I think Gaza is a clear example of "horse-trading".

Israel continues to accept its role as Uncle Sam's bloodhound in the Middle-East - with the massive geopolitical risks that it entails for itself - and in return the US supports Israel. It is often said the US does so 'unconditionally', but there is of course a condition: that Israel remains useful to the US.

The Israeli government communicates to Washington what it wants in return, and it is the job of the Israel lobby to garner support and to quash critical voices as much as possible.


Note that the lobby doesn't create US policy. Washington does. Washington wants Israel to continue to exist, and it wants Israel to be warlike and internally stable to fulfill its role, hence why it doesn't mind supporting Israel in what is commonly understood to be genocide.

Note also that since the US needs Israel to be jingoist/ultranationalist to fulfill its purpose, it likely views Israeli extremism as 'par for the course' - perhaps even desirable, because how are you going to court a nation to follow down a path of its own destruction without first turning them into irrational extremists? Support for ultranationalist elements is a recurring theme in US proxy wars, and that is no coincidence.


All we've seen over the last decades is the US tacitly supporting Israel in its slow method of ethnic cleansing and genocide, while keeping just enough distance not to appear directly responsible. Washington is simply engaging in what it fully understands to be highly controversial policy, while conducting damage control to its reputation - and it has done so quite successfully, I will add.

Yes, there are rows, but some finger-wagging in the UN isn't going to impress Washington.

I’m not entirely sure Israel even wants a conflict with Iran right now, to boot. — Mikie

They definitely do. Supposed 'disagreements' between Washington and Tel Aviv are just theatre to keep the Iranians guessing and to give the airs of reluctance in the matter.

Iran is on the verge of escaping the 'intervention window', and a war now might be the final opportunity for the US and Israel to reset the balance of power in the Middle-East one last time before an intervention in Iran becomes an unfeasible affair (most notably because as China, Russia and India grow more powerful, the US can no longer afford costly interventions against secondary adversaries).

The Iranians have now also accepted more support from the Chinese and the Russians, which expedites its escape from the intervention window, while simultaneously increasing the sense of urgency in Washington and Tel Aviv.

So maybe the real debate should be about the historical record on Israel’s lobby on specific actions in the Middle East and whether the lobby had an outsized effect, particularly to the point of being counter to other US interests. I think there’s a good case to be made there. — Mikie

If you want to call the lobby's influence 'outsized', I won't argue with that. It is a powerful lobby, and the historical record leaves little room for debate as far as I'm concerned.

I just think it would be a mistake to believe this constitutes Israel "dragging" the US into wars it doesn't want to fight. The US wants these wars too; it just doesn't want things to look that way.

I think it’s the Israeli’s who care about Iran more than the US. — Mikie

Perhaps, but only marginally. Iran is a critical link in Eurasian land-based trade, which would become of extreme importance in the case of a maritime blockade of China.

But I’m a bit surprised at this buildup right now. Seems like odd timing and I’m not sure what the goal is. Does the US really think they can just go in and topple the regime? Do they want boots on the ground? I don’t think so. Yet here we are. — Mikie

The resilience of the Iranian government is a big question mark.

I think what the US and Israel are banking on is that a significant air and naval campaign combined with all sorts of 'cloak & dagger' operations will be enough to shake the regime and cause an uprising among the population.

And that that would be enough to throw Iran into chaos for the foreseeable future - sowing chaos of course being the real goal here, since direct control is pretty much out of the question.

You’re familiar with Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy I imagine. If you can read that while looking at US’s history and still be unconvinced, there’s not too much left to debate. — Mikie

I'm aware of Mearsheimer's opinion on the topic, but as far as I recall he doesn't provided a concrete source for the alleged power of the lobby either.

Meanwhile, the US source of power over Israel is very concrete.

I'm sure you understand the problem here and don't find this objection unreasonable.


Don't get me wrong, the Israel lobby is powerful for a lobby, but there's an extent to what lobbying can achieve and what is being ascribed to the lobby far exceeds it, in my opinion.


I like Mearsheimer's concrete analysis on things, but in his conclusions he leans too much towards explanations that exculpate the US; incompetence, evil lobbies, etc.

However, there are theories and analysts who actually show the red lines running through US geopolitics - and I frequently describe them here - which paint a different picture.

I think a common mistake people make is thinking that they can easily understand the machinations of what was formerly the most powerful global empire. If that were so easy, we wouldn't have this giant laundry list of countries that the US succesfully led down the path of their own destruction, all while the US itself remained conspicuously at the top.


Anyway, I'm hoping for more debate on this topic. I don't think your position is unreasonable, and I'm prepared to change my mind on this.

It just fails the common sense test.

Israel is a tiny country with some seven million inhabitants, that is geopolitically completely compromised and has put itself in a situation of total reliance on the United States.

Yes, there's the Israel lobby, but I think its power is vastly overstated. If you want to argue the lobby has the power to single-handedly sway the world's biggest superpower, I need to be shown something concrete that accounts for that kind of power.

Personally, I don't buy it. I am sooner inclined to view the whole "powerful Israel" yarn as a cover for the United States to excuse its inexcusable forever wars which are blatant attempts at disrupting trade on the Eurasian continent to ensure Eurasia cannot form land-based alternatives to the maritime trade which of course the US dominates - this is Heartland theory.

Corporate interests have little if anything to do with it. The Arab states should be grateful they're allowed to exist at all, and haven't been bombed into ashes or thrown into chaos like the US did with all their neighbors.

If the US goes to war with Iran, it will be because US wants it, and for no other reason.

Sure, it will try to use Israel as the patsy, but Israel doesn't have the power to drag the US into a war. Israel is only allowed to play that role to provide the US with plausible deniability - so the US can pretend its being forced while in fact it is simply rolling out its own machiavellians plan like it always has.

There are now many indications that the US and Israel are about to launch another unprovoked war on Iran in the coming weeks.

The concrete result so far is that it is pushing Iran towards the Russians and the Chinese, who are reportedly ramping up their support for Iran - something which Tehran had not been overly eager for in the past.

A massive US military buildup suggests whatever is about to go down is much bigger than the Twelve-Day War of 2025.

Diplomacy is likely being used as a cover, as it was in 2025 also, to keep some measure of strategic ambiguity, and suggestions of disagreements between the US and Israel are probably of the same nature.


The goal of the US and Israel is of course singularly to achieve chaos in Iran. It achieves chaos by saying it wants to enact 'regime change', which will in practice will turn into nothing other than an exercise in destabilizing the country.

Iran is viewed by Israel as a threat to its regional dominance, and to the US it represents a vital land-based trade connector between the Middle-East, India, Russia and China which it cannot directly control and thus must be destroyed.

Note that creating a general state of chaos, as the US and Israel successfully did in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. will be sufficient to achieve both goals.

While the Russians and the Chinese will probably be able to ensure the survival of the Iranian regime, and any would-be replacement government will see resistance as far as the eye can see and is unlikely to survive over the long-term, this all fits neatly into the US-Israeli plan for chaos.

The White House hasn't dealt with this crap appropriately. — jorndoe

You mean to tell me that the evil empire lacks the common decency to investigate and persecute itself?

What an absolute shocker! :scream:

Sure.

The narrative being fed to the Russian population. They don’t receive what we in the West would call news. It’s a propaganda narrative. — Punshhh

And what do you believe we in the West are being fed?

PS: Well, I guess the answer is already contained in the quote. You believe we receive 'news' - cute.

What do you make of the hundreds of times 'the news' brought you information that was far-fetched at the time, and obviously untrue in hindsight?

People will believe what they want to believe, until they're the ones to pay the price.

Conservatives should logically occupy the center. What you describe as conservatives are actually reactionary. However, reactionary and progressive really are two sides of the same coin - they both want to see a significantly different society - whether they base themselves on 'old' or 'new' ideas isn't really an important distinction.

Another one for the pile of things that don't add up.

The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

Exactly. — ssu

It's not obvious at all for anyone with more than a surface-level understanding of the political reality in Ukraine.

You can't just "decapitate" a country that has been preparing for war for a decade with western backing. And you don't just "install a puppet" for the same reason.

A puppet regime would probably last about a day, and all you would have achieved is to give the foreign backers total control over the country.

I think that's one way of dealing with a scandal: make it so absolutely bizarre and outlandish and give the room to the most eccentric conspiracies, you make it simply too crackpot for people to hold interest. Just remember what happened to the 9/11 truthers. — ssu

Some of the things I've heard can be described as "crackpot theories", but surely there's enough evidence to take the accusations of extreme child abuse seriously, at least? Or do you not think so?

One other thing that I'd like to draw people's attention to, and am interested in hearing people's thoughts on, are some of the wilder rumors and accusations surrounding the Epstein case.

I'm sure many of you are aware that there have been testimonies about Epstein and the elite that frequented his company that are so grotesque they defy belief. These testimonies go well beyond the abuse of adolescents and young women.

Given the amount and consistency of testimonies that have been given over time, I've always considered the possibility that what was suggested could be real, yet at the same time what was being described was so outlandish and repulsive that it was simply hard to believe.

The recent revelations contain various examples of coded language being used to disguise what people speculate are conversations about extreme child abuse. One of the more well-known examples are abnormal conversations about 'cheese pizza', which is commonly understood to be a reference to sexually explicit material containing minors (as I'm sure you understand if you take the first letters of each word).

Out of sensitivity for this platform and its members, I won't go into any details.

What I'm curious about is whether recent events have changed your opinion about the credibility of these claims.

So why was a military Column marching on Kiev at the beginning of the invasion?

And if the plan was to bed down in bunkers in the Dombass, why did a column march on Kiev? — Punshhh

To put pressure on the Kiev government, and to create multiple threats that create ambiguity over the precise objectives of the operation.

The troop deployments, force posture, behavior and casualty figures around Kiev can in no way be interpreted to imply that a capture of Kiev was a principal goal of the operation.

The Russian troop count was much too low in relation to the defenders, their force posture and behavior completely stand-offish, and casaulty figures that are a fraction of those we see during other phases of the war, during which actual intense fighting took place. In short, there isn't an iota of evidence that implies an all-out offensive to overrun the capital. None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

I recommend you use the search function to look up previous conversations that were had on this topic. It goes in depth, with sources and all.

The special military operation started with an assault on Kiev, the plan being to overthrow the governmental control quickly, control Kiev. — Punshhh

The plan went wrong and what we have now is the result of repeated failures by Russia to take control of Ukriane. — Punshhh

This is just a narrative, and it isn't actually supported by the facts as we know them, nor by military logic. Those facts have been repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

Not even the most lopsided interpretation of those facts and numbers will produce anything that comes close to supporting your view.

Now who is the evil mastermind in this story? Can you think of any names that fit the bill. — Punshhh

Genuinely, I have no idea. Epstein was obviously a fixer of some kind for very powerful interests. He called himself a representative of the Rothschilds, and Arianne de Rothschild was directly involved with him.

But the truth is that what has come to the surface is probably only the tip of the iceberg. If whoever is behind this managed to keep this scheme under the rug for ~50 years, there's no telling how deep this thing goes.

Rumors of powerful people involved with human trafficking and pedophile networks have circulated in Europe for decades as well.

My guess is that Epstein wasn't unique, just the one that got caught. Again: tip of the iceberg.

No, it'd be awful for a very simple reason:

States can be and often are wrong. This type of surveillance would give states an enormous amount of power to enforce their preferred flavor of wrong.

What Trump has done so far is small fry compared to what previous administrations got up to. They destroyed entire regions of the world on false grounds.

If Trump is stealing large amounts of cash from the evil empire, he's doing the entire world a favor. :lol:

I can just hear those sad violins playing as the poor Americans are left to wonder how they'll pay for all the bombs they like to throw on goatherds and rice farmers.

It also has nothing to do with authoritarianism. It's just good old fashioned corruption.

No clue where you got that idea. I just can't be arsed to educate you. :lol:

I don't mind interacting with people's original takes, but you're just making shit up on the spot and evidently know very little about geopolitics.

A bit rich coming from a person who jumped at the first opportunity to pin it on the Russians, don't you think?

And what a convenient way to muddy the waters: everything that's clear is in fact suspect! It has a nice Orwellian ring to it.

Anyway, you believe what you want to believe buddy.

It is well known that the Russian state will use blackmail and death threats to recruit agents in other countries. — Punshhh

It is well known that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad do the same. Your point?

When these connections were made, Russia was a friend of the west — Punshhh

And the US just so happened to be at the absolute peak of its power, while Russia was at its low point.

But I'm sure they'd never abuse that power to gain leverage over high-profile people.

The Americans are the good guys after all!

The US system has been irreconcilably broken for decades. The idea that Trump meaningfully changed anything is laughable.

The US didn't "get into bed with Russia" - nothing in the Epstein files implicates the Russian state (if anything they imply the Kremlin deliberately kept its distance), while there's mountains of evidence implicating the US, UK and Israeli security services, including direct links to Epstein and Maxwell.

Hungary nor the US is authoritarian. That's just a pure cope from people who are mad that the democratic process didn't produce the outcome they wanted.

Because some men are into Eastern European girls? There were girls from all over the world being trafficked there. Considering the scale of the whole operation, how is that in any way surprising?

The simple reason is that for every possible connection pointing to Russia, there's about a hundred that point to the USA, UK and Israel.

People who are jumping on the Russia story are desperately clutching at straws not to have to come to terms with the truth about the system they are living under. It's a coping mechanism.

Western countries are not authoritarian, they are democratic. The 'hidden authoritarianism' the OP is talking about is the corruption of the democratic system and not actual authoritarianism.

Calling it 'authoritarianism' is a misdirection, shifting the blame to people like Trump (who was democratically elected), and an attempt at perpetuating the myth that democracies would somehow be immune to corruption if it weren't for figures such as him.

The truth is of course that western democracies have arrived at the terminal end stage of corruption, and that this corruption was allowed to spread through ways inherent to the system; lobbies, power and wealth concentration, media manipulation, etc. etc.

Gee, I wonder why that might be.

Already retracting that Russian turd?

Like I said, the ties with the CIA, MI6 and Mossad are clear. Evidently you haven't seriously looked into any of this yourself or you would have known that their greasy fingerprints are all over this case, and you wouldn't have come with the ridiculous suggestion that "it was the Russians".

Judging by your comment I'm guessing you believe that clown in the White House runs the show? Never wondered who runs that circus and whether such parties may benefit from holding compromising material over the people you get to vote for?

What, you mean all the American billionaires and banks?

Blaming Russia is some peak cope.

The state in question would obviously be the United States of America, helped by its cronies: Israel and the UK.

How is that not obvious?

Russia, ... really? :lol:

In my view, ego is an expression of the, often completely legitimate, wants and needs of a person.

We all have wants and needs, and this is not something that ought to be overcome unless you want to travel down a path of complete self-negation (and end up mummified in a Tibetan cave somwhere for later generations to marvel over). One's wants and needs are not illusory at all, and it will have very real consequences if they are systematically neglected.

It is however important to understand, reflect over and control our wants and needs (and thus our ego). Past experiences, societal conditioning, etc. can distort one's mental landscape and cause all sorts of aberrations in that regard.

The association of the ego with something negative is not a healthy thing. It's a form of self-flagellation.

Problematic expressions of the ego can easily be traced back to unmet wants and needs, which is the actual problem - not the ego itself.

Even if they're not exactly the same, I'd say they're quite close.

A lot of meditation forms involve the repetition of mantras, which is quite similar to the citation of prayers and a way of influencing the subconscious, which can be very powerful in its effect if practiced with discipline.

Department of Justice | Epstein

Type 'Rothschild' in the search bar. 11,860 results.

Why is there so little attention given on this thread/forum to the Epstein case?

A clear picture is being painted of a decades-spanning extortion and blackmailing racket ran by Epstein and his wife, whose job it was to collect dirt on all sorts of high-profile people from all over the world. Both Jeffrey and Ghislaine have deep ties to the CIA, MI6 and Mossad, leading me to believe this was a state-run enterprise.

Another party that is curiously implicated seems to be the Rothschild family, which Epstein literally calls himself a representative of in one of the leaked e-mails.

If you want to understand who pulls the strings in your country (and perhaps in mine also, unfortunately), this is where you start looking.

I think authoritarianism is the wrong word. I think the right one is corruption - and yes, it is rampant.

You know you're describing MAGA, right? — Questioner

Yes. Are you aware that I'm describing you also?

We get this elaborate bullshit in lieu of a simple “yeah that guy shouldn’t have been shot.” — Mikie

Except, it wasn't just a simple "yeah that guy shouldn't have been shot" - it's moral grandstanding about fascism, calling people 'human garbage', instantly jobbing everyone who isn't chanting along with superficial lamentations into 'the other camp', etc.

People were probably too busy whipping each other up into this self-gratifying frenzy that they lost all sense of self-awareness. It's a rather indecent sight.

But definitely not you! — Mikie

Feel free to point it out wherever I do. Oh, and by using my actual words and not what you think I must "secretly" believe because I am somehow partisan in the US clownshow.