An era of f- around and find out leaders. And I used to think democracy means something. Now it is clear that we feedlot people are free to choose which corner of the feedlot we stand in. I guess it is good that I, and we who are willing to do the work, get to declutter our heads from outdated, useless stuff like UN and the invincibility of imperial weapons systems etc. Decluttering is fashionable, but it is also rough work. But seeing ones' patrimony/civilization turn out to be worthless garbage is pretty hard thing to digest.
I'm often having such conversations with my wife: why, she ask, do I insist on being so critical about all these things? Well, I typically reply, it would be one thing to criticise others for their failures, I take offence at the dismemberment and worse of our own civilisation/patrimony.
Will there be a renaissance? I don't know, and it's hard to predict anything at this point; what I do know, though, is that the European legacy is worth remembering: individualism, freedom/liberty, and whatever else you care to mention--my money would be on opportunity--are unique to European civilisation; these are major socio-cultural achievements, and they are well worth keeping.
Wagner operas were processing the internal tensions of our civilization. In Tannhäuser, for example, the hedonistic, pleasure-seeking love versus higher love. But just like Tannhäuser, we have forgotten the higher love and have been reveling in the Venus cave for a long time. It does not look like our culture is capable of waking up.
The idea is that this will trigger another uprising in Iran, and that whomever ousts the mullahs will be more amenable.
One thing not widely reported in media, not even non-mainstream is this:
Flight radar showed that Iran was a no-fly zone well before anything started. This means Israel/US alerted airlines in advance, and thereby also alerting Iran.
Why would anyone do that?
The goal isn't, from the US/Israeli side to knock out Iran's capabilites, but effect regime change. If Iran can be fully turned, or at least bought off like Pakistan, then that's ahuge blow against China, Russia and BRICS in its entirety.
So, calm the Israelis by showing them that their ally-client-puppet in the West does its job as asked for. Scare China and Russia by showing of what MOABs can actually do. Rattle the base of the mullahs by showing the people of Iran that their leaders are dragging them into a war they can only lose.
I just read over at NRK (Norway's state broadcaster) that 'Trump thanks Iran for advance-notice' of the latter's missile attacks™: I'm unsure if 'everybody knew' beforehand, but that those who matter did.
I agree that whatever 'the West' is doing to Iran is mainly to confront China (due to its oil and gas imports); my point is--even if China is the adversary here, the initiative isn't with the West. Iran appears to be restrained and calculated in their response, which will likely trigger the one lunatic wild card (Israel), whose attack I deem to have been forced by recognition that Mr. Netanyahoo is running of out of time.
That said, I think the past week also answers who's in charge (Israel or the US): if you consider Israel able to pull off anything like that on its own w/o US support, think again. It's almost as if Mr. Netanyahoo lit a fuse to a bomb strapped to his own chair…
I tend to look at politics the way I do schoolyard/pub/street brawls.
Little uppity guys picking fights they need their posse or hulking huge roided up pal to handle.
Comes the day when that posse or pal says "Screw this dimwit, he's always getting me into fights - let him handle it himself" upon which the little dweed goes to hospital, if he's lucky.
I think we're fast approaching that point. There's a real feeling among the under-40 age groups: "Why is Israel our problem? We owe them nothing." that has nothing to do with supporting Palestine either. It's more of a "let them fight over there and if they send their trouble here, send it and them back".
I think politicians and celebrities picking a side as if it was 1975 are making a huge mistake.
I think that's a largely work-able metaphor; problem is, though, that the politicos' ability to f*** up everybody's lives is well beyond the somewhat narrow confines of any schoolyard/pub/street brawl.
I recall a quip attributed to Chou En-Lai, Mao's foreign minister, who, when asked about the importance of the French Revolution, retorted it was 'too soon to tell'. I consider Israel in the same fashion.
Inexorable decline on many levels. The perception of strength endures like a suspension of gravity in children’s cartoons. I believe the Houthis punctured the balloon. The US faces a fundamental dilemma - does it want to continue as an imperial vassal, or does it go back to its prosperous productive roots? The continuation of British Empire is not sustainable; it has absolutely diminished the US in every way (Europe as well). Zionism is built on lies which can no longer be so easily sold. Structures built on lies can unravel more rapidly than most of us of can imagine.
"no-one in his or her right mind would understand how the UK and France are permanent, veto-bearing powers but India is not"
The UN was founded at the end of WWII. The permanent members of the Security Council were the "Allies" who won the war, who also happened to be the countries that became nuclear armed over the next 20 years. Should India have a seat at that table now? Yes, probably.
I'm not commenting on the UN's origins here but on the present; in the same vein, by the way, Japan might be a reasonable permanent UNSC member, too.
As to the larger issue, I suppose that those countries that have nukes are the only sovereign ones, with everyone else being, well, a kinda sideshow. Shall we count the former?
USA, Russia, UK (albeit contingent on US approval), France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea.
Did I miss anyone?
There's no doubt several other countries could build a nuke, but the delivery system is another issue here: Iran, Germany, South Korea, possibly the Nordics (due to their own space programs), Brazil, perhaps even Italy or Spain, as well as Türkiye.
Would that make the world a better place? I doubt it.
Words without meaning or essence, that's what these are. The same with left or right.
I suppose sane vs. insane is the creed of the 21st century. That said, what you and I will do hardly matters--it's what the maniacs who decide about war™ and peace" matters.
I'm replying: try to be as prepared as possible for whatever (BS) comes your way.
An era of f- around and find out leaders. And I used to think democracy means something. Now it is clear that we feedlot people are free to choose which corner of the feedlot we stand in. I guess it is good that I, and we who are willing to do the work, get to declutter our heads from outdated, useless stuff like UN and the invincibility of imperial weapons systems etc. Decluttering is fashionable, but it is also rough work. But seeing ones' patrimony/civilization turn out to be worthless garbage is pretty hard thing to digest.
I'm often having such conversations with my wife: why, she ask, do I insist on being so critical about all these things? Well, I typically reply, it would be one thing to criticise others for their failures, I take offence at the dismemberment and worse of our own civilisation/patrimony.
Will there be a renaissance? I don't know, and it's hard to predict anything at this point; what I do know, though, is that the European legacy is worth remembering: individualism, freedom/liberty, and whatever else you care to mention--my money would be on opportunity--are unique to European civilisation; these are major socio-cultural achievements, and they are well worth keeping.
Re: "these are major socio-cultural achievements, and they are well worth keeping"— yes indeed.
Wagner operas were processing the internal tensions of our civilization. In Tannhäuser, for example, the hedonistic, pleasure-seeking love versus higher love. But just like Tannhäuser, we have forgotten the higher love and have been reveling in the Venus cave for a long time. It does not look like our culture is capable of waking up.
The idea is that this will trigger another uprising in Iran, and that whomever ousts the mullahs will be more amenable.
One thing not widely reported in media, not even non-mainstream is this:
Flight radar showed that Iran was a no-fly zone well before anything started. This means Israel/US alerted airlines in advance, and thereby also alerting Iran.
Why would anyone do that?
The goal isn't, from the US/Israeli side to knock out Iran's capabilites, but effect regime change. If Iran can be fully turned, or at least bought off like Pakistan, then that's ahuge blow against China, Russia and BRICS in its entirety.
So, calm the Israelis by showing them that their ally-client-puppet in the West does its job as asked for. Scare China and Russia by showing of what MOABs can actually do. Rattle the base of the mullahs by showing the people of Iran that their leaders are dragging them into a war they can only lose.
I just read over at NRK (Norway's state broadcaster) that 'Trump thanks Iran for advance-notice' of the latter's missile attacks™: I'm unsure if 'everybody knew' beforehand, but that those who matter did.
I agree that whatever 'the West' is doing to Iran is mainly to confront China (due to its oil and gas imports); my point is--even if China is the adversary here, the initiative isn't with the West. Iran appears to be restrained and calculated in their response, which will likely trigger the one lunatic wild card (Israel), whose attack I deem to have been forced by recognition that Mr. Netanyahoo is running of out of time.
That said, I think the past week also answers who's in charge (Israel or the US): if you consider Israel able to pull off anything like that on its own w/o US support, think again. It's almost as if Mr. Netanyahoo lit a fuse to a bomb strapped to his own chair…
I tend to look at politics the way I do schoolyard/pub/street brawls.
Little uppity guys picking fights they need their posse or hulking huge roided up pal to handle.
Comes the day when that posse or pal says "Screw this dimwit, he's always getting me into fights - let him handle it himself" upon which the little dweed goes to hospital, if he's lucky.
I think we're fast approaching that point. There's a real feeling among the under-40 age groups: "Why is Israel our problem? We owe them nothing." that has nothing to do with supporting Palestine either. It's more of a "let them fight over there and if they send their trouble here, send it and them back".
I think politicians and celebrities picking a side as if it was 1975 are making a huge mistake.
I think that's a largely work-able metaphor; problem is, though, that the politicos' ability to f*** up everybody's lives is well beyond the somewhat narrow confines of any schoolyard/pub/street brawl.
I recall a quip attributed to Chou En-Lai, Mao's foreign minister, who, when asked about the importance of the French Revolution, retorted it was 'too soon to tell'. I consider Israel in the same fashion.
Inexorable decline on many levels. The perception of strength endures like a suspension of gravity in children’s cartoons. I believe the Houthis punctured the balloon. The US faces a fundamental dilemma - does it want to continue as an imperial vassal, or does it go back to its prosperous productive roots? The continuation of British Empire is not sustainable; it has absolutely diminished the US in every way (Europe as well). Zionism is built on lies which can no longer be so easily sold. Structures built on lies can unravel more rapidly than most of us of can imagine.
"no-one in his or her right mind would understand how the UK and France are permanent, veto-bearing powers but India is not"
The UN was founded at the end of WWII. The permanent members of the Security Council were the "Allies" who won the war, who also happened to be the countries that became nuclear armed over the next 20 years. Should India have a seat at that table now? Yes, probably.
I'm not commenting on the UN's origins here but on the present; in the same vein, by the way, Japan might be a reasonable permanent UNSC member, too.
As to the larger issue, I suppose that those countries that have nukes are the only sovereign ones, with everyone else being, well, a kinda sideshow. Shall we count the former?
USA, Russia, UK (albeit contingent on US approval), France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea.
Did I miss anyone?
There's no doubt several other countries could build a nuke, but the delivery system is another issue here: Iran, Germany, South Korea, possibly the Nordics (due to their own space programs), Brazil, perhaps even Italy or Spain, as well as Türkiye.
Would that make the world a better place? I doubt it.
Antisemite is the new racist is the new fascist is the new Nazi.
We are quickly running out of thought-terminating epithets. What will we do then? Think?
I fear for our future Mr. E.
Words without meaning or essence, that's what these are. The same with left or right.
I suppose sane vs. insane is the creed of the 21st century. That said, what you and I will do hardly matters--it's what the maniacs who decide about war™ and peace" matters.
I'm replying: try to be as prepared as possible for whatever (BS) comes your way.
I also share your fear, my good sir.