2) In Tel Aviv you have in power some Torah-lunatics who believe that they were destined by Yahweh to conquer whomever they want. These Torah-lunatics it said that possess more than 90 nuclear warheads. Although you might be right in arguing that all this unfolding-catastrophe in the Middle East should not be attributed to Israeli groups only, I do take these Torah-lunatics capable of blackmailing US presidents with their nukes. In others words, I have them capable of threatening to use nuclear weapons, behind the curtains. So, there is some blame in Zionists too (apart from those Jewish-banker theories). — Eros1982

The current Israeli government and the people they represent aren't really all that extreme in their religious beliefs. They're extreme in their nationalist beliefs and therefore I think the term 'ultranationalist' is a more fitting characterization.

Ironically, what one might consider the most religiously extreme Jews, commonly called 'ultra-orthodox', often oppose Zionism and the state of Israel, and don't even consider themselves Israelis, for reasons stated in the Torah. (It has to do with the land being promised upon return of the Messiah, which, according to Judaism, hasn't happened yet - alas, details).

So Zionism isn't exactly a religious conviction, but a political one.

Obviously, the state of Israel does bear full responsibility for its actions. It's just that the United States (and several European states to a lesser extent) have been enabling them since the start.

Whoever might be the benefited groups from all these wars, the USA (seen as a whole country) does not seem to benefit. — Eros1982

Despite what I think of the United States' methods, I think it is involved in the Middle-East for sound strategic reasons. (Control over vital trade corridors and oil, most notably) It has also been very effective in protecting its power in the region, at the cost of everyone else's security.

So, perhaps controversially, I view the United States as a whole as the principal benefactor of it's decades-long Machiavellian malpractices in the Middle-East.


Of course there's the usual suspects - the military-industrial complex, big investment firms, etc. - but in my view these are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh carrion. Squarely blaming them is just another attempt at exculpating the US by pinning the blame on some 'big bad'.

No; it is carefully calculated US strategy that is and has been the principal driver behind all of this.

It's just that the days of US empire are at their end, and no amount of Machiavellianism or sound strategy can stop the reckoning that is coming its way. That is why everything is now cracking at the seams, and people are looking for scapegoats.

Even though this is the conventional wisdom, I don't think it's actually the case. It's a narrative oft repeated that the United States somehow is beholden to Israel, and that the United States is basically "involuntarily" involved.

The purpose of that narrative is to exculpate the United States, and distance it from its own and Israel's many misdeeds in the region.

The belief that a miniscule nation like Israel could control the world's premiere superpower does not pass the common sense test, even if we assumed every single Israeli was a rich banker.


The truth is that Israel is a remarkably useful asset to the US, which the US has successfully used to destroy geopolitical rivals and sow chaos in a region that it was never able to fully control.

Israel is a nation that, due to its size, will always experience geopolitical threat from its neighbors, so there's always an excuse for war.

When Israel outlives its usefulness, the exit strategy pretty much writes itself. For a credible excuse, the US only needs to point at the hundreds upon hundreds scathing UN reports and human rights reports (and simply leave out the fact that the Israelis did it all with Uncle Sam's help).


The US engages in a form of gepolitical parasitism, where it skillfully sways naive countries to prostitute themselves to the US agenda, usually leading them willingly down the path of their own destruction.

Israel is one such country. I'm sure you can think of several others. Ukraine for example is currently in the terminal stage of friendship with the US.

All of that nonsense in US congress? Just a display, crafted to play a megalomaniacal narcissist like Netanyahu like a fiddle. Those senators were more than willing to pay with what little dignity they had left, in order to have Israel follow willingly to the slaughter. Do you know the US doesn't even have a defensive alliance with Israel?


To be clear, I don't blame anyone for believing the narratives. Entire countries willingly fling themselves into the abyss for those narratives. But it's in people's best interest that they start seeing through the bullshit.

My point is that I don't particularly care. I don't spend my time worrying about the "master plans" of powerless loonies.

Neo-nazis are some fringe group with no power whatsoever. They're also hella useful to vilify any threat to the establishment - something which you're inadvertently contributing to.

Sorry, but you have no idea how silly this looks to me.

Adults putting themselves forward as morally righteous fighters against fascism - come on.

"Neo-nazi master plan", Benkei are you even listening to yourself talk?

I've seen this game played by various establishments over time and frankly I have no time for it.

Do you know the story of the boy who cried fascist?

What do you expect me to make of the 'secret nazis' canard?

I've listened to that drivel coming from the Dutch establishment vis-á-vis populist parties long enough to no longer take it seriously.

Child-like and uninteresting response.

A previous poster already mentioned the Springer quote.

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop.

All this is is scrouging together circumstantial evidence to make the case that "secretly" the AfD is fascist.

Quit playing a sucker for the establishment.

You can read their site if you want to know what their policy ideas entail, and they're nothing like you're making them out to be.

AfD is a populist party threatening the establishment, so the establishment works overtime to try and paint them as the big bad.

It's childish and boring, but undeniably effective.

Iran's nuclear facilities are in mountain bunkers built deep underground, designed to withstand everything up to a nuclear weapon.

Israel simply does not have the capacity to do anywhere near the type of damage they're boasting about, nor does the US have capacity to spare to make up the difference.

This was in all likelihood principally an attempt at decapitation, meant to force regime change in Iran.

The first strike seems to have failed to accomplish this, and the Iranians are showing they do not fear retaliation by Israel or the US by striking directly at Tel Aviv. This is a very telling sign.

It remains to be seen what else the Israelis have up their sleeve, but if this is it, then it's going to be a very costly dud. Neither Israel nor the US can afford to commit fully unless some huge initial success is achieved. The longer the campaign takes, the slimmer the chances of such success.

Sure, he's culpable, but he's also largely irrelevant. The same is true for Biden or any other US president in modern times.

I often emphasize the 'lightning rod' function US presidents fulfill.

If the US has to make some ugly policy decisions, it's blamed on the president so that once they leave office, people can be made to believe that the ugliness left with them.

That's why I hate to see people focus squarely on Trump. When Trump leaves office things aren't going to change one iota, because this is the face of America.

Blaming Trump for this is just naive, and distracts from the fact that this war has been long in the making with the Israel lobby and the US neocon establishment basically frothing at the mouth to start it.

Trump tried to fight the lobby and lost. Now he just tries to spin it as though he was in on it, or supported it, in the hopes of garnering more souls within the Israel lobby.

Uncle Sam using its rabid pet chimpanzee to sow chaos in the Middle-East - what else is new?

One element that is definitely push, is advertising.

I'm quite shocked by how much advertising is done for things like gambling, alcohol, and all other sorts of things that people could easily do without and perhaps would never develop a desire for if it weren't for the advertisement. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is specifically designed to trigger
(potential/ex-)addicts.

With that said, all of these vices are as old as Antiquity.

Draining energy directly out of the Earth, though? Gee, what could go wrong?

As with most mass movements (ideological, religious, political or otherwise), it's the top that is utterly corrupt, because that's where power accumulates.

The top finds some grift that can be sold to the people under the guise of benevolence, moral uprightness, etc. Sometimes we call that grift 'government', sometimes we call it 'religion', sometimes we call it 'political activism', etc.

Are you saying that everyone who is genuine is stupid, and the smart ones are corrupt? — karl stone

I think it's generally pretty naive to think that the people at the top maintain any moral integrity. The ideas can be good, but the top is virtually always corrupt (making the movements pointless at best, or counterproductive at worst).

If there's corruption money going around, where's my cut? — karl stone

I can't look in your head, obviously, but usually 'the cut' is being told stories that one likes to hear from a place of authority. That's apparently some form of psychological heroin that the masses find impossible to resist.

The long and short of it is, corruption.

Large-scale idealism, doo-goodery and politicial movements are virtually always corrupt, designed to get the gullible masses on board without ever actually delivering on anything they promise.

It's mass manipulation, nothing more.

Well, I don't know who is arguing for the entire dismissal of the treatment.

Hermaphrodism and gender dysphoria are rare conditions. These are obviously not the target of the discussion.

Gender dysphoria is an actual psychological condition, where patterns have to be established over a long period of time by a psychotherapist. It is very rare, but it exists.

In that case, as with hermaphrodites, I am sooner inclined to say something is demonstrably wrong that would warrant the making of such a decision on behalf of the child.

However, stories abound of kids who decide on a whim they want to be of the opposite sex, and manage to receive hormone therapies and whatnot without ever seeing a psychologist or even without their parents consent.

What about an alternative, non-invasive treatment - teaching a child to accept the healthy, natural body they have been born with?

And that's another reason transitioning should only be for mature adults. — frank

:up:

A prepubescent child cannot make a decision like this, because they have no frame of reference for what the list of nightmarish potential consequences even means, thus there cannot be informed consent.

On some level I get the dilemma, but as far as I'm concerned there's only one sane answer to it, and it isn't particularly hard to see.

If they pass, then yes, that would be bizarre. But what do you do with someone who has had surgery and doesn't pass?

There doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution for it, other than a seperate set of changing rooms, etc.

The notion that gender is a construct is true. — frank

Unfortunately for trans people, it is just as much constructed by themselves as it is by society at large, and those views seem to constantly conflict each other.

Whether that's a viable option seems to depend heavily on whether or not a person passes for the other sex.

This is probably the elephant in the room that is rarely talked about, because it's obviously an unfortunate thing to have to tell someone that they are unable to pass for the opposite sex, but it's the reality for many.

It's good to see you're still coping.

Or the apologetics of those that think actually Russia was the real victim in the Ukraine war. Yeah, I agree. — ssu

Instantly back to being a clown, I see?

Well, back on the ignore list you go.

It's fairly dishonest to bicker about whether or not something should be called genocide, when there is a clear threat of ethnic violence.

Genocide under international law is strongly linked to the intent to commit it, which in the case of ethnic violence is almost par for the course.

When political parties start busying overtly genocidal slogans in a country with the history of South Africa, that is extremely worrying. Handwaving it under the banner of 'It's not yet genocide' is not the type of thing I would expect from rational people. In fact, it reminds me more of the type of apologetics the Israeli government and its supporters like to spin.

Trans activists fucked up. — frank

Agreed.

And honestly, I find it hard to wrap my head around the absolute shit tsunami of suffering that has been created by all of these invasive medications and procedures on children who may very well have been 'going through a phase'.

In a hundred years, people will be looking back at this in the same way we look back at lobotomies and witch burnings - like we are primitive savages. Perhaps we are.

You're on a slippery slope when you call people racist based on an apparent bias. I don't think it's fair or accurate, but rather a type of knee-jerk reaction that isn't appropriate for this forum.

We have a poster who insists he doesn't see colour and has a whole shtick about the evils of affirmative action and whatnot but when it's whites allegedly being killed all of a sudden it's relevant they're white. — Benkei

If this is some sort of arch crime, I don't really get it.

With our unnamed genocide apologist I see where you're coming from.

You gotta chill out a bit. Falling for some narrative doesn't make someone a racist.

A lot of nonsense narratives are floating about, often constructed deliberately to play on people's fears and emotions.

People hear something repeated a couple of times and stick with it, assuming it's true.

I'm sure we've all been guilty of that one way or another.

'Dangerous opinions' to citizens are what running with scizzors is to toddlers. The grown-ups in government must protect us against the dangerous opinions!

No, but in all seriousness, there's scarcely a more iliberal thought than the various iterations of the 'dangerous opinions' argument.

If you don't believe citizens themselves are capable of telling right from wrong, then what's the point of a free society in the first place? Why argue for a free society if one believes citizens are essentially adult children that need to be nannied by the state about what to think, say and do?

That's probably what Trump thought as he entered office, but evidently it isn't so simple. Not only does he have to take on the US establishment, but also members of his own administration who are part of said establishment.

With regards to the course of action you propose, I think it is foolhardy.

Russia has been hit by probably the most extensive sanctions package ever, and it achieved nothing. Furthermore, increasing military aid to Ukraine probably will have the contrary effect, confirming to the Russians that a military victory in Ukraine is the only way they can achieve their goals.

Freezing military aid to Israel is another hot potatoe, considering the massive influence of the Israel lobby and the ramifications it may have for those who support pressuring Israel. This is why not a single US administration has managed to put meaningful pressure on Israel since ... Well, since ever?

So, recently Jeffrey Sachs gave this talk on an online talkshow in which he expressed what I thought to be a surprising amount of optimism and positivity about Trump's approach to foreign policy.

Sachs's points in summary:
- Trump pursues the right policy on Israel and Ukraine, namely peace.
- Trump's approach is effective.
- If successful, this could end 30 years of aggressive US(-Israeli) foreign policy, which would be historic.

Sachs is a person I regard as exceptionally well-informed and as having a moral character, so even though his take surprises me somewhat, I am forced to take it seriously.

Surely if Trump actually succeeds on either front, that would be nothing short of revolutionary. I used to be (and to a large degree still am) skeptical whether he will be, but there seems to be a glimmer of hope.

Any takes?

The US already has blood on its hands, and has for decades. Unwavering support for its genocidal pet monkey Israel has been the gold standard of US Middle-East policy since the death of JFK.

If Trump manages to break that 70 year old trend, it would be nothing short of a miracle.

So when a political party promises to deport millions of people to sustain the national identity, yes, it's not your libertarian party, but your nativist anti-immigration far-right populist party. — ssu

What you linked isn't a political party promising anything.

It's some random guy no one has ever heard of posting a tweet. Sometimes politicians say edgy things to get attention. Big whoop.

I see no problem with AfD's policies on immigration and remigration. If people come here illegally purely to profit off the welfare state, start criminally misbehaving and show clear signs that they actually hate our society and our societal norms, then send them back to whatever hole they crawled out of. I couldn't care less about what happens to them. (I say 'our' because the situation in the Netherlands is very similar to that in Germany)

Of course, that doesn't include decent, law-abiding people who migrated legally.

On the topic of education, I think it would require a radical paradigm shift indeed.

It's often said that education alone does not actually make people less susceptible to propaganda, and in fact might make people more susceptible, and that includes academics.

One reason for that is obvious, namely that the public education they're being given is often heavily influenced by the state apparatus, laying the bedrock for the propaganda people will be presented with later in life.

But the second reason is perhaps not so obvious, and in my view more interesting.

I think modern education has a way of disconnecting people from their intuition, and attempts to replace it with pure reason. Such people are, paradoxically, much easier to manipulate. Because reason has its limits too, and a clever mind can rationalize literally anything - something which the propagandist makes eager use of.

Even though the person themselves is disconnected from their intuition, the propagandist makes it their profession to understand, and often has a much better understanding of what makes their target audience tick than the audience itself.

Nonsense.

Go read for yourself what they say about remigration: https://www.afd.de/remigration/

You've fallen for the good ol' fascist canard, with which the establishments of Europe try to keep any and all opposition out of power.

Trump is like Hitler because he understands how to work our emotions to increase his own popularity. — Athena

The vast majority of political messaging is made to work people's emotions, though. That's not just Trump.

Worse still, with Trump it is very obvious, and thus limited in its effectiveness, whereas the messaging you ought to be really worried about is the stuff that is not obvious, and thus finds its way straight into their recipients' subconscious.

They become societal paradigms which are no longer questioned, no matter how defunct they might be.

It turns out people aren't too impressed by having political agendas jammed down their throat. Who knew?

My burning dislike for politicians is non-partisan, don't you worry. But what I loathe even more is to see people of reasonable intelligence falling for their game.

And no, the president's words don't matter. The only thing that matters is what group of impoverished people US bombs are dropping on.