Trump Ignores Merkel, Refuses to Shake Her Hand When Asked, Shaking Head "No"

Reports on political activity with strategic consequences.
User avatar
Doc
Regular contributor
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:10 pm

Re: Trump Ignores Merkel, Refuses to Shake Her Hand When Asked, Shaking Head "No"

Post by Doc » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:39 pm

Navarro wrote: Loyalty is naturally very important. One who betrays you, or who betrays someone they were previously loyal to, is an obvious risk. Never the less, there remains value in conditional loyalty. The opportunist, though soonest loyal to oneself, can be extremely valuable, and if handled appropriately, can be expected to act in a loyal fashion, as it's to their benefit to do so. Would Kark have ever been a problem for the king in the first place, had the king offered Kark the realization of his dreams? One tends not to bite the hand that feeds them everything they ever wanted. There must be exceptions, though I doubt Merkel was an appropriate exception.

I would have sooner developed a charismatic but "lowly" garbage man for Merkel's position. He would have soonest been appreciative, and loyal thus. If I give a rich man a thousand dollars, and if I simultaneously give a poor man a thousand dollars, which have I soonest bought? Whose loyalty have I best ensured - which soonest appreciates what I've done for them? Furthermore, is someone who has effectively and ruthlessly pursued their grand aspirations the greatest threat, or is someone who has settled for little, even if they dream for more? The charismatic garbage man was a better choice than this Secretary of Culture. Hence the developing German Union, and related growing rift.
I concurr. Use them, never trust them.

But then it's the interpersonal stuff. I spent a couple of years as a handler and that was more than enough. Eventually I got sick to my stomack every time I had to look into those deceitful eyes and nurture that fragile, attention-seeking ego. I don't think I was biased. I developed an allergy. A bad case of it.

Comrade Kasner-Jentsch triggers that allergy in me. Bigtime. By her eye-movements and head motorics. By the way she positions her hands. By her mimics/mimicry(?) etc etc.

She could have the same effect on POTUS. He surely looked disgusted. As if he was allergic to shell-fish and just ate a large lobster. Business might not be that different from intelligence.

Agreed. Similarly erroneous, and the incorrect strategy. Clearly a much superior attempt than the previous, but still incorrect.
It migth have worked in the west, they seem more troubled by TV-dramas than happy-new-year-rapes.

Stalin, however, never asked for any programming. Just a constant declaration of loyalty (and tanks to roll over any thoguhts of doing othervice). He even gave orders against advice to erect a nazi-party for those of the old guard wanting to meet up and take part in the political life of DDR.

Thus, movies like those above, are all from the east.
"The first casualty of war is the truth."

User avatar
Navarro
Power poster 2
Power poster 2
Posts: 3770
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:01 am

Re: Trump Ignores Merkel, Refuses to Shake Her Hand When Asked, Shaking Head "No"

Post by Navarro » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:10 am

Doc wrote: I concurr. Use them, never trust them.
You shouldn't trust anyone, most especially oneself.
Doc wrote:But then it's the interpersonal stuff. I spent a couple of years as a handler and that was more than enough. Eventually I got sick to my stomack every time I had to look into those deceitful eyes and nurture that fragile, attention-seeking ego. I don't think I was biased. I developed an allergy. A bad case of it.
While I mean no disrespect: Spin. You know that's bias - emotional bias. You're arguing with your own recognition of the bias in order to convince yourself otherwise. It is the function of the handler to "nurture that fragile, attention-seeking ego." Why do you suppose people are receptive to mirroring? They like what they see, and they like that what they see is a reflection of themselves. It's not simply that they trust themselves and thus their reflection. It's that you compliment them via suggesting they're what they wish to be, thus appealing to their ego. To best generate confidence and compliance, one must appeal to the ego.

There's nothing wrong with the primadonna in any case. People develop self-confidence for good reason. The statement "I know better than you" or "I'm capable of more than you" can be perceived as arrogance, but the existence of that arrogance isn't a reflection on the accuracy of the statement. Is the ego inflated unrealistically, or are they correct? If they "know better than you," you certainly wouldn't know it, would you? You don't know what you don't know. Where, I observe two things: People have a tendency to cherry pick, taking notice of a perceived flaw and concluding that the entire thing must also be flawed, which is fallacy. Also, an intellect inferior to another intellect won't necessarily tend to recognize the superiority of the second intellect. If you remark upon the existence of the deep state to the majority, they will think you crazy or a fool. Yet, it will in fact be they who are the fool, but they're too ignorant and in fact foolish to recognize it. Allegory of the Cave again. This also relates to the circumstance which allows the greatly superior intellect to consistently manipulate the inferior intellect.

As a side note, the primadonna is born of self-achievement. Assets should be constructed not acquired. Recognizing them early, and molding the asset will produce not confidence in self, but loyalty in you. You made them, as opposed to them making themselves. They are appreciative of your abilities, not of their own abilities. They're appreciative of the "loyalty" you placed in them when they were nothing, and are thus loyal to you. Hence the immovable loyalty of the garbage man handed his dreams.
Doc wrote:It migth have worked in the west, they seem more troubled by TV-dramas than happy-new-year-rapes.
Such a strategy only allows one to bide their time. It's a means to an end, but it was largely treated as the end itself. Insufficient follow-through.
Doc wrote:Stalin, however, never asked for any programming. Just a constant declaration of loyalty (and tanks to roll over any thoguhts of doing othervice). He even gave orders against advice to erect a nazi-party for those of the old guard wanting to meet up and take part in the political life of DDR.
Stalin was an opportunist, not a strategist. A Soviet era guided by Lenin or Trotsky could have produced a very different story however.
Twitter: @DefconNavarro

User avatar
Doc
Regular contributor
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:10 pm

Re: Trump Ignores Merkel, Refuses to Shake Her Hand When Asked, Shaking Head "No"

Post by Doc » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:50 pm

Navarro wrote: Spin. You know that's bias - emotional bias. You're arguing with your own recognition of the bias in order to convince yourself otherwise.
It is the function of the handler to "nurture that fragile, attention-seeking ego."
Yes, and it's like this: When you sign up for a BUDs class, you belive you are able to stand the mud, the freezing water, the sleep deprivation and starvation. The first couple of hours you are in your comfort-zone and it's more exciting to be there than anything else. After a while it gets to you, because it is designed to, and if you are unable to mentally handle that, you will probably end up quitting rather early. After that, you will have to handle the fact that you prefer a cozy fireplace to hunger and fatigue. You weren't as hard as you thought.

Working with this special subclass of humans is comparable. The first months it is exciting, then it gets interesting and even rewarding depending on the intel, but after a while it can get to you. You may start loathing the people you are supposed to handle, and mirroring becomes just as fatiguing as swimming will be in BUDs.

Different people have different skills and different sets of stamina. I found my limit in this regard, and the distaste for certain traits has stuck with me. You could analyze that of course, and claim that it reminds me of a past failure, and that's why I call it an allergy, to distance myself from my shortcomeings. It might be true. This is a well known occupational hazard, just as battle fatigue is.

It doesn't change the fact that Kasner-Jentzsch reminds me alot of that rat faced (litterally) sack of shit in the back seat spilling his guts in his friends because it made him feel like he was somebody.

My point being that even though I know nothing about business, the same thing might be experienced by POTUS. The dynamics in the room made me think that. It's subjective of course. It's one of those fundation-less gut-feeling analysis you know I love. ;)
There's nothing wrong with the primadonna in any case.
I never meant that. I see nothing wrong with any human, it's all a matter of taste. Please be adviced, it is not the primadonna Kasner-Jentzch I have trouble with, its the complete lack of loyalty I belive I can see with my guts.
People develop self-confidence for good reason. The statement "I know better than you" or "I'm capable of more than you" can be perceived as arrogance, but the existence of that arrogance isn't a reflection on the accuracy of the statement. Is the ego inflated unrealistically, or are they correct? If they "know better than you," you certainly wouldn't know it, would you?
No, but I could ask you to explain it to me and apply the art of coherentism.
You don't know what you don't know.
No always true. There is a world of computers out there of large significance. I know nothing about it, and I am painfully aware of that fact.
Where, I observe two things: People have a tendency to cherry pick, taking notice of a perceived flaw and concluding that the entire thing must also be flawed, which is fallacy. Also, an intellect inferior to another intellect won't necessarily tend to recognize the superiority of the second intellect. If you remark upon the existence of the deep state to the majority, they will think you crazy or a fool. Yet, it will in fact be they who are the fool, but they're too ignorant and in fact foolish to recognize it. Allegory of the Cave again. This also relates to the circumstance which allows the greatly superior intellect to consistently manipulate the inferior intellect.
Outstanding.

Such a strategy only allows one to bide their time. It's a means to an end, but it was largely treated as the end itself. Insufficient follow-through.
Very true. I have a theroy as to how that happened, but Ill refrain from polluting this thread anymore than I have already done.
Stalin was an opportunist, not a strategist. A Soviet era guided by Lenin or Trotsky could have produced a very different story however.
Again, very true, but it's still fun to reflect on that the dictator Stalin allowed what the "leaders of the free world" didn't.
"The first casualty of war is the truth."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests