitably we prioritise some over others. I'm a kind of a Buddhist, so I place a high priority on the religious freedom of Buddhists, Hindus and other Pagans. So for me while Putin's Russia is a long way from the ideal, there's a hell of lot worse places in the world. This is why I see the loss of China, Tibet, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to totalitarian Communism as one of the greatest tragedies of all time, where as to most "Liberals" these are events of microscopic importance. So note favouritism is not the same as self interest, but again there is nothing wrong with favouritism, as long its not dressed up as benign impartiality. And as long as I don't demand that everyone share my favouritism, because then in my view favouritism moves into narcissism.

3 Reality So contry to the perceptions I may have given you @Potemkin I do accept that how we deal with China's regime has to be different to how we dealt with Saddam's regime. And in this case we should deal with the reality of Russia's nuclear weapons up front rather than posturing behind a phony machismo.

So in addition in my defence I point out that I'm not trying to become British Prime Minister and I'm not eligible to become US President. But even if I was I am a true Republican as opposed to the fake Republicanism of the United States. The United States is not a Republic, it is a serial dictatorship. I favour a Parliament / House elected by pure proportional representation, where the Prime Minister is subject to instant recall by that parliment /House and the Parliament / House itself is subject to recall by the electorate in yearly elections. So I'm not suggesting that my every utterance should be taken as immediate unconstrained command for action.

[Tainari88]

:) Well at the risk of ignoring the above adage i will try and defend myself against senior prosecutor Potemkin.

So the way I see things, I don't know if its worthy of being called a philosophy.

Jason Bourne: You're acting like I'm trying to burn you. I'm just trying to do the right thing.
Marie Helena Kreutz: "Nobody does the right thing."

So to be a little more prosaic, in my view morality makes up at most 10% of our foreign / miliary / diplomatic / trade policy. The rest is made up of self interest, favouritism and reality.

1 Self interest This is perceived self interest whether perceived consciously or unconsciously. Nothing wrong with a good dose of self interest, its perfectly healthy, as long as its not dressed up as morality.

2 Favouritism There are a million and one injustices in the world inevitably we prioritise some over others. I'm a kind of a Buddhist, so I place a high priority on the religious freedom of Buddhists, Hindus and other Pagans. So for me while Putin's Russia is a long way from the ideal, there's a hell of lot worse places in the world. This is why I see the loss of China, Tibet, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to totalitarian Communism as one of the greatest tragedies of all time, where as to most "Liberals" these are events of microscopic importance. So note favouritism is not the same as self interest, but again there is nothing wrong with favouritism, as long its not dressed up as benign impartiality. And as long as I don't demand that everyone share my favouritism, because then in my view favouritism moves into narcissism.

3 Reality So contry to the perceptions I may have given you @Potemkin I do accept that how we deal with China's regime has to be different to how we dealt with Saddam's regime. And in this case we should deal with the reality of Russia's nuclear weapons up front rather than posturing behind a phony machismo.

So in addition in my defence I point out that I'm not trying to become British Prime Minister and I'm not eligible to become US President. But even if I was I am a true Republican as opposed to the fake Republicanism of the United States. The United States is not a Republic, it is a serial dictatorship. I favour a Parliament / House elected by pure proportional representation, where the Prime Minister is subject to instant recall by that parliment /House and the Parliament / House itself is subject to recall by the electorate in yearly elections. So I'm not suggesting that my every utterance should be taken as immediate unconstrained command for action.

See here @Rich this is why you are indeed a brilliant man. And why I like you despite being far from socialist in politics. Lol.

Your no bullshit approach is quite refreshing. I do believe totally different to you in this line of yours.

Jason Bourne: You're acting like I'm trying to burn you. I'm just trying to do the right thing.
Marie Helena Kreutz: "Nobody does the right thing."

You would be surprised how many people do the right thing. Do they usually get shot in the head in the process if they do the right thing in politics? Yes, but they still do it.

Political courage is very rare. But it exists and it exists because the ones who truly do change the system and their nations and the world, are perceived as a threat to the system and as such, they are usually met with violence. From the status quo. But they do exist.

One should do the right thing. Always. And principles should be upheld. No matter what. In the end what changes the world are not the ones who believe that no one does the right thing. But the ones who do the right thing even though no one is watching and there is no self interest involved. That morality is truly transformative. With everyone.

I happen to think you have a good heart. Are you racist? Probably. Lol. Are you nationalistic? Probably. But are you a man with a good heart? I happen to think you are. And for me, a good heart overcomes everything in the world in the end.

Trust el corazón Rich. It is the most valuable aspect of a man in this world.

[litwin]

[litwin]

ivan are such pathetic slaves

[Wels]

The United Kingdom is soon not going to be very United Noemon?
Got to stay on that sinking boat without anyone in charge....NHS workers burned out and striking, and public employees striking and protesting. What is going on in the UK?

I'm not in the UK but friends tell me things are not quite as bad as it looks and published abroad. The NHS works and emergency as well, but the underfunding and bad decisions in the past certainly have consequences. Brexit 'spirit' and exploiting workers is nothing new, especially the latter.
I do not think Sunak is doing a good job, it is just in comparison to Boris Johnson any clown would look better. Imho it is high time for the Tories to go, but most were apalled by Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe Noemon can elaborate

P.SS. @Tainari i remember you asked me a question somewhere but i did not find it again – can you?

[litwin]

[litwin]

American/EU biolabs in Ukraine, where “experiments were carried out on people”. high quality RT FOOTAGE


ONLY IVAN CAN SWALLOW SUCH LOAD OF CRAP

[litwin]

American/EU biolabs in Ukraine, where “experiments were carried out on people”, high quality RT FOOTAGE. ps US STEAL UKR BLOOD AS WELL , RT SAYS

[litwin]

[Tainari88]

I'm not in the UK but friends tell me things are not quite as bad as it looks and published abroad. The NHS works and emergency as well, but the underfunding and bad decisions in the past certainly have consequences. Brexit 'spirit' and exploiting workers is nothing new, especially the latter.
I do not think Sunak is doing a good job, it is just in comparison to Boris Johnson any clown would look better. Imho it is high time for the Tories to go, but most were apalled by Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe Noemon can elaborate

P.SS. @Tainari i remember you asked me a question somewhere but i did not find it again – can you?

Yes it was in another thread @Wels here it is:

@Wels I have had some British posters on here tell me that racism is not really the thing in the UK. And there is not really any kind of institutionalized racism. Is that true? I have no idea since I never lived in the UK.

It could be the British are more class conscious than about racial superiority. But for me? The two can't really be divorced from each other.

What is your opinion on the matter?

Or anyone else who would like to explain it to me from the British citizen perspective?

[Patrickov]

https://twitter.com/mp4995491/status/1636856129358577668

Not trusting the American government and / or their media does not necessarily mean they drink Russian propaganda.

On the contrary, they may as well think most if not all information not serving their ideals as Russian propaganda.

[litwin]

Putin´s secret weapon waits for NATO leopards and HIMARS




comments ?

[Rancid]

Putin´s secret weapon waits for NATO leopards and HIMARS




comments ?

Since the start of the war. When I see those armored trains, I would wonder "does that make sense? is that useful?"

[wat0n]

Since the start of the war. When I see those armored trains, I would wonder "does that make sense? is that useful?"

It probably makes sabotage harder.

[Potemkin]

Since the start of the war. When I see those armored trains, I would wonder "does that make sense? is that useful?"

They’re a hangover from the Russian Civil War. Armoured trains were a big thing back then, and were a decisive factor in the eventual Bolshevik victory. They became the stuff of legend in Soviet movies, novels, poems, etc. But no, you’re absolutely right. They make no military sense now, and they’re about as useful as a chocolate tea cosy. Their only value is psychological - the Russians are signalling to their troops, and indirectly to their civilian population, that this conflict is as important as the Civil War, and that the Russian state is committed to winning it, no matter what it takes.

[Rancid]

They’re a hangover from the Russian Civil War. Armoured trains were a big thing back then, and were a decisive factor in the eventual Bolshevik victory. They became the stuff of legend in Soviet movies, novels, poems, etc. But no, you’re absolutely right. They make no military sense now, and they’re about as useful as a chocolate tea cosy. Their only value is psychological - the Russians are signalling to their troops, and indirectly to their civilian population, that this conflict is as important as the Civil War, and that the Russian state is committed to winning it, no matter what it takes.

I see. The Psyop part makes sense.

It probably makes sabotage harder.

Well the train can't be everywhere at once, couldn't a small special ops team, or even just a band of partisans just sort of damage rail lines here and there? Wait until you know the train is far away, and just mess up some rail ties. Of course, a rail line is easy to repair, but it's still a nuisance for Russia. A small group of people with a minimal amount of training and minimal amount of materiel can do.

[ingliz]

And there is not really any kind of institutionalized racism. Is that true?

No

When my wife presented her green passport with its Arabic script at a British airport many years ago - Confused, don't be. This was before we'd joined the EU just after the Lockerbie bombing during the Gaddafi/Mintoff love-in when Mintoff decided the Maltese should be celebrating their cultural roots, and a lot of Maltese worked in Libya - the immigration officials behind the desk at arrivals refused to recognise her right to remain and threatened to deport her. When I complained, pointing to the stamp, the contempt shown was so obvious, the language so bad I thought the rubber gloves were about to come out. Luckily I had the fancier engraved full-page high-flown curlicued paper stuck on Right of Abode in my passport. On seeing what they thought was a rich bastard's visa, the racist forelock tugging shits went from 'Let's stick a rubber-gloved finger up this uppity dagoe's arse' to arse lickers.

The 'Oh fuck, we've screwed up' look in their eyes was a sight to behold.


Edited to provide context


p.s. Racial tension was always bubbling away when I lived in the UK.

After attending a blues party in Leeds, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and nearly got caught up in the Chapeltown race riots of 1981.

[Tainari88]

No

When my wife presented her green passport with its Arabic script at a British airport many years ago - You are confused? Don't be. This was before we had joined the EU when Mintoff had decided the Maltese should celebrate their cultural roots - the immigration officials behind the desk at arrivals refused to recognise her right to remain and threatened to deport her. When I complained, pointing to the stamp, the language they used was so bad I thought the rubber gloves were about to come out. Luckily I had the fancier engraved full-page high-flown curlicued paper stuck on Right of Abode in my passport. On seeing what they thought was a rich bastard's visa, the racist forelock tugging shits went from 'let's stick a rubber-gloved finger up this uppity dagoe's arse' to arse lickers.

The 'Oh fuck, we've screwed up' terror in their eyes was a sight to behold.

It is interesting, because immigration is where you see clearly racist practices or not in a nation. There is always favoritism to people who are rich or have ties to financial power. But often the majority of people who are not European are associated with the lower classes and rarely get any respect when entering or leaving nations.

I had never been through immigration before getting to Mexico. I have a US passport, but it says clearly on it that I am born in Puerto Rico, USA. My little son is not. So Ingliz, when they issued my temporary residency cards in 2019 I saw under nationality a very interesting thing on my immigrant card in Mexico. My nationality said PRI not Estadounidense like my son's. I asked why my nationality was not the same as my son's? The immigration official said the Mexican government does not consider Puerto Ricans born on the island the same as US born ones. I asked why? She said, because the USA categorizes us as statutory citizens and the Mexican government follows international law and international law considers all Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico as US citizens without consent from Puerto Rico and as such we were under duress. The citizenship could be disputed in an international court in the future or even be decolonized signifying that Mexico considers us as an invaded place. An invaded territory. For them our nationality is Puerto Rican FIRST. Not United States first. That was interesting.

I also looked up international court cases. A US citizen can renounce their citizenship to the USA as long as they are either naturalized citizens of the USA or constitutional citizens. But our category is not allowed to renounce--apparently because it would mean the USA would have to state that Puerto Rico can't be held in the limbo status anymore if they are allowed to renounce. We can't do that due to the US congress being the only one unilaterally to tell us if we can be let go and or integrated into the USA or not. That is considered a relationship that is not by consent. So the Mexican government does another category for us. They do that with the people from Guam and US Virgin Islands and all the rest of the unincorporated territories.