Humanity Has Failed

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Raze said:

That’s not “Palestinians”. Passover massacre was carried about by Hamas, at that time a much smaller group

So Hamas carried out a massacre the day before the presentation of a peace plan proposing Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and many other initiatives that could mark the beginning of a Palestinian state. And a few years later, in Gaza, Hamas won the elections by an absolute majority.

So, that means this action is supported by the Palestinians, and that their only solution is the expulsion of the Jews. What do you want then? Hugs?

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I don't know. I think the governments sold out and are allowing/inviting a soft invasion for whatever reason

I was just replying to what he said about one country being a geopolitical disaster while the other is thriving. Things change quicker than we think and geopolitics may be on a longer time horizon than our minds can grasp. For centuries the British dominated the world and now the very same people they dominated are overtaking them, it's ironic but surprising. Maybe this is how real geopolitics works. Maybe one day the Native Americans will overcome the Americans. Maybe our minds are too small to project that far out into the future or really understand how this all works

For me I don't see the point of immigration, even from a poor country to a rich country. Just live where you are born and visit other places or become a world traveler, but never lose your roots or assimilate into something you are not. Poor countries have their pros and cons just like rich countries. That's just my thoughts

For sure. I live in a Western European country (one which didn’t have colonies)

When my mother went to school there were just local people. When i went to school one generation later there were already barely people who’s parent were from here. For a while i was the only one in class who had one if their parents from this country. A lot of refugees from the Balkans and Sri Lanka abd so on.

Edited May 31 by PurpleTree

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, gengar said:

Why would they accept it as a country when it was literally taken from them? should the natives of America have accepted their fate, that some technologically advanced society killed them and took their land?

They have every reason to hate you and your kind. They are put in an open air prison and their land has been taken from them. this is historical fact. Yet you defend the classic liberal bullshit of "oh we are morally superior they are savage

I don't defend any superiority or bullshit, I just say that Israel exist, you could accept it or not. If you don't accept there will be war.  You could cry a lot saying that it's unfair, but equally there will be war, as we see. 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

For sure. I live in a Western European country (one which didn’t have colonies)

When my mother went to school there were just local people. When i went to school one generation later there were already barely people who’s parent were from here. For a while i was the only one in class who had one if their parents from this country. A lot of refugees from the Balkans and Sri Lanka abd so on.

That's fast change

I think anyone calling to kick out these immigrants in EU will be treated like Nick Fuentes

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Things change quicker than we think and geopolitics may be on a longer time horizon than our minds can grasp. For centuries the British dominated the world and now the very same people they dominated are overtaking them

The West won't decline, their dominance will. Western elite's can no longer dictate global outcomes unilaterally. Their zero-sum logic is being outmaneuvered by a rising multipolar order that’s not asking for permission but is building an alternative via BRICS+Gulf. These Western elites want in on that game which is more lucrative than the previous game they played.

Instead of profiting off of destabilizing the region which served their Military industrial complex, they want to de-risk the region and open it up for business (living people are better consumers than dead people) in order to serve a much more powerful faction of their elite, the Fintech lords: a new class of power rooted in finance, technology, and consumer dominance. They profit from stability, integration, and scalable systems.

This new elite which has eclipsed the old neo-con elite, need what the Global South has which are: young consumers, raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and growth markets to get returns as compared to stagnant markets in the West. That creates a fundamentally different power dynamic than when the MIC just needed managed chaos to profit off.

The old imperial model was: "Give us your resources or we'll bomb you. Even without your resources, we'll make money while bombing you regardless.''

The new model is: "We need access to your markets, and you can set the terms because we need you more than you need us."

That's why Palestinian statehood, climate commitments, technology transfer requirements, and other conditions that were previously dismissed are now being taken seriously. The money moved, so the politics followed.

The MIC isn't obsolete - but it's been re-positioned as the enforcement arm for when economic integration fails - its not the main game, just a tool in it. This explains puzzling policy contradictions. Why does the US court Saudi investment while threatening military action elsewhere? Because the Gulf has successfully integrated into the new financial architecture, while other regions remain "resistant markets" requiring traditional coercion. This is the fight the Global South are up against.

The empire evolved from conquest-based to subscription-based, but kept the old enforcement mechanisms for non-paying customers.

MIC still lashes out by inertia, but it’s no longer in alignment with the new geopolitical reality - where BRICS, the Gulf, and much of the Global South are building a cooperative, investment-driven future. The old game hasn’t ended fully, but the new money is re-calibrating to the new reality.

Edited May 31 by zazen

[Twentyfirst]

5 minutes ago, zazen said:

The West won't decline, their dominance will. Western elite's can no longer dictate global outcomes unilaterally. Their zero-sum logic is being outmaneuvered by a rising multipolar order that’s not asking for permission but is building an alternative via BRICS+Gulf. These Western elites want in on that game which is more lucrative than the previous game they played.

Instead of profiting off of destabilizing the region which served their Military industrial complex, they want to de-risk the region and open it up for business (living people are better consumers than dead people) in order to serve a much more powerful faction of their elite, the Fintech lords: a new class of power rooted in finance, technology, and consumer dominance. They profit from stability, integration, and scalable systems.

This new elite which has eclipsed the old neo-con elite, need what the Global South has which are: young consumers, raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and growth markets to get returns as compared to stagnant markets in the West. That creates a fundamentally different power dynamic than when the MIC just needed managed chaos to profit off.

The old imperial model was: "Give us your resources or we'll bomb you. Even without your resources, we'll make money while bombing you regardless.''

The new model is: "We need access to your markets, and you can set the terms because we need you more than you need us."

That's why Palestinian statehood, climate commitments, technology transfer requirements, and other conditions that were previously dismissed are now being taken seriously. The money moved, so the politics followed.

The MIC isn't obsolete - but it's been re-positioned as the enforcement arm for when economic integration fails - its not the main game, just a tool in it. This explains puzzling policy contradictions. Why does the US court Saudi investment while threatening military action elsewhere? Because the Gulf has successfully integrated into the new financial architecture, while other regions remain "resistant markets" requiring traditional coercion. This is the fight the Global South are up against.

The empire evolved from conquest-based to subscription-based, but kept the old enforcement mechanisms for non-paying customers.

MIC still lashes out by inertia, but it’s no longer in alignment with the new geopolitical reality - where BRICS, the Gulf, and much of the Global South are building a cooperative, investment-driven future. The old game hasn’t ended fully, but the new money is re-calibrating the a new reality.

Agreed

But I think life in the West will decline for Westerners. They have been comfortable with a certain standard of living that will be rug pulled and then they will be gaslit into thinking it's all their fault. If the Western elites are going to submit to the countries they once claimed were corrupt they will have to distract their citizens to get away with that. Theres gonna be two factions of elites, one that are fine with selling out and the other that wants to keep its national culture intact so there will be a tug of war but eventually the global western elites will win

Once all the companies start catering to the new demographics then the old ones will have to adjust to make a living. So you may have had Indians and others moving to the USA and learning the language, trying to hide their accent, wearing suits, maybe even changing their name to an abbreviation of their traditional name so it's easier for westerners to pronounce. I think the same thing will happen in reverse so you'll have a white guy dressed in a thobe and pretending he respects islam and the gender roles of the Middle East, which is already happening in Dubai because they want the money, networking, and the safety of that city...maybe he hates it but he will have to submit and pretend regardless. That's why I don't like any of this I would never want to assimilate to somewhere else even if it meant getting rich, I don't like the feeling of that

Trump and the EU can't just go on television and say "yeah we are gonna get Arab money and leave you all in the dust, no more superiority, we aren't the best anymore"...they have to just continue the charade "golden age of America, we will continue to be the envy, we are the best, make more children". It's too easy to string along Westerners, that's the whole issue they just believe in anything even if there are obvious sings contradicting that

This whole thread is saying humanity failed. But every one is in agreement that Palestine should be a state. It's only the west that failed. So the world will be MUCH better with other people in power or power redistributed among more poles. Eventually even Westerners will have a better more honest quality of life than they ever did after the dust settles but at first it may suck really bad. For westerners to say "this is always has to be because if another empire comes up it will for sure be worse" doesn't have any truth in reality. It's a terrible argument to keep the American empire fed and increasing military budgets and more bases and more bombs and more subversion. It doesn't have to be that way and I think other empires know that they can get stronger in the long run without being so sneaky 

 

[PurpleTree]

23 minutes ago, zazen said:

The West won't decline, their dominance will. Western elite's can no longer dictate global outcomes unilaterally. Their zero-sum logic is being outmaneuvered by a rising multipolar order that’s not asking for permission but is building an alternative via BRICS+Gulf. These Western elites want in on that game which is more lucrative than the previous game they played.

Instead of profiting off of destabilizing the region which served their Military industrial complex, they want to de-risk the region and open it up for business (living people are better consumers than dead people) in order to serve a much more powerful faction of their elite, the Fintech lords: a new class of power rooted in finance, technology, and consumer dominance. They profit from stability, integration, and scalable systems.

This new elite which has eclipsed the old neo-con elite, need what the Global South has which are: young consumers, raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and growth markets to get returns as compared to stagnant markets in the West. That creates a fundamentally different power dynamic than when the MIC just needed managed chaos to profit off.

The old imperial model was: "Give us your resources or we'll bomb you. Even without your resources, we'll make money while bombing you regardless.''

The new model is: "We need access to your markets, and you can set the terms because we need you more than you need us."

That's why Palestinian statehood, climate commitments, technology transfer requirements, and other conditions that were previously dismissed are now being taken seriously. The money moved, so the politics followed.

The MIC isn't obsolete - but it's been re-positioned as the enforcement arm for when economic integration fails - its not the main game, just a tool in it. This explains puzzling policy contradictions. Why does the US court Saudi investment while threatening military action elsewhere? Because the Gulf has successfully integrated into the new financial architecture, while other regions remain "resistant markets" requiring traditional coercion. This is the fight the Global South are up against.

The empire evolved from conquest-based to subscription-based, but kept the old enforcement mechanisms for non-paying customers.

MIC still lashes out by inertia, but it’s no longer in alignment with the new geopolitical reality - where BRICS, the Gulf, and much of the Global South are building a cooperative, investment-driven future. The old game hasn’t ended fully, but the new money is re-calibrating the a new reality.

Won’t most of the Gulf, Saudi and a lot of the global south basically be unliveable in a while because of global warming etc.

[Twentyfirst]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

Won’t most of the Gulf, Saudi and a lot of the global south basically be unliveable in a while because of global warming etc.

What do you mean? Like how they say Miami will be underwater? 

If you mean heat...they have interesting solutions to that. Like huge automated umbrellas or outdoor walkways with AC

The heat is good. Solar energy = profit

[PurpleTree]

17 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

What do you mean? Like how they say Miami will be underwater? 

If you mean heat...they have interesting solutions to that. Like huge automated umbrellas or outdoor walkways with AC

The heat is good. Solar energy = profit

I‘m right now in Rome with 30C

40? No thanks.

Then Europe, Russia, Canada will become very attractive again.

[Twentyfirst]

44 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I‘m right now in Rome with 30C

40? No thanks.

Then Europe, Russia, Canada will become very attractive again.

If there is climate change then everywhere will be affected

But the Gulf will have a far reach so their policy will affect people in other countries who aren't visiting the gulf specifically 

[PurpleTree]

Gpt

The Middle East is one of the regions most at risk from the impacts of global warming, and parts of it may become increasingly difficult — or even unliveable — for humans during certain times of the year if current trends continue.

 

Here’s a clear, evidence-based breakdown of what’s happening and what might happen:

 

 

 

 

🌡️ 1. 

Extreme Heat and Humidity

 

 

Studies have projected that “wet-bulb temperatures” — a measure combining heat and humidity — could exceed survivable levels in parts of the Middle East by the end of the century if emissions remain high.

A wet-bulb temperature of 35°C (95°F) is considered the upper limit for human survival over a few hours even in shade with unlimited water.

Cities like Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Bandar Abbas could experience brief periods of deadly heat as early as 2050.

 

 

Sources:

 

Pal & Eltahir (MIT, Nature Climate Change, 2015)

IPCC 6th Assessment Report (2021–2022)

 

 

 

 

 

💧 2. 

Water Scarcity

 

 

The region already faces severe water stress. Warming is making rainfall less predictable and increasing evaporation rates.

Aquifers are depleting, and desalination — although widely used — is energy intensive and vulnerable to disruptions.

The Tigris and Euphrates basins (Iraq, Syria) are under threat from both climate change and political conflict over water.

 

 

 

 

 

🔥 3. 

Urban Heat Island Effect

 

 

Cities in the Gulf (like Dubai, Riyadh, and Kuwait City) experience amplified heat due to urban design (concrete, glass, lack of shade).

Nighttime temperatures may no longer drop low enough for the human body to cool down, increasing health risks even more.

 

 

 

 

 

👥 4. 

Vulnerable Populations

 

 

Outdoor workers, especially migrant laborers, are among the most vulnerable.

Millions live in poor housing without reliable air conditioning.

Energy infrastructure under strain could make AC inaccessible during peak heatwaves.

 

 

 

 

 

🚨 5. 

Not Entirely Uninhabitable — But Extremely Challenging

 

 

While the Middle East likely won’t become entirely uninhabitable this century, major cities may become unlivable for extended periods during extreme heat events.

Long-term adaptation (urban redesign, green tech, cooling systems) will be essential, but there are limits to adaptation, especially in poorer or conflict-prone areas.

 

 

 

 

 

🧭 Outlook Depends on Action

 

Emissions Path

Likely Outcome

Business-as-usual (high emissions)

Deadly heatwaves multiple times per year by 2100

Moderate mitigation (Paris goals)

Serious impacts, but more manageable with adaptation

Aggressive climate action

Risks significantly reduced, livability preserved in most areas

 

 

 

 

🧠 Bottom Line:

 

 

Yes, parts of the Middle East may become temporarily unliveable due to climate change by mid-to-late century — particularly due to extreme heat and humidity.

But whether it becomes permanently uninhabitable depends on global and regional responses over the next 20–30 years.

 

Would you like a map or breakdown of which countries or cities are most at risk?

 

[PurpleTree]

Imagine they fight for another 30 years for that piece of land.

And then it just becomes unliveable because of climate change and everyone has to leave.

[Raze]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

So Hamas carried out a massacre the day before the presentation of a peace plan proposing Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and many other initiatives that could mark the beginning of a Palestinian state. And a few years later, in Gaza, Hamas won the elections by an absolute majority.

So, that means this action is supported by the Palestinians, and that their only solution is the expulsion of the Jews. What do you want then? Hugs?

Hamas was voted in after israel rejected that proposal and the PA failed to get a deal while also acknowledging Israel and losing their last leverage, while Israel just expanded settlements. Hamas offered a long term ceasefire in exchange for a state.

And again, why don’t you turn the logic around. Israel rejected the deal and blockaded 2 million people in Gaza, why are they surprised by oct 7? Keeping millions of people captive eternally will have backlash. 

The stupidity of your reasoning is that israel has all the power and leverage, but somehow the stateless population backed into the corner is the one responsible for every single action of any side and anything they do towards them is always justified. No other conflict is analyzed this way. 

Edited May 31 by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

32 minutes ago, Raze said:

The stupidity of your reasoning is that israel has all the power and leverage, but somehow the stateless population backed into the corner

Maybe it's stupid, But after three wars with the intention of extermination, plus other smaller wars and thousands of deaths in attacks carried out by a people who worship hatred, the Jews do not trust Hamas, whose essential principle is the expulsion of Jews from Israel.

You find it scandalous that the Jews do not allow these people to develop, but for the Jews, the development of Palestine means that it develops its essential principle, which is the deadly hatred of Israel. Perhaps if you had a neighbor who hates you to death and raises his children in hatred, you would think it a beautiful idea if he had rifles, tanks, and hypersonic missiles, and that honors you as a human being. But you must understand that not everyone is as selfless as you.

Now you will answer: but they came after and the Palestinian were there first. Well ok, maybe they should commit collective suicide, but it's normal that they don't do, even some people is very sure that they should.

[Raze]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe it's stupid, But after three wars with the intention of extermination, plus other smaller wars and thousands of deaths in attacks carried out by a people who worship hatred, the Jews do not trust Hamas, whose essential principle is the expulsion of Jews from Israel.

You find it scandalous that the Jews do not allow these people to develop, but for the Jews, the development of Palestine means that it develops its essential principle, which is the deadly hatred of Israel. Perhaps if you had a neighbor who hates you to death and raises his children in hatred, you would think it a beautiful idea if he had rifles, tanks, and hypersonic missiles, and that honors you as a human being. But you must understand that not everyone is as selfless as you.

Now you will answer: but they came after and the Palestinian were there first. Well ok, maybe they should commit collective suicide, but it's normal that they don't do, even some people is very sure that they should.

The three wars weren’t with the intention of extermination.

1948 was to stop israel from exterminating the Palestinians. Israel committed far more massacres of civilians when they captured territory.

1967 began with a israel first strike 

1973 was followed by Egypt making a peace deal and never attacking again. How exactly does that show “hatred” and “extermination”?

it’s not about stopping Palestinians from developing for security, it’s about exterminating the Palestinians, the group engaging in extermination based on hatred is israel.

Israel at one point funneled Money directly to Hamas. Tell me, how does it make sense to help Hamas develop its arms if the issue is they are afraid of their “hatred”? The stated reason was to make Hamas stronger and the PA weaker, because Hamas was still engaging in armed resistance while the PA ceased doing so. As they were fearful if the PA was stronger international groups would start pressuring them to stop killing and stealing from Palestinians as the PA gave them less of an ability to excuse it as “self defense“.

The reason is because they want Palestinians to try to defend themselves against Israel to give Israel the excuse to kill more Palestinians and seize more territory, as bad faith actors and useful idiots can’t comprehend the idea that Palestinians are humans who will naturally fight and resist the people who perpetually destroy their lives.
 

The idea that because the people who constantly kill and oppress hate you is a reason why you jut continue to kill and oppress them is the argument of immoral simpletons. You can find people who said slavery shouldn’t end because the slaves hated white people for what they did to them. You can find people who said apartheid shouldn’t end because the south africans hated the afrikaneers for what they did to them. It’s really just an excuse to consider exploiting people. In Israel’s case it’s particularly ridickois because oppression of the Palestinians has only worsened their security over time as the attacks become larger and more complex the more they are oppressed, and their internal stability and international support is lost more and more.

Edited May 31 by Raze

[Twentyfirst]

3 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Imagine they fight for another 30 years for that piece of land.

And then it just becomes unliveable because of climate change and everyone has to leave.

 

I don't know. Maybe AI and a crap ton of oil money will solve it. They built Dubai from nothing and built islands. But it's a problem to solve in the future if it arises

Even if the land is unlivable it belongs to the indigenous population 😉

[Twentyfirst]

39 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe it's stupid, But after three wars with the intention of extermination, plus other smaller wars and thousands of deaths in attacks carried out by a people who worship hatred, the Jews do not trust Hamas, whose essential principle is the expulsion of Jews from Israel.

You find it scandalous that the Jews do not allow these people to develop, but for the Jews, the development of Palestine means that it develops its essential principle, which is the deadly hatred of Israel. Perhaps if you had a neighbor who hates you to death and raises his children in hatred, you would think it a beautiful idea if he had rifles, tanks, and hypersonic missiles, and that honors you as a human being. But you must understand that not everyone is as selfless as you.

Now you will answer: but they came after and the Palestinian were there first. Well ok, maybe they should commit collective suicide, but it's normal that they don't do, even some people is very sure that they should.

Stop with the raising children with hatred. You just want to believe that

You REALLY think that they need to be TAUGHT hate? So Israels actions don't warrant any hate at all. It has to be bred and brainwashed into them at a very young age or else the hatred won't take effect? They have to be tricked into hating you lol and without that trick they would love you with stockholm syndrome

[Breakingthewall]

52 minutes ago, Raze said:

1948 was to stop israel from exterminating the Palestinians.

Really?i thought it was a reaction to the UN's decision to approve the creation of the State of Israel. I hadn't heard that Egypt and its allies attacked to prevent the genocide of Palestinians. 

54 minutes ago, Raze said:

1967 began with a israel first strike 

Yes, after observing the troop grouping, knowing the attack plans and reading in the Egyptian press that Israel was going to be wiped off the map

56 minutes ago, Raze said:

1973 was followed by Egypt making a peace deal and never attacking again. How exactly does that show “hatred” and “extermination”?

Yes, because they lost the war, if they would win, they would erase Israel from the map. Do you understand that they do that deal because they lost the war? It wasn't a friendly war to make deals, was with the idea of destruction. Well, was a war. 

58 minutes ago, Raze said:

Israel at one point funneled Money directly to Hamas. Tell me, how does it make sense to help Hamas develop its arms if the issue is they are afraid of their “hatred”?

Yes, the far right government believes that the Palestinian must be expelled and for them Hamas is more convenient, same than the attack on 7 oct, probably they allowed it to destroy gaza, almost sure. 

There's a drift toward fanaticism in Israel, it's a fact, and more and more Israelis think the Palestinians should be expelled. This is what happens when there's a climate of constant war; hatred arises. This is how it's always been, and it's always been resolved, as we all know: by destroying the weakest. So, what should Hamas do? Kill more 18-year-old girls and parade their corpses amid the cheers of the population? It can do that, but it can't cry when the consequences come.

Do you think that the jews are bad and the Palestinian are good? Maybe it's a bit simplistic. Both want to survive, but if you are weaker, start a war is stupid.

1 hour ago, Raze said:

The idea that because the people who constantly kill and oppress hate you is a reason why you jut continue to kill and oppress them is the argument of immoral simpletons

No, both kill , but the Palestinian kill less because are weaker. If they were stronger, they would kill with a lot of happiness. Same than the Sioux, if they could, they wont left even one american alive. They have been victims because the only reason that they were weaker, in other case they would be executioners. When you're the weak one, fighting back automatically defines you as an idiot. You only go to war to win, not to have your people bombed.

In short, your idea about good and evil is so naive. Or maybe it's just because you are Muslim and you cheer your team, as everybody does?

[Breakingthewall]

44 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

You REALLY think that they need to be TAUGHT hate? So Israels actions don't warrant any hate at all. It has to be bred and brainwashed into them at a very young age or else the hatred won't take effect? They have to be tricked into hating you lol and without that trick they would love you with stockholm syndrome

If you raise children to hate a vastly superior enemy, and teach them that martyrdom and suicide are the supreme values, then don't complain when they exterminate you. You can do it, but there are consequences. It's like when the Nazis declared war on the entire world, weren't very clever, and then ended up destroying everything. Cause and effect. If you want war with someone ten times stronger, bad. It's better to compete with them in intelligence, in industry, even learn from them and collaborate with them, become their friends. Respect their religion and share your sacred places. How crazy, right? Much better to go and commit suicide with a huge bomb attached to your body at a crowded dinner. That's the wise way to act. 

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

And again, why don’t you turn the logic around. Israel rejected the deal and blockaded 2 million people in Gaza, why are they surprised by oct 7? Keeping millions of people captive eternally will have backlash. 

Your analysis is extremely biased. First, Gaza was under Egyptian control, and the Egyptians didn't grant Egyptian nationality to Gazans and kept them in miserable conditions. Then Israel retook it and at one point withdrew, forcing thousands of settlers to leave.

The Palestinians elected Hamas, which has Israel's demise in its charter and periodically orchestrates attacks, so it was blocked. There were also two internal civil wars with thousands of Palestinian deaths. Hamas fires thousands of rockets at civilian areas, causing as much damage as it can.