Sure. Let me know when that happens.

These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1.

Mearsheimer understood it as far back as 2015.

Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia. — Echarmion

Indeed, and there are plenty of western scholars who share that sentiment. Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, etc. - all Americans by the way.

In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.

The idea of a fundamental change is nonsense. It was the nonsense when it was eagerly talked in the 1990's, when the membership of Russia in NATO was on the table. Then it was the "New Threats" and things like conscription were "ancient relics of a bygone era". Not anymore. If you wouldn't have ex-KGB officers at helm in Russia, yes, Russia could have been totally different.

What has changed is that Germany is unified and now has a bulwark of Poland between it and Russia. For Poland the situation is far more perilous than it was in the late 1990's (and thus it's vast rearmament program). — ssu

The most relevant difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is obviously its power.

Russia has a population of 144 million, and a GDP of 2.2 trillion.

It's tiny. Germany alone doubles Russia's GDP.

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears.

This is why I keep emphasizing that Europe needs to get its head out of its ass.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same — ssu

War with the Russians is in European interests?

The fact that you're saying this is why I keep emphasizing you're war-hungry to the point of absurdity, and you don't even seem to notice it yourself.

That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. — ssu

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war - which is of course exactly what Uncle Sam is trying to achieve in Eastern Europe.

Conducting geopolitics is a fine line, and Europeans are treading it in the most amateurish way possible. It's a lost art in Europe, and it's going to cost us a lot of lives in the near-future.

NATO countries don't want the US to go. — ssu

As though US geopolitical strategy is going to be guided in any way by what NATO countries want, as oppossed to what necessity dictates.

Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, [...] — ssu

Russia did not have a large armed force prior to the invasion. Some 200,000 troops for a country as large as Russia is not "very large" - it's tiny.

It only started to expand its armed forces when the Ukraine war was well underway, when the West boycotted diplomatic negotiations and made further diplomacy impossible - even going so far as getting Zelensky to write down in the Ukrainian constitution that diplomatic negotiations could not take place.

So Europeans complaining about Russia's armed forces are either being deliberately misleading or utterly naive about the consequences of their own actions.

Also, Europe has a nuclear deterrent as well.

There's no other option. There's no option of "Let's be friends with Russia" that would have a better outcome for Finland: Russia would just increase it's efforts to dominate Finnish policy, if it would be let to do it. — ssu

You don't think the US dominates European politics? Or Ukraine? Hello?!

I'm not going to sit here and say Russia is better than the US in this regard, but again you're showcasing the fact you have no sense of balance in this matter.

You recognize you're neighboring a crocodile, but simultaneously fail to recognize you voluntarily jumped into bed with one.

I think in your naivety you think that if only Ukraine given up on everything and done as Russia wanted, everything would be fine. — ssu

Are you aware of this knee-jerk reaction you seem to have, where every attempt at diplomacy is caricatured as "giving up on everything and doing as Russia wants"?

"Diplomacy is capitulation" I hear you saying, like you're the minister of propaganda in a George Orwell novel.

Or you really think that Ukraine or Finland, Sweden, is similar to South-Vietnam or Pro-Western Afghan government? — ssu

Sure. All are countries that jumped into bed with a crocodile to protect themselves from the crocodile across the border. Predictably, they will get eaten.

What is? So far I've only seen inferences, which is mostly wishful thinking from GOPhers. The DNC would've had options during their convention to sideline Biden within the rules as well. — Benkei

Imagine Rutte saying something along the lines of "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" to get Yesilgöz to drop out of the seat of party leader. (Doesn't translate perfectly to Dutch politics, but I think you catch my meaning)

Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public.

When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup. — fishfry

I had to go and look that up, but that's absolutely crazy. Mob level shit.

This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.

I assume that you come to this conclusion with thinking about how the US has treated let's say Guatemala (and how the US has acted in it's backyard). Well. in the long run the US policy towards Guatemala has been more like the United Fruit Company's policy towards the country. The US doesn't behave similarly towards France, Sweden or Finland (as Russia doesn't behave similarly towards Brazil and India as it does towards Georgia, Moldavia or Ukraine).

And the simply fact is that you simply don't seem to understand European integration and NATO at all. NATO isn't like Warsaw Pact, which primary function was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO isn't just a puppet for the American President, which has been shown quite many times (for example from how much Trump despises the organization this should be evident). You insist Ukraine would have been invited to NATO, because American presidents wanted so, even if it was obvious that many NATO countries opposed this. Yet NATO could never give formally an outside member. And the de facto assurances didn't matter for Russia, because it has territorial interests in Ukraine. Just like EU hasn't officially stated that Turkey cannot be never an EU member, this is de facto real. It's an international defense pact that sovereign states have willingly put their defense into, just as EU countries are committed to European integration.

The simple fact is that even if for Yemenis or Palestinians and many Latin Americans, the US seems to be a ruthless Superpower, but that isn't the case for Sweden, Finland or East European countries. Just as Russia wouldn't never dare to do any hybrid attacks towards India and try to involve itself in Indian politics. I'm sure Russia behaves quite cordially towards it's BRICS partners. It doesn't act the same way in it's "near abroad" thanks to being and seeing itself something else than a nation-state, but a great power. This is something you have to understand, but you just ignore it. — ssu

What you're describing are US-European relations during the Cold War. During this time, Europe was a key US ally against the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that this relationship has been fundamentally changing since the end of the Cold War, and especially since China has emerged as the new threat to US power.

We are no longer a key ally to the United States, since we are nowhere near the Pacific and likely to stay on the sideline if large-scale conflict were to break out there. In fact, we will profit from a war in the Pacific, directly and indirectly. That now makes us a threat and a potential rival to the US.


Since the Ukraine war, it has become increasingly clear that US and European interests divert in a way that is dangerous for Europe. The US is using European naivety in this regard to have us hamstring ourselves.

Note for example, how the sanction packages and freezing and seizing of Russian assets barely scratched the Russian economy while it was done serious damage to ours, and has seriously tanked our international credibility as trading partners.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army.


We are now no longer "friends," but temporary assets to the US, and the US is already preparing the ground for when Europe finally slips its orbit.

Naive countries that do not realize they have gone from friend to temporary asset are in grave danger, and will likely end up in ruin like Vietnam, Ukraine, etc.

Especially Finland has been in the crosshairs of a conflict with the Soviet Union starting from the armstice in 1944. It was in the crosshairs and continued to be in the crosshairs especially after Putin has wanted to make Russia a Superpower again. Russia did it's hybrid attacks by organizing refugee flows into Northern Finland in 2015-2016. It has GRU sleeper cells in the country ready to do sabotage and to assassinate important people as the way of it's "deterrance" in Finland, if war breaks out. It has breached consistently Finnish aerospace with military aircraft, has jammed GPS signals and kept up belligerent rhetoric all this time prior to 2022, hence Finland has all the time been in it's crosshairs. What you are saying is simply ludicrous.

You simply don't understand that there wouldn't have been any end to this if Finland would have stayed neutral, likely the hybrid attacks would have continued even more to push Finland back into a weaker spot. There would be no "normal relations", there would be only Finlandization, where the Finnish President would get his international speeches from the FSB chief in the Russian embassy. That's the fucking "normal relations" that Putin wants. That we would talk the "lithurgy" as in the Soviet times.

And wtf stability are you talking about? Russia's military has always been multiple times larger than Finland's or Sweden's? Do you think annexing territory from Georgia and Ukraine is a way of Russia attempting "stability"?

It's simply imperialist revanchism, an attempt to fix what Putin sees as the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century (collapse of the Soviet Union). Nothing else. — ssu

There's no point in talking about the Soviet Union. Russia today has nowhere close to the power of the former Soviet Union. It's a completely different country.

But Finland has been working with NATO for a long time, and has been a member of the European Union almost since the start.

Obviously once tensions start rising as they did post-2008, Finland is going to be in the crosshairs. That's where it put itself when it aligned to a bloc that became hostile towards Russia.

This is not odd. Neutrality has a price, but so does joining a faction. This is simply the real world of great power politics. Believing that becoming a de facto US vassal is not going to bear a cost is similarly foolish.

The war ends when the two sides come to some conclusion, either a peace deal or a cold armstice (as with the Koreas). And it's the job of Ukraine and Russia in the end. — ssu

Ok, so what is your view of the US and UK blocking the peace deal the Ukrainians and Russians had struck in Istanbul?

The thing we've learned from history is that Russia has to be forced someway to a peace agreement: if continuing the war looks to be a better option, the Russia will continue the war. Plain and simple. — ssu

You are quite selective with the lessons you learn from history, I've noticed.

Do we learn nothing from Vietnam, the Middle-East, etc. when it comes to US involvement in fragile states?

Remember that the war isn't hurting Europe so much, so this can go on for years, even a decade. — ssu

This war has been a disaster for Europe. The German economy is on its ass. Funny that - "keeping the Germans down" is one of the primary reasons the US is in NATO.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Europe is not Ukraine, obviously.

You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010. — Echarmion

Dialogue can and should happen regardless of who is president. It costs nothing.

Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over.

So what should Ukraine have done to diffuse the tension? — Echarmion

Opening any kind of dialogue with the Russians would have been a sensible start.

This talks about Ukraine in the passive, i.e. their neutral status is altered by third parties. — Echarmion

When the former hegemon gets involved, I see little point in ascribing much agency to Ukraine. The United States has a track record of leading countries down the path of their own destruction. Ukraine is no exception.

I'm aware of the context, and still I cannot decipher what point you're trying to make.

Everybody even Ukraine would have been totally happy with Ukraine being neutral... assuming that Russia wouldn't have intension of annexing large parts of Ukraine into itself, as it has done. — ssu

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. Worse still, the Americans were aware that this was seen as a red line by the entire Russian elite even before the Bucharest Summit of 2008 took place; they knew exactly what they were doing.

Just stop and think it yourself for a moment: why would Sweden with a leftist government want to shed it's over 200 year neutrality and Finland, that earlier enjoyed the fruits of having good relations with Soviet Union and later Russia, suddenly join NATO? You think it was an American plan? — ssu

I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. And I think US propaganda plays a large role in that.

It's understandable. They fell for the propaganda storm and made a spur of the moment decision.

So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with.

Geopolitical ineptitude is a problem that plagues all of Europe, and this is another indication of it.

The majority of Putin's rhetoric is negative. Not all. — ssu

We haven't had any real dialogue with the Russians because we refused to talk to them.

We had good relations with Russia. Finlandization has a negative definition, which as a Finn I clearly understand. — ssu

Yes, so everything that looks like normal relations with Russia you will call 'Finlandization', just like you referred to 'Finlandization of Europe'. Normal relations are, apparently, seen as something negative by you.

Is everything that makes war with "the enemy" less likely undesirable?

But your stance is that if a country attacks another and starts annexing parts of that country (and actually has done this to two of it's neighbors), then other countries should continue to have perfectly normal relations with this country. — ssu

That's not my stance.

Again, your pro-war bias is starting to shine through when you can only caricature any opinion that doesn't call for total war.

US propaganda has got you right where it wants you: begging for a war that will lead to your own destruction. I've even noticed over the course of our conversations that you repeatedly invoke World War 2.

One thing that propaganda does, is it makes you emotionally attached. When people are emotionally attached, they can no longer think rationally.

You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why?

Because you want to see Russia punished. And that's somewhat understandable. But, guess what - that isn't going to happen in the way you envision it, and the price for clinging to this fantasy is costing thousands of Ukrainian lives per week.

Further, this effect has been amplified by US propaganda spreading insane war goals like "taking back Crimea" and "breaking apart Russia" and nonsense like that. Maximalist wargoals make people more emotional, because if one fails to reach the maximalist goals it will feel like defeat, leading to anger. It's designed to make and keep you emotional, and to make peace impossible.

Emotional actors are easy to take advantage of. This was known and written down as far back as Sun Tzu (circa 500 BC).

I'm a great supporter of deterrence: with good deterrence, you can avoid blackmail and war. Without any deterrence, Great Powers will do as they want with you. — ssu

I actually agree with this, but this is arguing after the fact.

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? No, clearly it was provocative, and we knew the Russians perceived it as such.

Deterrence is good, but intentionally seeking to flip neutral buffers to our side, refusing dialogue, militarizing and combining it with openly hostile rhetoric is not deterrence - it's warmongering. The US then sells this to Europe because they're naive enough to believe everything Uncle Sam tells them.

Geopolitics is a delicate art that Europe understands literally nothing about, which is extremely dangerous for Europeans themselves. We know what happens to naive geopolitical actors: South Vietnam, various parties in the Middle-East, Ukraine - they get taken advantage of.

Your the one talking about enlarging the war, not me. — ssu

Do explain.

Russia with it's large armed forces and with it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is more than a match against any EU country vis-a-vis. And with the US out of the equation, the military balance is quite on the side of Russia even if you group up European countries. — ssu

That's why I said "if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses".

We caused that military build-up by refusing a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem and subsequently feeding Ukraine all the weapons we have.

So not only did we let our militaries atrophy over the course of decades, we also sold what's left of them to a lost battle in Ukraine, forcing the Russians to mobilize in the process.

And now we moan about 'the Russian threat'. Please. The Americans are laughing all the way to the bank about how we let ourselves get played.

If Russia was so threatening, why aren't we at least talking with them? Talking costs nothing.

We both know the answer: talking brings with it the risk of peace.

I would love to engage with your comment, but as is unfortunately somewhat of a pattern, you're relying on me to decipher them first.

The ICJ brought out a report on the legal status of the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, (once again) concluding it is illegal under international law, and thus confirming that Israel is a belligerent occupier to several million Palestinians.

Note that an illegal occupier cannot claim a right of legal self-defense against resistance from the people it occupies.

It once again condemns Israel's attempts to colonize the Palestinian territories via its settlement policies and:

Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property,
as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, [...]

As regards the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, the Court notes that the
Security Council has declared on several occasions, in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and has determined that

“all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic
composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity”
(Security Council resolution 465 (1980))

In a nutshell, roughly half of Israel is not theirs.

Nothing we didn't already know, but since there are many people, including some on this forum, who are still in denial about the legality of Israel's actions, here it is.

In addition, jurisprudence like this functions as opinio iuris.

Russia has been quite consistent in attempting to annex Ukrainian territory irrelevant of NATO. As it was an "artificial" country. — ssu

They've stuck to their red line for over a decade. They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be.

We chose to ignore them, and they stuck to their word.

Have you ever noticed what kind of dialogue that was? It was that Russia should have a say if a country could join or not NATO. — ssu

Ukraine's neutral status is the key to a stable Eastern Europe.

So yes, obviously Russia's position should be taken into account and not simply ignored if a stable Eastern Europe is the goal.


It's worrying how your rhetoric turns any dialogue with the Russians into something negative.

Just like the way you use the term 'Finlandization' to describe any kind of positive relations with the Russians.

It bears every hallmark of war propaganda, which is designed to make war the only outcome. The same trick was used in Ukraine to make it fling itself willingly into the abyss.

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be the beneficiary of such a war, or whether that will be some unnamed country across the pond.

That has nothing to do with it.

This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with.

This is pure "what if" arguments, which are unprobable and now . — ssu

The point is, you're projecting aims and goals onto the Russians for which there is no basis.

Russian rhetoric and behavior has been surprisingly consistent over the course of more than a decade when it comes to this issue.

They bent over backwards to try to preserve peace in face of NATO expansion - that's how much they valued stable relations and trade ties with the West.

Ukraine was a bridge too far, and that too they tried to resolve diplomatically, even though they were consistently ignored by NATO. Even the Minsk accords were agreed upon by NATO in bad faith, showing that it's NATO and not Russia that has rejected diplomatic solutions.

After the war broke out, the Russians have been signaling for a diplomatic solution since day 1, which again was refused by the West.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"?

They repeatedly give NATO chances for dialogue, and NATO repeatedly ignores them.

As long as you provide a decent argument I agree there's no point in restating what has already been said, but these depictions of Russia as "the big bad" are just baseless caricatures used to fearmonger by parties who want war, not peace.

↪Tzeentch, do you think the demilitarization deNazification irredentism stuff (pertaining just to Ukraine) was blather for the gallery? — jorndoe

No, they mean it.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again.

Had the West not insisted on changing Ukraine's neutral status, Russia probably would have never invaded. It's worth noting that the Russians spent 6 years trying to open dialogue, before the US forced the issue in 2014.

With denazification and all that? — ssu

The point is to enter negotiations and make a deal that's acceptable for both sides. This already happened in March/April 2022, so it's clearly possible.

Trump makes absolutely shitty peace deals. — ssu

Well, a shitty peace deal is all the Ukrainians will be getting and they have the US and cronies to thank for it.

Only when Putin is dead and buried perhaps something like that can happen. — ssu

The most important factor in whether this can happen is whether the US pivots and stops fueling Russophobia in Europe.

Once the European leaders start thinking for themselves again, they will seek normalization too.

Russia wants Finlandization of all Europe. — ssu

Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses. There's no basis for this type of fearmongering nonsense.

Europe doesn't profit from a US China war. Russia does. — ssu

Europe would profit immensely from a US-China war, because it would become a critical market for both the US and China if it stays on the sideline. Russia will do the same thing.

Furthermore, while the US and China beat each other to a pulp, Europe and Russia would remain intact and grow in relative power.

Why do you think the US is trying so hard to embroil Europe and Russia in a war with each other? It's trying to prevent either of them from becoming the laughing third.

It's easy to understand why the Russians are so keen on a diplomatic settlement when you understand this context.

The only people who don't seem to understand anything are the Europeans.

To be honest, I think a peace deal is easily within reach. The Kremlin has signaled that they want a diplomatic settlement since the start of the war.

The biggest obstacle is Ukraine itself, which got royally fucked by the US and cronies, and is now refusing to be forced into a shitty deal by the same people that encouraged it to fight on. I'd say that's somewhat understandable from the Ukrainian side, but it's a bitter pill they will eventually be forced to swallow.

The reason the royal fucking hasn't come full circle is because Ukraine probably holds some serious leverage over the Biden administration.

Once Trump enters office that will be off the table, and he will likely be free to force Ukraine to sign an uncomfortable peace deal with the Russians or withdraw support.

After that, the Russians will in all likelihood seek a return to the pre-2014 status quo, restoring economic ties with Europe. They have no reason to involve themselves into large-scale conflict with Europe when the US and China are on the cusp of war, and with Europe and Russia standing to profit greatly from that conflict.

Ok, so how is it borderline irrelevant when you seem to agree the event may give Trump an advantage in a possibly highly consequential US election? :brow:

Don't you think the failed assassination attempt makes Trump more likely to be elected in what is bound to be a close election?

Trump being almost shot is a borderline irrelevant event in the great scheme of things — despite the cool picture. — Lionino

Hmmm. This is perhaps the one instance where I think who becomes the next US president somewhat matters.

The US establishment has been deeply split over the 'pivot to Asia' (ergo - pivot away from Europe and Ukraine). If Trump were to become president it might be the moment this pivot finally happens. That would mark a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. This is why Europeans are getting nervous, Ukrainians are getting nervous, etc.

The election might be considered irrelevant to the extent that US foreign policy will be guided by geopolitical realities anyway, which will force it to pivot sooner or later. Whether that happens now or during another presidency somewhere down the line (headed by Trump or someone else) I think does matter.

The world changed drastically over the course of Biden's presidency, and it may change drastically again over the course of the next.

The window during which the US can defend its position in the world is closing.

If the US has to endure another presidency during which it focuses on the wrong things, makes the wrong decisions and sees its international power and credibility evaporate, I think it will greatly influence the US position when the pivot to Asia finally does happen and it will most likely be too late.

Fantasizing about torture for the sake of a clown - well, where does that leave you? :brow:

Wishing death on people out of personal fancy is just poor character.

Point at something Trump did that makes him deserve to be assassinated. What illegal wars did he start? Which countries did he ruin? Which regions of the world did he plunge into chaos?

I doubt you'll get much further than "he said some words I didn't like." Compared to previous US presidents and even the current one, he's a lightweight when it comes to wanton destruction.

I don't know about them, but I sure did. — frank

What did the guy do, other than being personally disliked by you, that makes him deserve to be assassinated?

How is entering directly into full-scale war preferable over striking a deal with the Russians which they have been signaling is their intention since the March/April 2022?

That's some crazy stuff.

Absolutely nothing suspicious here, folks.

I forgot that 5.56mm isn't used by professionals to kill people. Silly me.

The Secret Service did a terrible job. — Michael

Yea, they missed.

It's pretty much unthinkable that security was alerted of a gunman and did nothing.

Very... erm... "strange."

Our clown is better than their clown!

Isn't it time you folks got off the clown car?

I think karma is real in the sense that immoral deeds hurt the actor as well as the victim, and no good things can be obtained through immoral deeds.

Immorality therefore is like a hole one digs for themselves.

Furthermore, if one wishes to truly better themselves, they will have to atone for all the sins of the past - a painful process, if genuine.

Very spooky. Maybe we should stop producing them then, eh?

Barring a debilitating health event, can we safely conclude the US establishment favors Trump / the Republican Party over Biden?

Is there really any universe in which the events of the last week could transpire if the purpose wasn't expressly for Biden to lose? Is there really any universe in which a senile old man is allowed to hijack the fate of the most powerful country in the world?

Personally, I don't think so.

This term is quite loaded and can have multiple meanings.

In the modern-day context, I would suggest that 'multiculturalism' is essentially a doctrine adopted by states with which they try to encourage migration to their country, thus increasing the amount of souls under their yoke, and thus increasing their power. (and also sucking power away from other, potentially rival, states - the so-called "brain drain")

The historical United States is an example of a state that rose to prominence through migration, and various modern-day European states are trying to replicate that feat in order to keep their social security systems afloat.

The question: "Can people of different cultures coexist?" is easy enough to answer - obviously, yes, under the right conditions. But this is fundamentally not the question at hand whenever politicians rant about multiculturalism. They use this implied context in order to make disagreement more thorny (if you disagree "you're a racist!"), when in fact the real context is what I described in the first paragraph.

Questions like: "Should migration be used to jury rig unsustainable social security structures?", while much closer to the real context, are for some reason a lot less popular among politicians.

Then again, socialism without open borders is, well, national socialism. Also quite unpopular.


With that out of the way, I think it's clear that mass migration is doomed to fail for countries with elaborate social security (like European countries).

What made the historical United States successful is the fact that no one was getting a handout. So people went to the United States with a plan and an intention to build something. If they failed, they would likely become homeless or worse. Harsh, but ultimately a formula by which mass migration could succeed.

In modern-day Europe, the opposite is true. While the US accepted mass migration on the condition of "succeed or starve", the EU is giving a handout to literally everyone. That's why Europe is flooded with migrants who have basically no prospect of successfully integrating into European societies, which has lead to no end of trouble.

The end result will be predictably tragic.

A main point is that the focus on "peak experiences," tends to actually exclude a great deal of the people who we think of as "mystics" from the definition because they never wrote about such experiences. For example, the most famous "Beatific Vision" and "Platonic Ascent" in St. Augustine's work takes place in the Book IX of the Confessions. Yet it isn't a meditative trance but rather a conversation with his mother shortly before her death. (Book IX). Likewise, St. Bonaventure's "The Mind's Journey Into God," is cast into the mold of St. Francis' vision of the Seraphim, but that's just the mold for a heavily intellectualized ascent where the prose and ideas, not some actual singular experience, are the focus. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is why I prefer the term 'mystical' experience, because 'peak' implies something intense and lengthy, whereas it appears mystical experiences come in various forms, and not all of them are like that. Some last only an instant, though the impression they leave on the mind is very profound.

Mystical experiences do not have to involve meditative trances, but maybe this is the point the author was trying to make?

He starts off by comparing two views of mysticism, William James' influential modern view and that of Jean Gerson writing in the 14th century. With this comparison he is able to tease out the problem with James' focus on peak experiences, and as many of the case studies show, many "mystics" focus on a great deal aside from there experiences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd be interested to hear some of the conclusions regarding this!

To be honest, there hasn't been a young world leader that has ever made a good impression on me. They appear naive, easily manipulated, sometimes overtly groomed, and they seem to have little real wisdom or understanding of the gravity of the position they are in and the consequences of their actions.

Politics should be conducted by dusty, boring, old people - people from whom there is little to gain from corruption, and people who have children and grandchildren whose futures they care about.

Today we have to admit that too radical mysticism is equivalent to fanaticism or naivety, unless it takes seriously the challenges I have talked about. But a mysticism that is not radical and not deep is just not mysticism: what makes mysticism is exactly radicality and depth. — Angelo Cannata

Just curious; why do you think mysticism is inherently radical?