What about the use of restrictions on trade of cereals and brassica in ancient times, does that count as using a natural resource as a tool for coercion or a weapon?
Has that man even passed Austria's basic level of education?
*Stubbdum: 'stubbe' is stumpf, 'dum' can be both 'böse' and 'dumm'. So he is stupid in the same way an old tree stump sticks in the ground, refusing to budge and being good for nothing but stumbling over or stubbing your toe against.
Also, while I see your point, I'd like to add that, speaking on behalf of tree stumps, I find it insulting to tree stumps (although I'd not be denying the veracity of your comment).
By the way, his 'degree' is from the Danube University (don't be fooled, it's not a real university, but what in Scandinavian contexts would be a 'høgskole').
He doesn't know much, if anything, about these subjects, and, given his 'style', apparently also nothing about talking.
Bless his heart. Is Mr. Nehammer new here? Remember the OPEC oil embargoes? How about Kuwait? Iraq? "No blood for oil?" Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
He's an ignorant party hack, mostly, and given Austria's 'weight' (ahem) in int'l affairs, this wouldn't be worth mentioning--but I bring it up because, as has been pointed out before, German-language legacy media gleefully reports on Russia's 'war of aggression' (Angriffskrieg), and sometimes also 'war of extermination' (Vernichtungskrieg). This, of course, are the same terms used for decades to describe Nazi Germany's (second world) war, hence the further erosion of historical memory and accuracy. It's a double win, you see, as it not only absolves Germany from its historical responsibility but also projects the crimes of Nazi Germany onto Russia.
Nehammer and Austrian media don't care about these 'implications', but I do think they are important to note (even though, I'd add in passing, these are trends that have been 'in the making' since at least the 1980s…).
If yesteryear's Germany had been as accomplished as the US of the present is in lying, it would simply have called the attack on the USSR for a pre-emptive strike with regrettable collateral damages.
Serbia/Bosnia, Irak I & II, Afghanistan, et c. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have died due to direct action from US forces? How many more due to indirect factors?
The very same things all western media and nomenklatura and hegemony daily condemns Russia for perpetrating. It's not whataboutism when it's a straight comparison of virtually identical events or items.
Funny that you mention this--I had a very informed conversation about just that with one of our students this afternoon (I was giving an introd. lecture on 'what is warfare') who was very eager to talk about these issues--because legacy media doesn't do it and politicians lie about it.
(In the lecture, I addressed a problematic turn in historiography of late: the subsumption of certain 'emotional' parts of the larger conflict, and I mentioned two telling examples: the Holocaust trumping WW2 and the issue of slavery the US 'civil war'.)
After the lecture, another student came to me protesting about these matter-of-fact statements: the civil war, she claimed, was about slavery and nothing else. And while I encouraged her to read up on this, she was adamant about her opinion. Strange stuff.
Funny you should mention this. I remember when this latest war started, I had a distinct feeling that Putin was trolling the West with his remarks, making it sound like it was a humanitarian intervention, etc. It was kind of funny (not that war itself is funny...). But people were too thick to notice. Can you imagine? Russia attacks another country without having been attacked first. Who does such a thing?! Ahem.
I'm shocked, shocked that double-standards are applied here.
What I find most shocking, though, is that both students (who were of about the same age) displayed such widely differing stances: one of them was clearly brainwashed and emotional while the other one was very much in control of how she perceived factual reality. It's strange, but I will double down on these topics in teaching--there's nothing to be gained keeping silent.
Also, it's really curious, for the reality-based student opened her comments referring to one of my colleagues who didn't manage to state the obvious: that what Russia is doing is literally the same as the West has been doing for ages.
I just would love to be a fly on the wall in NATO meetings and the like: the 'quality' of their 'security briefings' must surely be well below the intellectual capacities, to say nothing of the grasp of reality, displayed by that one student.
Oh lawsy me what a stubbdum* character.
What about the use of restrictions on trade of cereals and brassica in ancient times, does that count as using a natural resource as a tool for coercion or a weapon?
Has that man even passed Austria's basic level of education?
*Stubbdum: 'stubbe' is stumpf, 'dum' can be both 'böse' and 'dumm'. So he is stupid in the same way an old tree stump sticks in the ground, refusing to budge and being good for nothing but stumbling over or stubbing your toe against.
Haha, he's actually in possession of a postgraduate degree in--you will not believe this--"strategic communication".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Nehammer
Also, while I see your point, I'd like to add that, speaking on behalf of tree stumps, I find it insulting to tree stumps (although I'd not be denying the veracity of your comment).
Strategic communication? Isn't that like social media or human resources? Sounds fancy, means squat.
The proper subjects are of course etymology, semiotics, semantics, grammar, vocabulary, and anthorpology focusing on (a) language.
Because the term strategic communication implies "non-strategic communication" which woul be what?
Is it possible Nehammer and the rest doesn't understad what "axiom" means?
Of course he's a moron, no doubt about it.
By the way, his 'degree' is from the Danube University (don't be fooled, it's not a real university, but what in Scandinavian contexts would be a 'høgskole').
He doesn't know much, if anything, about these subjects, and, given his 'style', apparently also nothing about talking.
People will hammer him for that....
Bless his heart. Is Mr. Nehammer new here? Remember the OPEC oil embargoes? How about Kuwait? Iraq? "No blood for oil?" Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
He's an ignorant party hack, mostly, and given Austria's 'weight' (ahem) in int'l affairs, this wouldn't be worth mentioning--but I bring it up because, as has been pointed out before, German-language legacy media gleefully reports on Russia's 'war of aggression' (Angriffskrieg), and sometimes also 'war of extermination' (Vernichtungskrieg). This, of course, are the same terms used for decades to describe Nazi Germany's (second world) war, hence the further erosion of historical memory and accuracy. It's a double win, you see, as it not only absolves Germany from its historical responsibility but also projects the crimes of Nazi Germany onto Russia.
Nehammer and Austrian media don't care about these 'implications', but I do think they are important to note (even though, I'd add in passing, these are trends that have been 'in the making' since at least the 1980s…).
If yesteryear's Germany had been as accomplished as the US of the present is in lying, it would simply have called the attack on the USSR for a pre-emptive strike with regrettable collateral damages.
Hmmm, you'd mean this here:
https://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410622bwp.html
I'd love to cite from it at length, but it would just render the comment unreadable…
Serbia/Bosnia, Irak I & II, Afghanistan, et c. How many hundreds of thousands of civilians have died due to direct action from US forces? How many more due to indirect factors?
The very same things all western media and nomenklatura and hegemony daily condemns Russia for perpetrating. It's not whataboutism when it's a straight comparison of virtually identical events or items.
Funny that you mention this--I had a very informed conversation about just that with one of our students this afternoon (I was giving an introd. lecture on 'what is warfare') who was very eager to talk about these issues--because legacy media doesn't do it and politicians lie about it.
(In the lecture, I addressed a problematic turn in historiography of late: the subsumption of certain 'emotional' parts of the larger conflict, and I mentioned two telling examples: the Holocaust trumping WW2 and the issue of slavery the US 'civil war'.)
After the lecture, another student came to me protesting about these matter-of-fact statements: the civil war, she claimed, was about slavery and nothing else. And while I encouraged her to read up on this, she was adamant about her opinion. Strange stuff.
Funny you should mention this. I remember when this latest war started, I had a distinct feeling that Putin was trolling the West with his remarks, making it sound like it was a humanitarian intervention, etc. It was kind of funny (not that war itself is funny...). But people were too thick to notice. Can you imagine? Russia attacks another country without having been attacked first. Who does such a thing?! Ahem.
I'm shocked, shocked that double-standards are applied here.
What I find most shocking, though, is that both students (who were of about the same age) displayed such widely differing stances: one of them was clearly brainwashed and emotional while the other one was very much in control of how she perceived factual reality. It's strange, but I will double down on these topics in teaching--there's nothing to be gained keeping silent.
Also, it's really curious, for the reality-based student opened her comments referring to one of my colleagues who didn't manage to state the obvious: that what Russia is doing is literally the same as the West has been doing for ages.
I just would love to be a fly on the wall in NATO meetings and the like: the 'quality' of their 'security briefings' must surely be well below the intellectual capacities, to say nothing of the grasp of reality, displayed by that one student.