When people resort to abuse and insults they are admitting they cannot mount a coherent rebuttal. We have that clear.
To clarify, there is what Government does in the name of the nation and there are the people. Neither foreign nor national Governments have as much power as you appear to believe to dictate to the people. Yes, there is always a significant group, at times a majority, who can be influenced if not brainwashed, but there is always a significant number who cannot be.
I never said I read all Chomsky or the others wrote but I have read a lot. And neither did I say anyone was wrong on everything. Beyond abuse your habit of misinterpreting and misquoting is a bad one.
Other Western nations do not have the American political system because the US has far less power and influence than it imagines.
??? You're still not making sense. I don't even know the point you are trying to make.
>>"there is what Government does in the name of the nation and there are the people."
Huh? what are you trying to imply or get across?
>>"Neither foreign nor national Governments have as much power as you appear to believe to dictate to the people."
??? Some more problems with your assumptions:
(1) You don't really know what I believe but you think you do
(2) What makes you think you have the (right) answers? (especially since you haven't backed up your statements with any corroborating pieces of information)? That you know the distribution, balance, and characteristics of power dynamics? That power dynamics are same or different in different nations, systems, and across periods of time?
Please read my previous comment. You have not backed up any of your off-handed statements with any logic or facts or evidence other than spewing your own biases (and interpretations) based on non-existing foundations?
I find this to be a very obtuse conversation. Maybe it's possible that it is a language/communication issue - and that is why I am unable to get what you mean? Maybe it is emotions (and not facts or critical thinking) that is the base of your statements? Maybe it has more to do with your biases and prejudices rather than any basis in reality?
You're making the same non-sensical and illogical arguments as before (I guess you did not read my previous comment).
And you are still being abusive and insulting which does not make a case.
My point was, the US does not have the power and influence it believes it does and any influence has been declining for decades. Yes the US has military power but people get sick of thugs and bullies and that just reduces the influence factor even faster.
There is what a nation like the US can do in terms of bullying and bribing other Governments and nations but that does not translate into influencing the people and in fact has the opposite effect.
I do not see how I can be clearer than that. Perhaps the fact I am applying logic, common sense, reason and human realities to the situation creates confusion for you.
I guess you are not too familiar with world history or geopolitics.
You conveniently forget some of the tools/instruments of US power - US Dollar hegemony (the financial system). IMF, WorldBank, WTO, UN, etc. and so many other organizations through which the US exerts its influence.
Only someone that is oblivious to reality (and possesses an inadequate knowledge of world events or the ability to analyze history) can come up with the absurd statements that you make.
I don't think you know what logic is (based on your comments and statements) - and this is not an insult - it is a simple observation and assessment based on your comments. Similarly, I don't think you understand what abuse is either if you think my comments reflect any kind of abuse (maybe you're new to the whole communicating on the internet thing? - or maybe anyone that disagrees with you and points out the flaws in your arguments is considered abusive?)
As an example, the difference between abusive statement and simply a statement.
You said: You have not backed up any of your off-handed statements with any logic or facts or evidence other than spewing your own biases (and interpretations) based on non-existing foundations?
Rewrite to remove insults/abuse.
You have not backed up any of your statements with facts or evidence from what I can see. You appear to be presenting your own interpretations and perhaps bias, from what I perceive as non-existent foundations.
You said: Only someone that is oblivious to reality (and possesses an inadequate knowledge of world events or the ability to analyze history) can come up with the absurd statements that you make.
I cannot relate to the reality you appear to express and can only reach my conclusion that your knowledge of world events is inadequate. I also fail to understand how you are analyzing history to come up with the statements that you make.
I am well aware of the ability of the US to bribe, bully and manipulate other nations through the use of military or financial power. My point is that influence is limited and it does not change the attitudes or thinking of the population. It simply influences Government decisions for as long as the public allow it to do so.
There is more at work than guns and money.
And any reading of your comments reveals them as abusive. Perhaps reflect and reread. Your opinion is your opinion in regard to what you think I am saying or doing.
>>"My point is that influence is limited and it does not change the attitudes or thinking of the population."
Counterpoints to your argument:
(1) The US (and most other nations) use various methods of influence - propaganda, gaslighting, brainwashing, fear, distraction, psychological manipulation, etc. Hence, influence is NOT limited - it is all encompassing. The narratives that are used (by those in power) is how populations are managed. If those narratives fail, then violence (physical force) is often deployed. Constructing narratives (and getting others to believe them) is how "influence" is wielded to exert control.
(2) From point (1) above, it follows that "influence" DOES change the attitudes and thinking of populations. This directly refutes your point above.
>>"And any reading of your comments reveals them as abusive. Perhaps reflect and reread."
Ok, I will try to re-phrase my wordings...
One needs to understand how power works, and how nation states (in the context of geopolitics) work to understand how power and influence are used to shape events. I recommend reading the 2 John Maersheimer books that I suggested earlier to understand that, and the YouTube playlist I mentioned on how US Imperialism, Colonization and Global Capitalism are used and weaponized to maintain global US hegemony.
When people resort to abuse and insults they are admitting they cannot mount a coherent rebuttal. We have that clear.
To clarify, there is what Government does in the name of the nation and there are the people. Neither foreign nor national Governments have as much power as you appear to believe to dictate to the people. Yes, there is always a significant group, at times a majority, who can be influenced if not brainwashed, but there is always a significant number who cannot be.
I never said I read all Chomsky or the others wrote but I have read a lot. And neither did I say anyone was wrong on everything. Beyond abuse your habit of misinterpreting and misquoting is a bad one.
Other Western nations do not have the American political system because the US has far less power and influence than it imagines.
??? You're still not making sense. I don't even know the point you are trying to make.
>>"there is what Government does in the name of the nation and there are the people."
Huh? what are you trying to imply or get across?
>>"Neither foreign nor national Governments have as much power as you appear to believe to dictate to the people."
??? Some more problems with your assumptions:
(1) You don't really know what I believe but you think you do
(2) What makes you think you have the (right) answers? (especially since you haven't backed up your statements with any corroborating pieces of information)? That you know the distribution, balance, and characteristics of power dynamics? That power dynamics are same or different in different nations, systems, and across periods of time?
Please read my previous comment. You have not backed up any of your off-handed statements with any logic or facts or evidence other than spewing your own biases (and interpretations) based on non-existing foundations?
I find this to be a very obtuse conversation. Maybe it's possible that it is a language/communication issue - and that is why I am unable to get what you mean? Maybe it is emotions (and not facts or critical thinking) that is the base of your statements? Maybe it has more to do with your biases and prejudices rather than any basis in reality?
You're making the same non-sensical and illogical arguments as before (I guess you did not read my previous comment).
And you are still being abusive and insulting which does not make a case.
My point was, the US does not have the power and influence it believes it does and any influence has been declining for decades. Yes the US has military power but people get sick of thugs and bullies and that just reduces the influence factor even faster.
There is what a nation like the US can do in terms of bullying and bribing other Governments and nations but that does not translate into influencing the people and in fact has the opposite effect.
I do not see how I can be clearer than that. Perhaps the fact I am applying logic, common sense, reason and human realities to the situation creates confusion for you.
I guess you are not too familiar with world history or geopolitics.
You conveniently forget some of the tools/instruments of US power - US Dollar hegemony (the financial system). IMF, WorldBank, WTO, UN, etc. and so many other organizations through which the US exerts its influence.
Only someone that is oblivious to reality (and possesses an inadequate knowledge of world events or the ability to analyze history) can come up with the absurd statements that you make.
Here's something to get you started on your journey to understanding the US Empire: "US Empire & the Deep State series - with historian Aaron Good" (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDAi0NdlN8hNArLl765PXe8tsTKmOciGL)
I don't think you know what logic is (based on your comments and statements) - and this is not an insult - it is a simple observation and assessment based on your comments. Similarly, I don't think you understand what abuse is either if you think my comments reflect any kind of abuse (maybe you're new to the whole communicating on the internet thing? - or maybe anyone that disagrees with you and points out the flaws in your arguments is considered abusive?)
As an example, the difference between abusive statement and simply a statement.
You said: You have not backed up any of your off-handed statements with any logic or facts or evidence other than spewing your own biases (and interpretations) based on non-existing foundations?
Rewrite to remove insults/abuse.
You have not backed up any of your statements with facts or evidence from what I can see. You appear to be presenting your own interpretations and perhaps bias, from what I perceive as non-existent foundations.
See the difference.
Another rewrite to remove insults/abuse.
You said: Only someone that is oblivious to reality (and possesses an inadequate knowledge of world events or the ability to analyze history) can come up with the absurd statements that you make.
I cannot relate to the reality you appear to express and can only reach my conclusion that your knowledge of world events is inadequate. I also fail to understand how you are analyzing history to come up with the statements that you make.
Same here - I appreciate (and prefer) your wording/framing. I stand corrected. Apologies.
Thank you, yes - I like your correction better than my original.
I am well aware of the ability of the US to bribe, bully and manipulate other nations through the use of military or financial power. My point is that influence is limited and it does not change the attitudes or thinking of the population. It simply influences Government decisions for as long as the public allow it to do so.
There is more at work than guns and money.
And any reading of your comments reveals them as abusive. Perhaps reflect and reread. Your opinion is your opinion in regard to what you think I am saying or doing.
>>"My point is that influence is limited and it does not change the attitudes or thinking of the population."
Counterpoints to your argument:
(1) The US (and most other nations) use various methods of influence - propaganda, gaslighting, brainwashing, fear, distraction, psychological manipulation, etc. Hence, influence is NOT limited - it is all encompassing. The narratives that are used (by those in power) is how populations are managed. If those narratives fail, then violence (physical force) is often deployed. Constructing narratives (and getting others to believe them) is how "influence" is wielded to exert control.
(2) From point (1) above, it follows that "influence" DOES change the attitudes and thinking of populations. This directly refutes your point above.
>>"And any reading of your comments reveals them as abusive. Perhaps reflect and reread."
Ok, I will try to re-phrase my wordings...
One needs to understand how power works, and how nation states (in the context of geopolitics) work to understand how power and influence are used to shape events. I recommend reading the 2 John Maersheimer books that I suggested earlier to understand that, and the YouTube playlist I mentioned on how US Imperialism, Colonization and Global Capitalism are used and weaponized to maintain global US hegemony.