4 ms·

When i was in the Air Force, I interacted with alot of russians "On the other side" when wee were building FOBs in eastern europe afteer the invasion of crimea.

When i was in the Air Force, I interacted with alot of russians "On the other side" when wee were building FOBs in eastern europe afteer the invasion of crimea. At work, It was all about defeating the russians. After work, it was about out drinking the russians. We laughed, we joked but at the end of the day we knew our bossees thought eachother enemies. And at the end of the day we knew that we were activeely working to kill eachother. That didn't seem to bother us. Alot of people in the military believe what the world has taught us not to believe... That we are the greatest nation in the world and use of force is the only thing that is tangible and real in this world. You're right to Life liberty and property is an illusion and at any point i can kill you and take what you've worked hard for to save. Is it Moral? Yes, because it's real life. The only Amoral things in reality is these illusions that morality exist. Asking what the russians think isn't the right question. The right question is what percentage of nationalist exist in russia. Because i can tell you one thing, Nationalists believe in this war to their core. The weak don't deserve the products of their labor if they can't defend it. We've seen this as a fact of life since life has been a fact. Good Luck Comrades, but one day i will have to kill you for your virtuos beliefs.

gimboland 5y ago
> The weak don't deserve the products of their labor if they can't defend it. We've seen this as a fact of life since life has been a fact. Amazing how "may not be able to retain" collapses down to "do not deserve" here.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
  how else do you justify invasion and war?
  - ObscureScience 5y ago
    If you take away what someone else deserve you are immoral. Morality can be complex, but I would start there.
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
      That's the opposite of reality though. Mark Twain has a good quote here: "It is murder all along the line. Here are countless multitudes of creatures, and they all kill, kill, kill, they are all murderers. And they are not to blame, Divine One?” “He has one code of morals for himself, and quite another for his children."
      - 52-6F-62 5y ago
        Philosophy, like sciences, are broken down into domain functions. You cannot simply take one statement and apply it ad-hoc if it suits you. Twain was certainly not speaking to the larger sphere of existence. Is the earth murdering you and consuming you when you lay down to die of old age? We are all subject. Twain was speaking in the voice of the dogmatic Christian Satan, who was questioning the Christian God’s righteousness and design. It was metaphor to show the flaws in rooting your philosophy in something grounded so poorly. This (might makes right) philosophy that Twain was dressing down is the same Putin and Russia are using to press upon other nations. I can understand what you’re trying to say, but you’ve got your reasoning all kinds of backwards.
        TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
        >Philosophy, like sciences, are broken down into domain functions. But Philosophy is not a science, it's a human construct. >you’ve got your reasoning all kinds of backwards. It's rather a lack of reasoning. Anything that is claimed as "Moral" always begs the question to what end. If i 'Can' it is. You and you're morals of do no harm, act fairly in dealings, etc. etc. end up being counter-morals when reality strikes because the universe doesn't caree about your codee of conduct or your "Rules & morals". Putin certainly doesn't.
        52-6F-62 5y ago
        Words have meaning my friend. I never called philosophy a science. It’s the font that scientific reasoning sprung from. The rest of your comment I can’t decipher. I’m not sure why you’re injecting me into this. I’m not a player here. It may also be worth considering that the quote you used to justify war, was written by a pacifist: https://sojo.net/articles/mark-twains-radical-pacifism https://sojo.net/articles/mark-twains-radical-pacifism https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/l15twain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/l15twain.html
jiffygist 5y ago
I always thought that nationalists are opposition in Russia. Their goal is national and cultural homogenity on smaller territory (e.g. without Caucasus), so they should be naturally against territorial expansion. I'd rather call Putinism/"Eurasianism" imperialist politics.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
  I'm talking big N Nationalism. The belief that all "Great" nations historically have embodied. I'm talking about the sentiment that inspired the great territorial expansions of Macedon under alex III, Rome under Hadrian, france under nepolian, germany under hitler, & United States under Nixon. That you can take, unify and direct great resources under force. Forge a monopoly on violence and create prosperity for your people at the cost of others.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    > the great territorial expansions of ... United States under Nixon What are you referring to here? I don't recall Nixon claiming any new territory. The real American expansionist was Polk. He's barely remembered now but he was responsible for annexing Texas, taking the southwest US from Mexico after the Mexican–American War, and dividing the northwestern US/southwest Canada with Britain.
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
      Nixon formulated the brenton woods. I would argue that was the biggest poweer play in all of history and is the reason for US dominance. It created the USD as the worlds reserve currency.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        The Bretton Woods Agreement was in 1944, under FDR.
        5y ago
runjake 5y ago
The ugly truth is that at the root of it all, violence is the foundation upon which society sits. Society is held together by the threat of violence. A pacifist gets to live their pacifist lives, because they are kept safe by those who would inflict violence upon those who would threaten society.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  I’m afraid you’ve misconstrued pacifism for inaction and cowardice. They’re not the same.
  - runjake 5y ago
    Yeah, I worried about my wording, but couldn't think of anything that would get that point across better. FWIW, I respect and admire those who avoid violence. We need less application of it in the world, obviously.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
  In the book the soverign individual the author speaks at depth that a "Monopoly on violence" is actually what keeps society safe.
  - gimboland 5y ago
    That's an idea that goes back to Hobbes' Leviathan.
trinsic2 5y ago
I'm torn between the two sides of this mindset. On the one had, what you says is true, if you cant protect whats yours there is a chance you wont keep it. On the other hand, I know that people who take what they haven't worked for is destined to live a life of suffering because the world is created by people who build things that make a difference. The people who take and cannot create for themselves are doomed to live a apathetic existence. That is not a life worth living for me. I think I would rather be taken from then to always have to sacrifice metal/emotional stability every time I steal something that is not mine.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
  It's not black and white. I can build and take. Taking allows me to build faster and better. Look at Rome.

gimboland 5y ago

> The weak don't deserve the products of their labor if they can't defend it. We've seen this as a fact of life since life has been a fact. Amazing how "may not be able to retain" collapses down to "do not deserve" here.

TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
how else do you justify invasion and war?
- ObscureScience 5y ago
  If you take away what someone else deserve you are immoral. Morality can be complex, but I would start there.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
    That's the opposite of reality though. Mark Twain has a good quote here: "It is murder all along the line. Here are countless multitudes of creatures, and they all kill, kill, kill, they are all murderers. And they are not to blame, Divine One?” “He has one code of morals for himself, and quite another for his children."
    - 52-6F-62 5y ago
      Philosophy, like sciences, are broken down into domain functions. You cannot simply take one statement and apply it ad-hoc if it suits you. Twain was certainly not speaking to the larger sphere of existence. Is the earth murdering you and consuming you when you lay down to die of old age? We are all subject. Twain was speaking in the voice of the dogmatic Christian Satan, who was questioning the Christian God’s righteousness and design. It was metaphor to show the flaws in rooting your philosophy in something grounded so poorly. This (might makes right) philosophy that Twain was dressing down is the same Putin and Russia are using to press upon other nations. I can understand what you’re trying to say, but you’ve got your reasoning all kinds of backwards.
      - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
        >Philosophy, like sciences, are broken down into domain functions. But Philosophy is not a science, it's a human construct. >you’ve got your reasoning all kinds of backwards. It's rather a lack of reasoning. Anything that is claimed as "Moral" always begs the question to what end. If i 'Can' it is. You and you're morals of do no harm, act fairly in dealings, etc. etc. end up being counter-morals when reality strikes because the universe doesn't caree about your codee of conduct or your "Rules & morals". Putin certainly doesn't.
        52-6F-62 5y ago
        Words have meaning my friend. I never called philosophy a science. It’s the font that scientific reasoning sprung from. The rest of your comment I can’t decipher. I’m not sure why you’re injecting me into this. I’m not a player here. It may also be worth considering that the quote you used to justify war, was written by a pacifist: https://sojo.net/articles/mark-twains-radical-pacifism https://sojo.net/articles/mark-twains-radical-pacifism https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/l15twain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/l15twain.html

jiffygist 5y ago

I always thought that nationalists are opposition in Russia. Their goal is national and cultural homogenity on smaller territory (e.g. without Caucasus), so they should be naturally against territorial expansion. I'd rather call Putinism/"Eurasianism" imperialist politics.

TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
I'm talking big N Nationalism. The belief that all "Great" nations historically have embodied. I'm talking about the sentiment that inspired the great territorial expansions of Macedon under alex III, Rome under Hadrian, france under nepolian, germany under hitler, & United States under Nixon. That you can take, unify and direct great resources under force. Forge a monopoly on violence and create prosperity for your people at the cost of others.
- leereeves 5y ago
  > the great territorial expansions of ... United States under Nixon What are you referring to here? I don't recall Nixon claiming any new territory. The real American expansionist was Polk. He's barely remembered now but he was responsible for annexing Texas, taking the southwest US from Mexico after the Mexican–American War, and dividing the northwestern US/southwest Canada with Britain.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
    Nixon formulated the brenton woods. I would argue that was the biggest poweer play in all of history and is the reason for US dominance. It created the USD as the worlds reserve currency.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      The Bretton Woods Agreement was in 1944, under FDR.
      - 5y ago

runjake 5y ago

The ugly truth is that at the root of it all, violence is the foundation upon which society sits. Society is held together by the threat of violence. A pacifist gets to live their pacifist lives, because they are kept safe by those who would inflict violence upon those who would threaten society.

52-6F-62 5y ago
I’m afraid you’ve misconstrued pacifism for inaction and cowardice. They’re not the same.
- runjake 5y ago
  Yeah, I worried about my wording, but couldn't think of anything that would get that point across better. FWIW, I respect and admire those who avoid violence. We need less application of it in the world, obviously.
TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
In the book the soverign individual the author speaks at depth that a "Monopoly on violence" is actually what keeps society safe.
- gimboland 5y ago
  That's an idea that goes back to Hobbes' Leviathan.

trinsic2 5y ago

I'm torn between the two sides of this mindset. On the one had, what you says is true, if you cant protect whats yours there is a chance you wont keep it. On the other hand, I know that people who take what they haven't worked for is destined to live a life of suffering because the world is created by people who build things that make a difference. The people who take and cannot create for themselves are doomed to live a apathetic existence. That is not a life worth living for me. I think I would rather be taken from then to always have to sacrifice metal/emotional stability every time I steal something that is not mine.

TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
It's not black and white. I can build and take. Taking allows me to build faster and better. Look at Rome.