There's not much point in discussing nuclear war. If there is going to be nuclear war, it will be between the US and China (or their Pacific allies), and even then both sides will have nothing to gain and everything to lose, making the chance of it happening very slim.

The US would never go to nuclear war over Europe, and the Russians would only go nuclear if Russia itself is invaded by overwhelming military force.

The US will be forced to pivot sooner or later.

When that happens, NATO and American influence in Europe will be used to send Europe into chaos, the seeds for which have already been sown when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status which was the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

What is happening is that the US fears that Russia and/or Europe will become the laughing thirds when the US is sucked into a large-scale conflict in the Pacific. Provoking war between these two is the way it intends to stop that from happening.

People here are simply misunderstanding the US' central strategic challenge, which is to keep the Eurasian continent divided (as described by Mackinder, Wolfowitz, Brzezinski, etc.) in times of peace, and in utter chaos in times of war. (and also to stop any regional powers to arise in the Western Hemisphere, but that's another topic).

There is no other way for the US to protect its hegemony due to its limited population and relative inability to intervene on the Eurasian continent. (thousands of miles of ocean works both ways)

Finland made a critically short-sighted error when it jumped on the NATO bandwagon right as US power is waning. Not only is the US in no position to actually protect Finland in the case of a conflict, but Finland is actually ensuring it is first in line to suffer the consequences when the US pulls the plug on Europe with the intention of disabling it as a rival for the foreseeable future.

Europe is heading for absolute strategic disaster.

The situation is way worse than people realize, since they have been lulled to sleep over the last decades, foolishly believing that the Americans are our 'friends' when in fact they represent as much of a strategic threat as Russia or China.


Also, on the topic of the UK getting special treatment - it certainly does.

It is part of the Anglosphere and the Five-Eyes intelligence pact which is essentially the part of the US sphere of influence that the US actually cares about, because all nations within the Anglosphere share the US central strategic challenge, since they're all island nations.

This is why the UK should not be part of a functional European security structure either.

Note that it was the US and the UK who blocked the Istanbul agreements. Given what I just told you about the strategic challenges of island nations, it is no wonder why specifically it was these two nations who sought to block peace.

Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire. — Benkei

If we're not careful it's even worse - we'll be the ones sacrificed on the altar of American hegemony, since the US fears that Russia and Europe will become the laughing third once it becomes engaged in a security competition with China. To prevent that, the US endeavors to draw Russia and the EU into conflict with each other, which is why it intentionally undermined the key to stability in eastern Europe - a neutral Ukraine - and subsequently did everything in its power to prevent a peaceful and diplomatic solution.

I think that supposing that even if the main problems we as humanity face are not CAUSED by the ‘rulers’ and their allies (corporations, banks, governments, militaries), they are certainly AMPLIFIED by such agents.

As a whole, the system seems to be locked into a game that it can’t stop, even if willing.
(Not unlike the nuclear weapons escalations and potential global war in the past century). — 0 thru 9

The system is made up of individuals making their individual and mostly free choices.

One can say what they will about capitalism and the filthy rich multinationals, but who is it that gives a company like Amazon its power? It's the people who buy from Amazon. If the people stopped buying from Amazon today, Amazon would be gone tomorrow.

And apparently the individuals that make up society still believe buying their products a little cheaper is worth the trade-off.

Simple as.


Democracy works in much the same way. How is it that the most powerful nation on Earth cannot produce anything better than Trump or Biden?

Because the people have become ignorant, shallow and out of touch (Yin imbalance), and keep voting for these baboons instead of putting their foot down and demanding something better.


Yes, there might be a part of the system that seeks to keep people ignorant, but I'm not one for excuses. One cannot outsource one's responsibility to educate oneself. It's up to people themselves to learn to distinguish fact from fiction, to not be manipulated, not to accept comforting half-truths, etc.
If people refuse to do that, they end up with a wicked system of their own creation.


As such, the system will only change if the people change, and that will eventually result in individual people making different choices. They make different choices if their belief system (Yin) fundamentally changes. And just to clarify, I believe that can only happen genuinely and voluntarily. There are no shortcuts here. You can't fake it, and you can't force people into it.

Humanity's salvation will come about (if it ever does) one individual at a time. The same goes for positive change. Such is my view.

I'm not really interested in the whole "capitalism versus communism" debate.

Suffice to say, I think these are symptoms and not causes.

Concerning the above quote, I strongly agree with almost everything you said.

But I’m trying to understand why you now in this latest post seem to overlook (or exonerate? excuse?) that the total economic system that is playing a huge role in the society outside our window, and around the globe. — 0 thru 9

I see many problems with the system, but I think they do not originate from the system itself. Instead I believe they are a symptom of a deeper issue which I would tie into the Yin imbalance as I have explained it earlier.

The system is a human product, so without looking at the human flaws that create the flawed system, one cannot get to the root cause of the problems.


For example, some may argue that governments need to be given more power to curb "capitalism".

Why does this never seem to work in practice?

Because man is flawed, and flawed humans that run the government are subject to the same Yin imbalance as the ones that use and abuse the financial system. So it just shifts the problem into a different shape, which rarely solves anything and often makes things worse. (After all, 'capitalism' only controls capital, whereas governments hold the monopoly on violence - pick your poison, I suppose, but it's clear to me which is the more dangerous of the two.)


Attempts at bending flawed humans into a different shape through coercion often fail as well, which is why I believe these issues can only be solved via a voluntary philosophical transformation of the entire system - leading to my thoughts of the Yin / Water element imbalance.

The philosophical underpinnings of a civilization form the bedrock of everything, just like how all human behavior originates from the psyche.

Luckily, I believe this will eventually happen naturally, as the system threatens to implode and prompts society as a whole to reflect and come up with actual solutions.

Less luckily, things probably have to get much worse before they get better, unless this process of reflection can somehow be expediated (but I doubt it).

Personally I would link today's woes to a lack of philosophical and spiritual foundation (Yin / Water element imbalance), and not to economic systems.

Capitalism is ultimately nothing more than an idea of the relation between collectives and individuals, allowing for the existence of private property. That is a system that has been implicit in human civilization literally for millenia, and it has functioned more or less reasonably.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the human intuition of property ("this is mine, and that is yours") is natural and deeply ingrained in our psyche, which is why attempts at alternative systems have a tendency to fail - they go against human nature.

What I think is going on, is that in the past the economic motivations of "capitalism" were counterbalanced by other matters of value in the spiritual realm.

For example, there was the notion that if one blindly followed their greedy impulses, one would eventually pay a spiritual price for that. Christianity might claim you were sent to hell or limbo, or had to atone for sins committed, etc.

When Christianity, and really religion and spirituality as a whole, was discarded by western societies, only the earthly values remained - power, money, etc.

Western society has quite simply failed to fill the gap that religion has left behind, and demoralization has been the end result.

Blaming it on capitalism is a cop-out. Why did people in the past manage to find a better balance between the earthly and the heavenly, and why can't we?

The reason we as a society fear this question, is because it implies discarding religion as a whole maybe wasn't such a great idea.

Upon ruminating on the subject a little more, I think I have come up with a basic idea of how to capture "western" society's ailments in terms of Yinyang and Taoist thought.

There are, or so it seems to me, multiple imbalances.

_______________________________________

In terms of Yang, it appears to me western society is exhausting itself. It reminds me of how the Soviet Union eventually collapsed under its own weight, because the system was simply not sustainable.

As the period of western dominance nears its end, western societies have to continually ask more of its citizens in order to stay competitive with other systems. People must produce more, and rest less.

The event horizon for this system shrinks, becoming more and more based on the short-term while sacrificing it's long-term health. Where in the past people would have been thinking about how we can create a system that will continue to work decades into the future, now people are instead worried about how we keep the system from total collapse for another year.

This, obviously, cannot last forever, and even though the system continues to try and spur people on to work harder and be more 'productive', it will reach the limit of what the people can tolerate.

We are reaching that critical point, as more and more young people are suffering burnout and related psychological problems, even though the socialist structures of many western societies actually look to the younger generations to carry the old. They are the ones who are most exposed to, lets say, 'productivity propaganda' through social media and platforms like YouTube.

__________________________________________

But a Yang imbalance alone is not enough to critically imbalance a system, because if the Yin elements were in balance, those who ran into problems like burnout would be able to rest and restore themselves, and return healthily to society, or perhaps even return stronger.

In other words, there would be a self-correcting mechanism that looks a bit like:

Imbalanced Yang state > Overexertion > Burnout > Balanced Yin state > Rest & Reflection > Renewed Yang state.

A balanced Yin would ensure that not only can people return back into society stronger and with better insight, but also would propel the system as a whole to reflect upon itself and detect the unbalanced Yang state, and repair it.

___________________________________________

This doesn't happen, because the Yin is also imbalanced.

A typical Yin imbalance manifests itself not only as stagnation, but also as indecisiveness, worry, anxiety, overthink, fearfulness, etc. - creating a 'freeze' response.

This is often times associated with too much intellective thinking, which is something that in western society can be linked to an overly scientific world view; I have referred to in the past as the 'mechanistic' world view. (Which is a term I have gotten from Flemish professor Mattias Desmet)

It is essentially an almost religious faith in the power of science, rationality and reason, which has slowly but surely expelled from western society the spiritual, intuitive and emotional dimensions, all of which are important for balanced Yin.

Paradoxically it is also in the process of expelling reason and rationality (which isn't surprising, considering this fundamentally fearful state we are in), since despite the fact that science is showing us that many things are not explainable in rational terms, we still cling to science for the answer to all our problems.

Also note that fear and anxiety cause us to look for security - we will demand clear cut answers to difficult questions, usually (wrong-headedly) looking for them in places that cannot provide it, like science, governments, media, etc.

_____________________________________________

As we can see, it is not so easy to figure out where this cycle of imbalance starts or ends - perhaps it does neither - but a Taoist would probably first look at the Yin imbalance, since Yin is the root of all. Without the conservation of energy, there could be no action.

Therefore I would link the imbalance in western society primarily to a system of thought that has ran its course - the mechanistic world view ("man as machine"). The idolization of science has worked for a while, and now it no longer does, and must be replaced by something new - probably a synthesis of the previous science-based system with older (or new?), philosphically based systems that are more spiritual / intuitive (religious?) in nature.

My expectation is that this will be a slow and painful process, due to the degree to which this world view is rooted in every facet of our system.

Science and religion have been at each other's throat for centuries, and now we must conclude that both are needed for a balanced society, because it's becoming clear (at least to me) that a society that leans too much to either side will critically imbalance itself in one way or another.

Note that science can be seen as associated with the Chinese element of Metal, and religion/spirituality can be associated with the Chinese element of Water. Both are Yin.

Both are associated with deep thought, however the Metal element is more rational, while the Water element is more intuitive and creative. Hence the idea of a Yin imbalance.

I think it makes sense to see more western ciriticism of Zelensky, because they looked favorably on Zaluzhny.

Zaluzhny is also rumored to have been involved in talks with the Russians, whereas the West hasn't yet been able to pressure Zelensky into seeking for compromise.

This is likely because Zelensky was pushed into pursuing this "no negotiations" strategy, and now that the West is realizing its mistakes and pushing for compromise, it's basically asking Zelensky to take the fall, which he refuses to do.

Furthermore, there were a lot of rumors that Zelensky might appoint the head of intelligence (I forget the name) to replace Zaluzhny, which was seen by some as a clear signal that the Ukrainian strategy would be shifting to fighting an insurgency war. This is something the West probably wants, because that's what they have been counting on all this time would beat the Russians or at least make their life very difficult.

The fact that Zelensky didn't do that, and instead chose Syrskyi is basically a signal by the Ukrainians that they're still not done duking it out with the Russians on the battlefield.

Worrying too much about the world's problems is a trap, in my view. As you rightly say, we don't have control over it anyway, and dreamers who worry about humanity tend to have giant blind spots when it comes to themselves. (It almost becomes an excuse not to confront one's own faults)

By focusing on developing oneself positively, and conducting oneself in accordance to sensible principles one becomes the most positive force one possibly can be.

I personally find this a very empowering approach, echoed in many philosophies and even coming full-circle back to Nietzsche in a strange way.

Why are we told and taught and trained to hate the Yin?

Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.

For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
To be a ‘girl, fag, sissy, wimp’ (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.

We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
We are taught to hate ‘minorities’ because they are supposedly (at least partially) ‘primitive and animal’.

Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.

Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
In our ‘badass culture’, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim. — 0 thru 9

I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.

In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.


Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.


A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.


However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.

For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.

In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.


Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.


I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy.

Stoking the fears of the orange man getting into the Oval Office for a second time is sound, albeit cynical political strategy.

As a result, the Biden administration can get away with anything, and they have a lot they need to get away with.

The sooner the US disengages from Europe, the better (for Europe).

Every American president supports Israel, is "pro-Israel".

My impression of Trump is that he didn't cater particularly to Israel's hard line, since they were an obstacle to normalization of Middle-East relations, which is what is required for the US to dial back its military involvement in the region. Trump also pushed for a two-state solution, for example, showing that he was not a stooge for Likud.

Try…anything he’s ever said about Israel, [...] — Mikie

[...] and every policy decision he ever made re: Israel. — Mikie

Trump Peace Plan


So far, no genocide support.

If you've got something, please share it.

My first question would be: do they consider themselves a citizen voluntarily and do they support their nation?

If the answer is yes, then they share responsibility.

If the answer is no, then they are not responsible. After all, one doesn't choose the nation one is born into, and if one is made part of something abhorrent through forces outside of their control, they cannot be held responsible.


In general I would argue that people are only responsible for their own actions, however our actions can contribute to or enable crimes by others, at which point we may share responsibility.


For example, countries wage war with taxpayer's money.

Do those taxpayers pay taxes because they support their nation, or do they pay taxes because if they don't the state will use violence against them in order to force compliance?

The answer likely differs from person to person, and therefore the question of responsibility differs from person to person.

Trump also supports genocide. — Mikie

Source?

Over the course of the conflict, I have pointed out various times that the Russian operations surrounding Kiev were probably not what they were made to seem in Western media.

Given what we know now about the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022 in Istanbul, further questionmarks arise.

However, in the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin addressed this and said the following on the topic of the negotiations:

My counterparts in France and Germany said, ”How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev. ‘I said, ‘All right.’ We withdrew the troops from Kiev.

As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. — Vladimir Putin

Even though Putin clearly isn't a source that can be trusted at face value, this story is congruent with much of the factual information known to us, namely the intentional boycotting of the Istanbul negotiations by the West. Therefore I find Putin's story plausible.

It appears that not only did the West block negotiations, but that those negotiations were used in bad faith to get a concession out of the Russians which could be subsequently spun as a "great Ukrainian victory".


If this is true, and in my opinion it likely is, the clown car that is the European leadership is in a worse state than I thought.

Scholz and Macron spun a 'crafty' scheme at the expense of, first of all, the Ukrainians, and secondly at the expense of their own nations' welfare.

I'm not sure what these clowns were thinking, sacrificing all their diplomatic credibility and the chance of a peaceful settlement for the sake of spinning some meaningless propaganda. I bet they got headpats from Washington, though.

It begs the question, why is the West so disinterested in peace? Or dare I say, interested in prolonged war? Who benefits? Surely not the Europeans, so whose interests do Scholz and Macron represent? Uncle Sam's perhaps?

The full interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin with English translation.

Carlson did a pretty professional job. It's also worth noting how remarkable it is that Putin is willing to sit down for a two-hour, non-scripted interview with a foreign journalist. I don't think many western leaders would be prepared to do that under today's circumstances.

Europe is militarizing in response to the conflict in Ukraine, and Russia is militarizing in response to the Europeans.

Recently western media, especially in Europe, is filled with high-ranking officers claiming that "there could be a war with Russia within the next five years".

Fearmongering at its worst.

It's hard to say whether these people are bought and paid for, or are really that short-sighted. I find both options equally likely.

It's completely nonsensical, since the Europeans themselves helped to facilitate war in Ukraine and forced Russia to expand their military operations by refusing negotiations and arming Ukraine to the teeth, even stripping their own militaries in the process!

If Europe wanted, it could stop dancing to Uncle Sam's tune tomorrow and have a negotiated settlement after which things could return roughly to normal. The fact they are not doing that, and choosing to warmonger instead, is picked up by the Russians and interpreted as a desire for conflict.

Europe truly has the most bone-headed leadership imaginable, but they play the role of Uncle Sam's stooges so, so well.

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement. — Benkei

I don't think removing the illegal settlers is realistic, and this is the main problem. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands, many of whom are religious fanatics, and many of whom are armed - and they have used force against the IDF in the past.

Previous instances where Israel had to remove settlers, like in the Sinai and Gaza, were notoriously difficult and much smaller in scale.

How would you suggest this could be done?

Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of? — schopenhauer1

I have no problem with nations, but their leaders are almost exclusively a bunch of clowns. I'd have to think long and hard to find any nation that has a leader I do approve of.

aaannd we've entered into conspiracy theory territory. — BitconnectCarlos

Nice joke.

The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated.

I think what we've entered is in fact 'head-in-sand' territory.

However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians. — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing.

Boundless arrogance? — tim wood

Israel is the law — tim wood

:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy.


But no, Israel is not 'the law'. As the occupier it cannot claim self-defense, and armed resistance against an occupation is legal under international law.

And of course, the idea that Israel has to resort to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing, etc. to defend itself is a not a serious argument to begin with.

I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. — tim wood

A-ha. The people who have lived under a brutal occupation for half a century are in control? Genius.

The only control they have is the extent to which Israel has, through its own belligerence, manoeuvred itself into a position where there are no more good outcomes for Israel.

They're in control, because the only way a good outcome for Israel can be produced is for the Palestinians to magically disappear. (but it seems in the absence of miracles the current Israeli government has no qualms with "moving fate along".)

What a joke.


What about:

Give Palestinians equal rights. End the crimes against humanity.

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint. — schopenhauer1

The options are only going to get worse (and eventually run out) if they continue to let the situation deteriorate. In my opinion, it is no longer understandable.

Many Israelis are now realising that Likud and Netanyahu have led Israel down a dead end.

People have always had a great ability to come up with 'valid' excuses to cling to the status quo. They might do so until the bitter end. But here's to hoping they won't.

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state. — schopenhauer1

It probably should have thought of this before it settled the most hotly contested piece of real estate on the planet.

Again, 'valid' reasons a-plenty to cling to the status quo. People can do that until reality starts dictating the terms of change.

Personally, I am not very sensitive to this argument. If people want to cling to an identity when it means supporting policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing then fuck those people. Adults need to step in and take the wheel, in the understanding that this simply cannot persist without inviting a reckoning of Biblical proportions.

The new Israeli identity will have to include Jews and Muslims. What alternatives are there?

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place [...] — schopenhauer1

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more."

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities. — schopenhauer1

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf.


And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region. As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all.

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. Jews know very well that the unthinkable can happen [...] — BitconnectCarlos

This is certainly true, and Israel is doing just about everything it can to boycot it's own long-term prospects of peace and prosperity through its constant belligerence.

The problem is that during the last half century Israel has felt it could get away with anything due to Uncle Sam's unconditional support.

Religious ultranationalists (represented by Likud, for example) have foolishly attempted to seize this as an opportunity to turn Israel into a strictly Jewish nation state by force, despite the obvious problem of millions of non-Jews living on the territory it calls its own.

Furthermore, it has concluded that in order for that strictly Jewish state to survive, it must become the dominant player in the region and therefore cannot allow any other powerful states to spring up in the region.


They have evidently failed on both accounts, yet still they continue to double down on stupid by not using the little time Israel has left to find some form of rapprochement in the region.

Worse still, in their boundless arrogance Israel and the United States undermine the international rule of law, which is the very thing that could provide some protection to Israel when the tables are turned.


It's like watching someone jump off a cliff in slow motion.

[...] and the world will very much let it happen. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused?

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

A while back I pointed out how, if you want a real example of looming fascism, one should look no further than our own backyard, Europe.

Today it seems European Union is becoming more and more authoritarian, now overtly threatening to sink the Hungarian economy if it refuses to back aid to Ukraine.

Brussels threatens to hit Hungary's economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid (Financial Times)

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience.

The Duran did a good report on this, in which they also briefly touch on Donald Tusk whom I mentioned earlier in this thread as an example of looming fascism.

FT report, EU planning to destroy economy of Hungary (The Duran)

But how can this be? I thought this was a conspiracy theory!

Because you keep talking about Trump. :lol:

What I do know is that you have left out some key players that play an important role in determining what will happen. — Fooloso4

How will Trump influence whether Biden goes to war with Iran and its proxies or not?

You seem intent on linking escalation in the Middle-East to Trump, via the Israel lobby. Regardless of what I think of Trump, I don't think that's a serious argument. It's a bit cartoonish.

I mean, this could go the other way. If Biden doesn't do anything in the Middle East, Trump will use it as a case that he is the backchannel savior (ala Nixon during Vietnam). — schopenhauer1

The Biden administration is doing what Israel wants - giving Israel cart blanche, blocking Security Council resolutions and continuing to funnel weapons and ammunition to Israel, even circumventing Congress if it has to, etc.

The "pressure" the administration puts is not actual pressure at all. It's simply what Biden has to do to avoid looking like a complete stooge, and Israel understands this is how it works.

Trump seems to me very much against this type of 'final solution' business in the Middle-East, so I personally find it very hard to believe he would try to profile himself as an even greater Middle-East hawk.


Meanwhile, the Biden administration hasn't stopped pointing fingers at Iran since the Oct. 7th attacks, so there's probably a lot of people wondering why he hasn't gone to war with Iran yet. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Trump is anti anything that will not be to his benefit. Support of Israel is to his benefit when it comes to his base. — Fooloso4

No, that's too simple. Any American president has to "support" Israel. The question is what that support looks like.

It's not very likely Trump would support Israel in its current actions, simply because it would almost guarantee that the US will get embroiled in various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.

Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure.

In fact, the Trump phenomenon may give the Biden administration room to get away with a lot, including another war in the Middle-East against Iran and/or its proxies.

The neocons no longer play a significant role in American politics. — Fooloso4

:brow: Disagreed. What do you think the US is doing in Ukraine?

If you do not understand the importance of the Religious Right you cannot give a plausible analysis of the part Israel plays. They are pro-Israel Zionists. — Fooloso4

Yes. The Israel lobby consists of various uncouth interest groups including Zionist Christians. I'm well-aware.

With the indiscriminate killing in Gaza Biden is well aware that support for Netanyahu's Israel may be working against him with liberal, moderate, and independent voters. — Fooloso4

The question is whether that will weigh heavier than the lobby's influence. But yes, Biden is obviously between a rock and a hard place in that regard - that's part of the aforementioned perfect storm.

First, your characterization of "a cynical plot" is markedly different from mine. I called it a perfect storm of perverse incentives, not a plot.

Next, you must understand that Trump is anti-establishment, and neither the neocons nor Israel (or the lobby) want him as president because of his isolationism. Of course these parties will happily use Trump to pressure Biden. Especially because the Israel lobby doesn't like Biden to begin with, so Trump isn't completely off the cards. Playing both sides is standard for these interest groups.

But Biden is clearly the easier one to control, and he's a neocon. Trump is a wild card and isolationist.

The Biden administration are the ones who gave Netanyahu cart blanche, and have been pointing fingers at Iran non-stop since the start of the conflict. Further, they've even circumvented congress to continue weapon sales to Israel, making the US complicit in Israel's crimes, which may very well be genocidal.

So it's clear Biden is trying to appease Israel, which may very well be what causes him to start this war - to cement support from the notoriously capricious lobby. If he acts like a stooge, the lobby will play him like a stooge and milk him for what he's worth.

If he refuses, the lobby will pressure him, quite possibly along with other interest groups who desire wider war, like the MIC, etc. And of course then the question is whether he caves or not. I think there's a good chance he does.

And in Israel, meanwhile...

Settlement Mega-event Calls for Jewish Return to Gaza

A third of Netanyahu's cabinet was present.

A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

Republicans — Fooloso4

Oh, sweet summer child.

What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself, but works well especially for Bibi. If Israel (or the US) attacks Iranian assets in lets say Lebanon and Syria (as has been done), Iran let's it "Axis of Resistance" go on with their agenda by giving them materiel. — ssu

I agree.

Israel is sensing US overstretch, and realizes that if the US now gets stuck in a conflict elsewhere, say Korea, Taiwan, etc. Israel may be on its own for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to make sure the conflict the US eventually gets stuck in is the one that borders on their interests.