Cory1848

Exactly. People who use the words “globalist” and “globalism” often do so without saying precisely what they mean; more often than not, the words are steeped in antisemitism and the notion that Jews are behind everything bad that happens in the world. (Note that I’m using the word “antisemitism” in its traditional, two-millennia-old sense, not in any way meant to refer to the present-day Israeli state.) The scenario laid out by the original poster is bonkers, not least because it assumes that Trump is capable of rational thinking. If by “globalist” they mean international corporate interests, well sure, big companies with an international presence have various degrees of influence over political decision-making in different countries, and sometimes big companies will cooperate with each other if they have common interests. But they have far more interest in building their own shareholder value within the framework of neoliberal economics (low corporate taxes; no regulation) than in conspiring to rule the world, as the original poster vaguely seems to suggest.

Democracy in the US is based on the separation of powers, and we no longer have that in any functional sense. It may well be that, if Trump and compliant courts meddle in the midterm elections to the degree that people’s votes are disregarded or “disappeared” and the Republican Party continues to control the House and Senate against the will of the people, it will take further nondemocratic, or nonconstitutional, measures on the part of some ad hoc “Deep State” to correct the situation and put the country back on the right path. US citizens are Homo sapiens just like people everywhere else in the world. The notion that we are exceptional in some way is ludicrous to say the least.

I think there are plenty of Yanks whose eyes are open, but that’s no longer enough. It will take more than simply being aware of how big a mistake Trump is. We’ll see how the midterms go, but you’re quite right: he will cheat and his allies will cheat, using whatever authoritarian tools they can get their mitts on, and in the end it will take more than just voting for the correct people to get him and his oligarch clique out. What that “more” might involve, I don’t want to speculate here. Sure, I’m a Yank; in the last three presidential elections I voted for Clinton, then Biden, then Harris (though preferring candidates further to the left). I’ve been strongly critical of Trump since 2015. But so what? In the current circumstances, voting for the right people and being vocally critical does not suffice. And simply because of my US citizenship, simply because it’s my compatriots who have put this monster in office on two separate occasions, I feel complicit.

He said (in October 2024), “You’re not going to have a war with me, that I can tell you.” On election night, he said, “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.” Etc. etc. Of course, given the thousands of documented lies he’s told while in office during his first term and this one, one can’t put any stock in the flatulence that comes from his mouth at any given time, nor I’m sure is he able to keep track of it. Just this past week, the stream of lies and contradictions that have come from him and members of his administration on the Iran matter is breathtaking. If this is the kind of “leadership” that blows your hair back, then I’m glad you’re in a shrinking minority.

From your post I assume that you are totally in favor of this war, so just a quick question: further assuming that you voted for (or at least supported) Trump during the 2024 election, what did you think then about his promise that there would be no new Middle East wars, no regime change wars, and that those who favored such wars should vote for Harris? Did you know that he was lying at the time and that of course he would start the wars that you always wanted, or have you totally changed your opinion on this: that when Trump promised no new wars in 2024, that sounded great at the time, and now that we’re engaged in one very hot war and at least a few other foreign conflict situations, well, that’s great, too, because, after all, it’s Trump who’s doing it. Just wondering. P.S. “Another two or three weeks”? When was the last time a war in the Middle East ended after just a few weeks? Where is your head at, man?

Exactly. In plain English, “anti-Semitism” means hatred of Jewish people. That’s how the word is universally used and understood. People I’ve encountered who try to obfuscate this fact by saying that semitic languages include Arabic and Amharic, etc. etc., often have been accused of anti-Semitism themselves, and they’re just trying to muddy the waters by calling into doubt the very legitimacy of the word.

Exactly. Western meddling in Iran goes back to Alexander the Great.

Great summary. The immediate benefits of this attack are: (1) The buried testimony of a 14-year-old girl sexually abused by Trump is no longer in the headlines, at least for now. (whew!) (2) An overseas conflict provides some rationale for meddling in the 2026 elections in some way. (3) A “war president” generally gets higher approval ratings in nationwide polling. (This worked wonders for Bush II, who managed to convince lots of Americans that attacking Iraq was a great idea; though it’s likely to backfire on Trump, as nobody wants what he’s doing.) And while, as you point out, the Saudis and Emiratis (and also Qatar) have plowed money toward Trump (Rachel Maddow a few days ago gave a good summary of the “follow the money” argument), making it look like they’ve purchased this attack, and while Iran has been a rival to the Gulf states in many ways (and has been involved in a proxy war with the Saudis in Yemen), I’m not sure how total chaos in Iran would benefit them, at least over the short term, with their airports getting bombed and tourists staying away, the Strait of Hormuz closed, etc.

Not to belabor the point, but scholars from various fields are in broad agreement about the historical existence of Jesus, and about his crucifixion, based on some existing texts by historians contemporary with the period who mention these events, and based on other evaluative tools that professional historians utilize in piecing together events from antiquity. Wikipedia’s page on <Crucifixion of Jesus> discusses these issues, particular the “Historicity” section, and if you’re a Wikipedia skeptic, the article is heavily annotated, so you can go back to the source articles. Are we absolutely certain that the Jewish Elders condemned Jesus and that the Romans then carried out the execution? No, but I think, based on centuries of research, we can be reasonably certain, which has to be good enough. Are we absolutely certain how Hitler, Eva Braun, and Blondi were killed? You tell me. More pertinent perhaps is the way in which the statement “the Jews killed Jesus” has been twisted into a trope that has been effectively exploited by antisemites for centuries. Actually, if it’s true (as it likely is) that some Jews (the Jewish Elders) had a hand in killing Jesus, that’s the least antisemitic statement you can make. It demonstrates that Jewish people in power, when challenged, behave exactly the same as other people in power; and that Jews are in fact the same as everyone else.

What historians identify as Jesus is just that -- the person, human just like you and me, who lived for some thirty years in Roman Judea and was executed. And you’re right, that should have no relevance to anyone’s life today, but given the subsequent growth of the Jesus cult, the actual facts of his life are necessarily of interest and relevance to scholarship. The historical accounts that you dismiss are actually not as unreliable as you claim. Two millennia of scholarship have enabled researchers to gauge the reliability of historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and others who wrote about Jesus, and the basic facts of Jesus’s life are pretty widely agreed upon, though details are thin. Simple common sense enables historians and others to distinguish between what’s clearly mythological and what might be real.

What you say makes no sense. The comparison with Dionysus discusses attributes of the mythologized Jesus -- the vast fictions that were written about him later. It has nothing to do with whether there was a human named Jesus of Nazareth who, for a brief time, was a bugbear to local Jewish authorities in Roman Judea. I have no argument with what Google AI says here, but it completely misses the point.

You’re quite right: the “Jews killed Jesus” trope has been used endlessly, for more than two thousand years, to rouse up antisemitism. My own brother-in-law, a disgusting antisemite, says this again and again. However, as lots of people here have pointed out, that doesn’t erase the fact that some Jews, namely the Jewish Elders who put Jesus on trial and condemned him for sedition, had a role in killing Jesus. (The Romans of course carried out the execution.) I think there’s historical evidence, and much agreement among scholars, that these events occurred. Of course, in this regard, the Jewish Elders were behaving no differently from other people with power, across all eras and all cultures, when faced with a troublemaker who challenged them. (And also, at the same time, thousands of other Jews were Jesus’s ardent followers.) I think what the simplistic “Jews killed Jesus” trope and its long-lasting power tells us is that it doesn’t take much to rile up a crowd, if you can produce an “other” whom they can blame for their problems, regardless of how illogical -- whether the “others” are Jews, or Muslims, or Tutsis (in Rwanda), or trans people, or Blacks, or people who happen to speak Spanish.

As I understand it, the Romans considered the whole Jesus issue to be a provincial matter, and they were reluctant to get directly involved. So the Jewish Elders convened the Sanhedrin trials, which condemned Jesus of sedition. This, then, gave the Romans the “documents” they needed to step in and carry out the execution (by crucifixion, as you say).

I think you’re only considering the two extreme possibilities. There’s plenty of evidence from historians of the period (Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, and others) that Jesus existed, and was tried and executed. And while he apparently had a sizeable following of commoner Jews, he challenged other Jews who had power (the Elders), who saw him as a big-time troublemaker. So they put him on trial and worked with the imperial power (the Romans) to have him executed; as such, the Jewish Elders behaved no differently from other people with power, across all ages and cultures. Afterward, Jesus’s followers grew into a cult (a few of them writing the Gospels -- part fact, heavily embellished, and much fiction), which over time developed the absurdist superstructure of what became Christian belief (referring to the “son of God” stuff, not Jesus’s actual teachings). Stephen Stills probably has it mostly right -- that Jesus was the world’s “first nonviolent revolutionary.” I’m sure, if Jesus could somehow know, he would be surprised, and more than a little puzzled, that he still holds so much influence in the world today.

She looks like Stockard Channing when she played Rizzo in the movie "Grease."