domain:cafeamericainmag.com
These predictions are pretty damn weak, man. Fuentes isn't making any good predictions. "The terrorist attack on Israel will encourage Israel to attack back!" is not prescience. Nor is proclaiming that this is what gives us license to attack Iran's nuclear facilities; we've been dealing with their attempts to go nuclear for years and years at this point.
Predicting retaliatory violence after an attack isn't foresight.
"Nobody is expelling any Palestinians," Mr. Trump told reporters.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gaza-war-not-expelling-palestinians-egypt-post-ceasefire-plan/
Gaza is completely destroyed, even if they wanted to keep the Gazans in Gaza it's hard to see how that would be possible at this point even with a good-faith effort.
If nobody will take them, then they will remain in Gaza. There's an entire wall around the place.
Being world hegemon requires a flourishing and agile MIC. I quite like America having the biggest stick. I much prefer it to someone else having it.
Yes, won't someone please think of the poor MIC.
Funding this death and destruction for the pecuniary benefit of the MIC, makes it worse not better.
Are you equally concerned for the bankers who may suffer without this largesse?
I have no answers to offer, but I can tell you that the Thai are just as obsessed with pickup trucks. Half the cars I saw on the road were one variant or another, and they rarely seemed to be used for their nominal purpose. Thankfully, much like the people, they were on average much smaller than American pickup trucks.
The Israelis TRIED the Ethnic Cleansing, by offering Gaza and the West Bank back to the Egyptians and Jordan in exchange for peace! The genius of the Egyptians and Jordanians is that they REJECTED the inclusion of Gaza and West Bank into their territories and made peace anyways!
That's not ethnic cleansing. Rest of your post is fine, not sure how viable a gelatinous cube is, but yes, the best outcome for all is the Middle East self-destructing completely.
I don't much believe in horseshoe theory, anyway. I think people are far too quick to say "oh, so you don't like the status quo? Then you're just like all these people who don't!"
There's actually a huge gulf between what the "horseshoe's ends" think, believe, and want, and tying them together is actively detrimental to understanding their motives.
a hateful, developmentally stunted man who picked his wounds in public
So you mean to say, he was an artist!
The greater works are always autobiographical to some degree. In minor works, the author's own individuated personality is not strong enough to shine through ("every great philosophy hitherto has been a confession on the part of its author" [emphasis mine]).
Sometimes you won't always like the autobiographical content that is thus exposed. It won't always be admirable, it won't always speak to your own experience, etc. But you can still choose to adopt a more detached viewpoint and find what can be appreciated in it as a phenomenon for its own sake.
Of course this is not a natural and spontaneous attitude, but one that must be cultivated through diligent practice. I try to make a habit of doing mental exercises like, I imagine someone I admire, either because of their work or on a personal level or whatever, and I imagine: what if I discovered something absolutely horrifying about them? What if their own values actually turned out to be antithetical to everything I value? What if they hated free expression, what if they supported wireheading, etc. Or maybe there's something far worse than any of that, something that my conscious mind won't even let me access. And in this hypothetical I try to remind myself that, in spite of all that, there still has to be some kernel there that made me admire them in the first place, so my goal at that point would be to achieve an understanding of the phenomenon that is the person as a whole, rather than get bent out of shape about the individual things that we disagreed on.
I was joking about paying for rent! He's a nice dude, he would never ask. I covered my stay by fighting to the front of the pub to pay for our (many) drinks.
Indians are usually far more adept at keeping track of the clan. I think I personally know just two of my third cousins, this one included. With my coaxing, he's up to four. But if I cared to ask my mom, I could probably find out about dozens of others. Even so, I'm sure some have fallen through the cracks, the average person would have ~192 third cousins, but that assumes each generation having 2-3 kids. At least until quite recently, our family had quite a few more. We guesstimated that there's 500 of them running around, with a sizeable number scattered across the globe. I think the only continents I don't have relatives in are South America and Antarctica.
But being pro-Palestine is quite strange, and understood as the domain of too-liberal for their own good ivory tower students. It might not come up, although there’s a good chance Trump would.
I was somewhat taken aback. I thought that the UK would be similar to the US in that regard. I'm not sure if my cousins are in a relative bubble of PMC left-leaning folk, or if it really is near universal. All of the media I've noticed here seems to be at least leaning Palestinian, but it had never come up as a topic of IRL conversation until almost a year in. I presume they wouldn't have asked if they didn't feel comfortable around me.
Yes, they are our enemy, and we are their enemy. The difference is we can destroy them, and they can get destroyed.
Only if it's full of guns and ammo.
Yeah the Iranians are a disaster shit show.
Much like the Russians pre-2022, I thought they were much more sophisticated than they actually were. Then things started exploding and they turned out to be yet another paper tiger.
Praying we get the same twist with China, very worried we will not
Proportionally more Germans and Japanese folks lost loved ones to Allied bombing and yet 20 years later both of them were singing god bless America.
The Germans and Japanese weren't displaced, had their lands settled and permanently occupied. Well ok, Germany lost ethnic German land, but they still have a sizeable country. But Germany and Japan were also aggressive expansionist empires, while the Palestinians, from their own perspective, were just minding their own business when a bunch of Jews moved in. That all probably makes a big difference.
Both the US and Israel have at this point made it clear the Gaza population is going to be deported and not allowed to return. It hasn't happened yet but both Trump and Israel have stated this position. Gaza is completely destroyed, even if they wanted to keep the Gazans in Gaza it's hard to see how that would be possible at this point even with a good-faith effort. But the overtures from both Trump and Israel is that the population is going to be deported; sorry, "allowed to leave."
But the consequences of their choices is permanent conflict around them, and a world (which to an extent they depend on) that is steadily losing sympathy for their plight.
It seems Iran has lost international sympathy even faster; Putin shrugged and said there's a lot of Russian-speaking Israelis, and China isn't lifting a finger for them either. (To be fair, China said the UN Security Council should act against the US. Which is a joke seeing as the US has a veto). The consequences of their choices may be permanent conflict, but it does not appear -- aside from ceasing to exist -- that they have options which do not involve that.
Fuente's obsession with Israel appeared to result in what is perhaps the most accurate prediction of the series of events following Oct. 7th among anyone else.
They're still not accurate. You snuck in there "enables Israel to finally solve the Gaza Question with ethnic cleansing" as a "successful" prediction. It's actually a failed prediction.
"Knowingly" and "will give Israel an excuse to" are not successful predictions either, unless you can read minds.
Part of me wonders if everyone would have been better off if the Isreali's had just ripped the band aid off back in the day and just straight pushed them out/completed the ethnic cleansing. The displaced Palestinians would still be salty, but they'd be a few generations into moving on by now, and they'd probably get bombed way less.
I mean, obviously, if you don't finish the job, the remnants will continue to be a problem for you. But if the only way to ensure long-term peace for Israel was complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, maybe the whole project should never have been attempted in the first place (especially over such dumb sentimental reasons as "our mythology says this is our homeland" and then hoping that the people already living there would be understanding).
Of course this is going to end with Iran conducting a nuclear test. You know that, right? The ayatollah will take a break from tweeting out relationship advice and repeal the fatwa(or reinterpret it) and Iran will launch a volley of conventional missiles which get through and then conduct a nuclear test.
Maybe. But I would say I think it's more important to get proper authorization from the people for use of force, than it is to keep military operations secret. The president already has way too much power, we don't need him getting us into wars without any check on his power.
The external bed of a pickup truck is also easier to clean than the inside of a van, so you can haul dirty things that you might not want inside your van (cans of gas for your lawn implements, deer carcasses, brush) and hose it out when you're done.
they won't survive when the blue-hairs start being elected to the senate.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic. The senate has a conservative bias - I don't see them electing many blue-haired types in the foreseeable future. I agree that this is probably the friendliest administration Israel is going to have for a while but there's probably a lower limit on how strained the relationship is going to get. Unlike almost everyone else in the region, Israel is an actually useful country that's 90% geopolitically aligned with the US in its goals. What's the alternative to being allied with them?
I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine.
I assume it's the media environment. Most legacy media is run by progressives, who will side with Muslims against Jews in any conflict, while newer media is either permeated with anti-western propaganda like TikTok or has no guardrails against plain old standard anti-semitic crankery like Twitter.
I lived in Israel in 2019, and as far as I could see, it was a country that would be worth preserving.
I genuinely hope to see you write more about this at some point.
I'm definitely much more liberal than a lot of people here, but this is one thing I just cannot stomach from my own tribe.
Agreed. I'm also more liberal than not (pro-choice, mostly pro-trans, etc) but it seems clear that liberalism as a movement has, IMO, ceded leadership almost entirely to people who don't believe in universalist principles or rights but rather have a strictly hierarchical view of the world (the infamous "progressive stack") where Jews/whites inhabit the bottom rung and black people/muslims are at the top.
It’s interesting to see the contrast. In Texas air conditioners don’t even come on at 78 degrees outside, except in commercial buildings. You can be pro-Israël in polite circles, you can criticize Israeli policy, you can not care who wins. But being pro-Palestine is quite strange, and understood as the domain of too-liberal for their own good ivory tower students. It might not come up, although there’s a good chance Trump would.
Grandma would stuff you and your friend with food, of course. But if you stayed at someone’s house for free it’s just insulting to offer- or ask for- money after the fact, regardless of relation. You agreed on the price, after all. You wouldn’t care much about the distinction between a second and third cousin, either- and you probably wouldn’t know there is one, second cousin just means ‘blood related but not a first cousin, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew, or in direct line’.
The details of H.P. Lovecraft's life never bothered me. Probably because I never admired him as a human being or public persona the way I admired Harlan. So I can sit back and intellectually register that the existential dread he conjures up in so many of his stories just wouldn't hit the way it hits if the man wasn't constantly terrified of the mongrelization of his nation.
Also, well, my stance on what I believe to be the future of my nation is on record here. But it's enough to say I don't even necessarily find those stances to be offensive, and perhaps even somewhat prescient after the irrefutable evidence of the failures of multiculturalism we've all been subjected to in the countries or localities tipping white minority in the western world. But that's a separate topic.
No, my heart break with Ellison is from the fact that as a kid, I didn't love him for his work, but for his public persona. I came to his work much after the fact, and if anything, it's working backwards. I've rewatched several of those Harlan Ellison's Watching bits, and instantly fell in love with this witty outspoken firebrand telling it like it is. Then I go back to the fiction and my heart sinks at another autobiographicalish story venting his spleen about how much he hates me.
The remarkable predictive accuracy of Nick Fuentes on the Israel Conflict
I'm sure most here have heard of Nick Fuentes, maybe seen clips where he's said something funny or outrageous. I do not consider myself a follower of Fuentes, I have my criticisms of him and his movement, but I have to give credit to Fuentes for churning out consistently correct predictions.
When it came to the Israeli-Gaza war, Nick Fuentes registered these predictions in this short clip, in summary from just the first 60 seconds:
- The Oct. 7 attack is going to be the tripwire that enables Israel to finally solve the Gaza Question with ethnic cleansing.
- Israel is going to conduct a "brutal campaign against Gaza" which they "know Iran has to respond to."
- In doing so, their retaliation against Gaza will knowingly provoke a retaliation from Iranian-backed militias against Israel.
- This will give Israel an excuse to widen the conflict and "to do what they always wanted to do, which is bomb Iran's nuclear program".
- This will initiate war between Iran and Israel, and Israel will draw the United States into the war with Iran- Israel brings in the United States to "put Iran in check."
- This will culminate in an end to the regime in Syria and an end to the regime in Iran.
- This is the big play Israel is making.
Nick Fuentes registered these predictions on October 8th, less than 24 hours after the Hamas attack on Israel. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say Fuentes may have registered the best predictions out of anyone in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7th (feel free to keep me honest here if you think someone else was even more on the money).
Hindsight bias being what it is, the accuracy of Fuente's predictions may seem less impressive than they actually are. But I still remember the huge amount of uncertainty leading up to the Gaza campaign, including a high degree of uncertainty over the strength of Israel's retaliation against Gaza- whether they would show restraint or even put boots on the ground in the first place, and even if they put boots on the ground would it be a relatively short and mostly symbolic campaign. Certainly at the time "Israel is going to ethnically cleans Gaza, provoke escalations from Iranian militias, and widen the conflict to try to draw the US into war with Iran" was a prediction registered by not very many people.
Fuentes drew a huge amount of criticism for vocally opposing Trump's campaign due to his belief that Israel would draw Trump into war with Iran. A lot of that criticism comes from the "Bronze Age Pervert" sphere, and BAP is a sharp critic of Fuentes for Fuente's low-IQ obsession with da Joos. But we can contrast Fuente's sober-minded and accurate predictions with BAP's own incoherent analysis of the conflict he published last week, chalking it up to some old-man syndrome while remaining baffled as to why Israel is pursuing the strategy it has engaged in since the beginning of the conflict.
Nick Fuente's live-stream on Rumble in the aftermath of the US bombing campaign against Iran had something like 66,000 live viewers, with overall viewers on that VOD now around 530k, putting his viewership on par with Ben Shapiro despite the fact Fuentes is banned from YouTube so his content is relegated to a much less mainstream platform.
One of the most remarkable parts of the Ted Cruz / Tucker Carlson debate was that Ted Cruz:
- Said one of his primary motivations to become Senator was to be Israel's greatest defender.
- AIPAC is not a strong enough lobby.
- Said that his support for Israel is personally motivated by God's command in Genesis that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
And then, just a few minutes later, Ted Cruz accused Tucker Carlson of being "obsessed with Israel" for Carlson's pointed questions on AIPAC as a foreign lobby. The turnaround of why are you so obsessed coming from someone who just said God has commanded him to support Israel is just a discredited attempt to derail the conversation.
Fuente's obsession with Israel appeared to result in what is perhaps the most accurate prediction of the series of events following Oct. 7th among anyone else.
They are going to couch it mostly as voluntary emigration, but if you blockade a region and completely level the cities and make intolerable conditions, and then set up offices to facilitate "voluntary emigration" that is an expulsion as far as I'm concerned. The extent of the destruction of Gaza doesn't point in a different direction with respect to longer-term plans.
More options
Context Copy link