Living on Illusions

 

"Hope is a good breakfast, 

but a bad supper."

(Francis Bacon)

  Bacon meets fishermen in Chelsea and offers to buy their net, which hasn't been pulled in yet, for 10 shillings (they were asking for 30).

  The fishermen refuse, hoping for a better catch.

  The net comes up empty (or with three small fish, depending on the version), and Bacon remarks that hope serves well at the start (like breakfast), but makes a poor meal at the end of the day when you need concrete results.

  Hope is useful at the beginning of an endeavor because it motivates action, sustains morale, and drives future projects.

  However, when it replaces concrete achievement and lingers indefinitely as mere expectation, it becomes harmful and turns into ILLUSION.

  Francis Bacon is a thinker associated with empiricism and the valuation of practical experience, frequently warning against illusions and empty expectations.

Empiricism: The philosophical method and theory of knowledge that defines experience as the source of truth.

Practical experience: The everyday application of this method ("doing," testing, and observing).

  Given what has been laid out so far, we could wander into countless meditations. 

  I'll pick one at random...

  Many people don't understand how the Stock Market works; this situation Bacon lived through is a great example.

  Francis made a sort of bet that when the net was hauled in, it would yield more fish than what he had offered to pay the fishermen.

  Every bet is an act of hope.

  The fishermen preferred to risk the venture without a backer, sort of like not taking their company public on the Stock Market.

  Notice that no one is taking advantage of anyone here.

"Experience never enables us to reach 

absolute certainty.

We must not seek to obtain more

 than probabilities."

(Bertrand Russell)

  We don't know the future; much of the time, we are placing bets.

  We win some, we lose others.

  If we suffer repeated defeats (or results that fall way short of our expectations) and keep persisting in the exact same action... hope turns into illusion.

  We also live by illusion; it fills our time.

  "I" don't recommend it. I lean more toward "Francis Bacon", I need practical results.

Predictable Bad - Link

✧✧✧

.

2030 Probabilities

 

Bertrand Russell:  "Experience never allows us to reach absolute certainty. 

  We should not seek to obtain more than probabilities."

William:  What is likely to happen over the next 4 years?

  Barring some wild outlier event, the probabilities are pretty clear.

  The 2020 pandemic, which dragged on until 2022, was an unpredictable event.

   Unless something like that happens, such as a major war in Europe turning things for the worse, Brazil's future is a predictable bad scenario.

  2027 will likely be a repeat of almost everything we saw in 2015.

  The difference is that with an independent Central Bank, we’ll drift into a recession a bit more smoothly.

  However, 2028 is going to be catastrophic, just like 2016 was.

  This time around, I hope there’s no impeachment process, it doesn't accomplish anything anyway.

  The majority's appetite for a nanny state always wins out in the end.

  Geraldo (the Vice President) might even patch things up a bit like Michel Temer (Dilma’s VP) did, but the "coup" narrative is the only thing voters will hear (not to generalize), and they'll just vote someone from the left back into office in 2030.

   The Bolsonaro phenomenon won't happen again precisely because of "bolsonarismo".

  After Jair blew it yet again by picking Flávio over Tarcísio, I honestly don't even have the stomach to look at that family anymore.

  I doubt I'm the only one.

  Hardline bolsonaristas have already started launching harsh attacks on Tarcísio, and they'll do the exact same thing to anyone else who stands out.

  Bottom line: the same old mess.

  Brazil isn't going to collapse, obviously, but economically it's going to stay stagnant, with a strong likelihood of taking a step backward.

  In 2030, the hardcore die-hards will push someone tied to Lula into the runoff.

  Hardcore bolsonaristas will put a Bolsonaro in the runoff, maybe Michelle, depending on how she performs in the Senate.

  For the first time in my life, I probably won't even bother going out to vote.

  But don't think I'm sad or depressed.

  Of course, I wish the odds were a bit more in our favor.

  However, on a personal level, I have a very good life.

  Assuming nothing out of the left field happens, like a serious illness, it'll be 4 years of peace, prosperity, and plenty of philosophy, just the way I like it.

  Amen?

Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Filling Our Days

 

 "Life is much too short to allow us to be 

interested in everything, but it is well that we 

should be interested in as many things as 

are necessary to fill our days."

 (Bertrand Russell)

William >> What terrifies me the most about going to prison is having nothing to do all day.

  When I put something in the microwave to heat up for about 3 minutes (just as an example), it takes forever if I stay focused only on that.

   If I use that time to wash a few dishes, it flies right by.

  Take away 8 hours of sleep, and you’re left with 16 hours where an inmate faces major limitations in how to fill their time.

  It must be awful; those 16 hours probably feel like 30.

  Having nothing to do is deeply boring.

  Remember how, when we were kids, we were always looking for something to do?

   To kids, everything is new, and anything can distract us.

  The thing is, as time goes on, fewer things hold our attention, and that’s why I argue for valuing our responsibilities more.

  Please, I’m not talking about overworking yourself, but rather about not making a big deal out of simple things.

  For the most part, I never did.

  Going to school, for example, I don't remember complaining even once.

  For me, it was a way to pass the time.

  Gaining important knowledge for my future and meeting other kids my age.

  Working presented more complicated situations because I had to take whatever came along, coming from a very poor family.

  My first job was at a farmer's market stand; I didn't mind the work itself, I was even grateful to be able to bring some money home.

  The real drama was having to wake up before 4:00 AM.

  For an 11-year-old kid, that was sheer torture. 😉

  I had other jobs with terrible aspects to them.

  But most of the time, I didn't mind filling my life with work.

  I didn't have that drama many people have, as if time spent on the job isn't real life.

  They say the best seasoning for any food is hunger.

  If you’ve already eaten your fill, another portion of your favorite meal just isn't that appealing.

  The same thing goes for work.

  Time off is only so good because you had to work beforehand.

  Try looking at work as a way to fill your lifetime.

  It won't eliminate those occasional rough patches—there almost always are some.

  But you'll probably notice a lot of good moments, too.

  A little bit of light where things once seemed pitch black.

  Amen? - Link

✧✧✧ 

.

Enigma That Devours Me

 

 

  There is that man who, while dating, is charming, romantic, and helpful.

  After getting married, he turns into a tyrant, escalating to domestic violence.

  In the past, this was easier to happen; dating in general was short and heavily monitored.

  The woman could only truly get to know her boyfriend after he had already become her husband.

  Obviously, this also applies to a man regarding his girlfriend.

  It turns out that in this dynamic, the woman is at greater risk because the man is biologically stronger and is hardly ever the one physically assaulted.

  After children are born, the situation gets more complicated.

  The woman has already left her parents' house, and returning with more mouths to feed is not always possible.

  Before the 1970s, pregnancy happened quickly, as contraceptive methods were not very efficient.

  That being said…

  Communists and socialists claim to be the main ones responsible for improvements in working conditions.

  I disagree.

  Negotiation between people is normal; it is part of our group life.

  The rest is the law of supply and demand in 90% of situations.

  During the slavery period, there was forced labor, but let's focus on the post-1900 era.

  Especially since the main party responsible for fighting the slave trade was capitalist England.

  My point in this meditation is:

  Historically, socialists have acted like that gentle man who promises the moon and stars to a young woman, even making her give up another, more realistic suitor.

  After marriage, he shows his most tyrannical face.

  Take our greatest socialist experience, the USSR.

  There is no record that the poor worker in Russia had a quality of life much superior to that of the poor worker in the United States; generally, the opposite happened.

  We knew China before it opened up to some capitalism, and we know it after.

  It becomes obvious that the improvement in the quality of life of the Chinese worker was brought about more by the ideas of Adam Smith than by the ideas of Karl Marx.

  Concluding the meditation…

  In the past, a young woman did not have enough time to get to know the guy.

  For a long time now, dating can take quite a while and involve a lot of freedom.

  Even waiting until marriage to have sex is no longer a common practice in our Western culture.

  In addition to face-to-face contact, there is virtual contact where the young woman can observe a lot about the suitor through his posts.

  Even with all of this, knowing what a person is like in shared life only happens by actually getting married; however, the volume of information and the time to get to know the person better have increased significantly.

  If the man already has a harmful track record, the woman cannot play the role of the innocent victim of all male society.

  Certainly, a process of choice on her part took place.

  Socialism has this harmful track record with theoretical and practical information regarding how it behaves and what kind of relationship it has with the quality of life it delivers to the people when it comes to power.

  For a society to be fooled before 1989 (being very generous with the date) is tolerable, but after that, it is surreal.

  It is like that young woman who has all the available knowledge to choose the best suitor (or the least bad one), but gets involved with the one she knows will bring many problems.

  Don't ask me why this still happens; it defies any logic.

  Something as simple to understand as not spending more than you take in and that there is no such thing as a free lunch doesn't sink into the heads of billions of humans who seem satisfactorily intelligent.

  I am not religious, but it seems like something out of "demons"… in the sense of some mental disorder that mysteriously affects many without me being able to objectively identify the cause.

  This is an enigma that devours me - Link

✧✧✧

.

US debt

 

Stuart >> "The US national debt has surpassed $40 trillion, which represents a debt-to-GDP ratio of roughly 123% to 125%."

William>> Most nations I can think of have become reckless with their spending. 

  The US, Europe, and countries in Asia are no exception. 

  But does that make reckless spending right?!

  France has been doing this for decades, a collapse is inevitable, and it's going to be worse than Greece's.

  These are wealthy nations that have burned through all the cushion they had. 

  In the case of poorer nations like Argentina and Venezuela, the collapse comes much sooner, as we’ve already seen.

  Japan doesn't owe money to the rest of the world; through a complex setup, their debt is mostly internal.

  That's different from Brazil, where foreign reserves no longer cover the total debt.

  People are under the illusion that the government can simply print money to pay its bills. 

  The reality is that issuing unbacked currency causes inflation. 

  And here lies the Americans' huge advantage: the Brazilian Real is only used in Brazil, so if Lula prints more money, all that inflation stays strictly within Brazil. 

  The US Dollar, however, is used worldwide, so if Trump prints more money, the inflation that should have been purely American gets diluted across the entire globe.

  Any sophomore economics student at an average college knows these things. 

  Governments and their experts know them too. But unfortunately, human stupidity knows no bounds...

US debt - Link

✧✧✧

.

Pink Floyd

Cristina >> Study up! 

  So you don't embarrass yourself posting Pink Floyd songs while voting for right-wing politicians.

William >> I separate the art from the artist. 

  For example, I like Chico Buarque's compositions, but I lean center-right, and he is a historic communist (or socialist). 

  Chico was born in 1944; in 1960 he was 16. 

  I'm not going to look it up, but the songwriters behind Pink Floyd's music must be from that same generation. 

  The group Pink Floyd was formed in 1965 in London.    The peak of their success occurred during the 1970s.

  Those folks who were born or grew up in and around the 1960s were heavily influenced by the motto "Sex, drugs, and rock and roll." 

  And by the philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who became "trendy." 

  Rock music and critiques of the "capitalist system" took over the so-called "West."

  Gramsci never wrote a book ready for publication. 

   His texts were notes taken in school notebooks during the time he was imprisoned in Italy, and they were only organized and published posthumously starting in 1948.

   "Prison Notebooks" is a collection of 32 notebooks written by him between 1929 and 1935. 

   It is in this work that he develops and deepens his most influential theories, such as cultural hegemony, organic intellectuals, the war of position, passive revolution... the kind where you introduce certain concepts into the existing culture, breaking it down from within.

  The artistic and academic spheres were the preferred venues for introducing concepts that would lead to the gradual replacement of the "right" by the "left."

   Religion remained the "Opium of the People," a structure to be demolished. 

  Without further ado...

  Religiosity persists strongly around the world. 

  The human mind's connection to "spirituality" is stronger than Gramsci's theory predicted.

  The Internet has decentralized information; academia now has to defend its theories before the public, it's no longer enough just to flash a diploma at people.

   Artists no longer have the privacy of old-school media, where their PR teams could showcase only their best physical and behavioral angles.

   Although art fan clubs still exist, artists are increasingly just "normal" people who happened to get famous. 

  The "King of Soccer" or the "Pop God" have their moments of glory and can quickly fall into oblivion... just like their opinions, if they aren't grounded in solid ARGUMENTS.

Generation of 1960 - Link

✧✧✧

.

Devil’s Advocate

 

Paola >> Why doesn’t a left-wing business owner split their profits equally with their employees, given how strongly they defend socialism?

William >> I’ll play “devil’s advocate” here 😉 … I think that’s going to be the best way to get my point across.

 “The phrase 'devil’s advocate' refers to someone who defends an opposing or unpopular point of view, not because they agree with it, but to test the strength of arguments, expose flaws in reasoning, and enrich the debate. It originates from an old position in the Catholic Church.”

(Gemini)

   

  Some people on the left are indeed hypocrites, maybe even the majority. 

  They only want to redistribute what belongs to others.

  But then there’s the pragmatist.

  Let’s suppose I were a wealthy socialist who advocated for equal profit sharing. 

  I would only do that if everyone else did it too. 

  If many people kept accumulating wealth and living lavishly… I’d feel like a bit of a fool living below my means with my family.

  And here we hit the main barrier of Karl Marx’s theories: “human nature.”

  Absolutely everyone would have to want to share equally what they inherited or worked hard to earn. Those who don’t want to will be forced to do so by the “State.”

  But as it turns out, there is no single individual called the State. 

  There are people (elected or not) holding powerful positions. 

  These people are also subject to wanting to accumulate wealth, it’s human nature, there’s no escaping it.

  I’m not saying everyone is greedier than they should be. 

  I’m saying that many human beings are born with that trait.

  To make a comparison so everyone can understand … it’s like wanting to ban sex before or outside of marriage.

  You can “preach” that idea all you want.

  But it’s naive to believe you’ll eliminate those practices from society. 

  It’s quite common that not even those who preach it with strong conviction can resist temptation.

  Socialist leaders usually live in luxury. - Link

✧✧✧

.

Property

 

YouTuber >> Social inequality is neither natural nor divine; according to Rousseau, it is a historical construction.

The natural man was free and driven solely by self-love and pity.

  However, through perfectibility, comparison and vanity emerged, making us crave the recognition of others.

  The milestone of this servitude was private property, which divided the rich and the poor.

  Finally, the elite created the State and laws under the guise of order and protection, institutionalizing domination and political inequality.

    https://youtu.be/uN18Ayeiq6k

William >> Although many associate the rejection of private property with Karl Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau defended this idea much earlier, considering the first person who enclosed a piece of land a villain and everyone else gullible.

  I disagree; I consider this decision to fence off land to be smart and practical.

  Property allowed people to put down roots, develop agriculture, and build a culture, overcoming the instability and constant wars of primitive nomadism when land belonged to no one.

  Successful private property gave rise to powers that guarantee contracts and individual rights, allowing us to adapt nature to our needs.

  Socialism, by demanding public or state property, resembles absolute monarchies where everything belonged to a king or supreme leader.

  In practice, even communist countries like China and Cuba recognize the importance of markets and private businesses.

  Private property is an essential pillar of capitalism and individual freedom.

  While the socialist model centralizes absolute power in supreme leaders, turning nations into the property of rulers, the Western system ensures that the State acts as a protector of rights rather than the owner of everything.

Supreme Leader - Link

✧✧✧

.

Americans and Latin America

 

Juliana: Is it true that during the 19th century the United States tried to prevent Latin American countries from becoming independent?

William: Cuba officially became independent from Spain in 1902.

  There was significant help from the Americans, who occupied the island.

  Until 1934 they had a strong influence, and after that, they started easing off.

  Cuba "could" have had a destiny similar to Hawaii or Puerto Rico, but then the 1959 Communist Revolution happened, and we know how that turned out.

  Either way, it remained independent.

  Panama separated from Colombia in 1903.

  The Americans wanted to take over the construction of the Panama Canal, but the Colombian government wasn't reliable, so they fomented the separation.

  As far as I know, Panama is satisfactorily independent; it was a good deal for them to break away from unstable Colombia.

  Aside from those nations, you have the three Guianas, French, Dutch, and British.

I'm not aware of the Americans acting significantly in those regions.

  All the other Latin American nations were already independent, and I don't know of the Americans doing anything to reverse that.

  If you're talking economically... take the case of Brazil, we chose our own paths.

  I don't know of the Americans being decisive in getting Getúlio Vargas to power (just an example).

  During the 1964 coup, the Americans would have preferred Brazil to be a democracy, but since we were heading toward a potential Cuban-style dictatorship, they chose to support the military, who seemed like the lesser of two evils.

  Moving on to more recent times... Sarney, Collor, Itamar, FHC, Lula, Dilma... they were all our choices.

I don't know what blame we can put on the Americans for not developing as much as they did...

United States' Backyard - Link

✧✧✧

.

China and Taiwan

 

Commentator: “Prioritize fraternity, love the American citizen and the Chinese citizen, hate the government and the government alone, so that we may thus have a better humanity.”

William: Hmm... that calls for some caveats.

  It's the same old story.

  Many people have this illusion that you have the government on one side and the people on the other.

  As far as I know, Obama, Biden, Trump... were democratically elected; the will of the people was carried out.

  In China’s case, there was a civil war between communists and non-communists.

  The communist majority won, and the non-communists took refuge in Taiwan.

  The Chinese people live how they want to live in mainland China, and they live how they want to live on the island.

  Peoples make choices, and their leaders are the result of those choices.

  Dissociating government decisions from the will of the people... I haven't had that illusion in a long time.

  Take Russia, for example. Now that the war has bogged down, many Russians are questioning Putin's decision to invade.

  But in the first year, it was mass support.

  Especially after he had already invaded Georgia and Crimea.

  Hating Putin and loving the Russian people... it just doesn't make sense.

Note: Hate is a very strong feeling; I just used the same expression as the commentator.

“I” don't hate Chinese and Russians, but I prefer Americans—I know quite a bit of history, and their actions (overall) are more “defensible.”

✧✧✧ 

.

Korea vs. Brazil

 

Paul >> In 1970, Korea sent young people en masse to study engineering.

  By 2012, it was exporting microchips instead of fish.

  Those who invest in STEM reap industries.

  Those who invest in rhetoric reap lawsuits.

William >> 2026 Index of Economic Freedom.

* South Korea: 19th place - Link

* United States: 22nd place

* Brazil: 134th place

* North Korea: 176th place

  You can invest in whatever you want, but with such leftist economic policies, no nation prospers.

  (Prosperity, to me, means the quality of life of the people).

  Not that economic freedom on its own is enough, but it is an essential starting point.

  Even a dictatorship can make economic progress if the dictator doesn't suffocate the means of production too much.

  Chile is a good example in Latin America.

  Pinochet intervened a lot politically, but economically he stimulated the free market as much as possible.

  Let's suppose Brazil encourages young people to study engineering.

  The business environment here is terrible.

  The ones that create the most jobs are small and medium-sized enterprises.

  They rarely need engineers.

  Large companies are leaving.

  A guy can get a degree in engineering and end up working abroad; there are no companies here to absorb that kind of labor.

✧✧✧

.

Unstable Trump

 

  Unstable Trump said the rise in oil prices is Ukraine’s fault for attacking the Russian fleet.

  We all know the surge in oil prices is the result of the US vs. Iran conflict.

  Blaming the Ukrainians is just another piece of idiocy from Trump that’s not even worth discussing. Let’s move on to something more provocative…

   Iran is attacking Saudi Arabia and other neighboring nations.

   Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait…

   Why don’t these nations unite and counterattack Iran?!

   Is Iran, as messed up as it is, more powerful than all its neighbors combined?!

   Their economies are being affected just as much as, or even more than, the American economy.

    Trump is an idiot.

    The Arabs are idiots.

STAY STRONG, UKRAINE! - Link

✧✧✧

.

Oxfam Study

 

 

   “A new Oxfam study reveals that while Brazil has made progress in social indicators and poverty reduction in recent years, the concentration of income and wealth at the top remains alarming.
  The report shows that the top 1% holds nearly a quarter of all national income, maintaining control over wealth and political influence.
   Gender and racial disparities also persist as central pillars of Brazilian socioeconomic inequality.”

  (Globo - September 2026)

William >> I make 2k, my boss makes 10k, 5 times as much.

  You make 10k, your boss makes 100k, 10 times as much.

  Looking strictly at the financial side, you live much better than I do.

  Inequality isn't inherently evil.

  “The report shows that the top 1% holds nearly a quarter of all national income, maintaining control over wealth and political influence.”

William >> That’s just the same old “surplus value” dogma, the idea that the worker creates wealth and the employer steals (absorbs) it from them.

  But without the company, what kind of wealth would the worker create on their own?!

   If workers could generate wealth all by themselves... why would they go work for someone else?!

  Shouldn't the person who built the business have control over their own assets?!

  A rich person's vote counts just as much as a poor person's vote, and since there are far more poor people, the political influence of non-wealthy voters is actually much greater.

 “Gender and racial disparities also persist 

as central pillars of Brazilian socioeconomic inequality.”

  Here’s another point where it’s hard to find a real correlation.

  There is nothing in our laws stopping anyone from becoming an entrepreneur once they reach adulthood.

  If one gender or race takes bigger risks, they’ll take bigger falls, but they’ll also achieve the best outcomes.

  Other races and genders that feel like "victims" should take more risks, too.

  If they are as competent as they think they are, the results will follow.

✧✧✧

.

Aversion to men

 

Karol >> "The only thing that makes me want to get married or have any kind of relationship with a man is the possibility of having children. 

  I catch myself really praying to be infertile in some way, so I can 'free' myself from the nightmare of dealing with men."

William >> "A person who wants to have children praying to be infertile!? 

  Right off the bat, you can see a lot of immaturity there. 

  The difficulty in dealing with 'men' in such a generalized way as in this post also suggests that the problem is likely with you, perhaps that same 'immaturity' I mentioned. 

  Across the various environments I’ve been through, school, church, work, outings, I’ve met countless women. 

  Some had personalities that were very incompatible with mine, so I preferred to keep my distance; but that happened with men too. 

  Most people I’ve met in life are good people, pretty decent overall. 

  A few were very compatible with me, great colleagues usually from work or school.

   I’m straight, so I don't feel sexual attraction to men.   

  We can only choose one person to date and marry, and I live very happily with my wife. 

  Treating all women (or men) as if they were all the same makes no logical sense; each person has their own personality.

  Now, if you have an aversion to men, that takes us into a different realm. 

  You might be asexual, but in that case, you’d also have an aversion to relationships with women. 

  If you are attracted to women, the best path is to embrace who you are. 

  When you find a partner to marry, you can turn to a sperm bank. 

  In Brazil, it is legal to use assisted reproduction techniques, including artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization with donated/frozen sperm. 

  A mother can register the child directly at the Civil Registry Office by presenting a statement from the human reproduction center, with only maternal parentage listed, without the need for a lawsuit.

  'Either you become who you were born to be, or you will spend your life making excuses for never having become that person.' 

(Friedrich Nietzsche) - Link

✧✧✧

.

Taking from the rich

 

  The Personal Income Tax in Brazil was established on December 31, 1922. 

  Actual collection began in 1924. 

  The tax was introduced to diversify state revenues, which until then relied heavily on customs duties. 

   A progressive and schedular model (divided by income categories) was adopted, exempting lower-income brackets to focus taxation on the population with the highest purchasing power at the time.

   In 1924, the exemption threshold was fixed: only those earning more than 10 contos de réis per year paid taxes. 

  In today's terms, assuming an exchange rate of 5 reais to the dollar, that would be like earning over R$ 8,500 per month. 

  The tax rate started at 0.5% and went up to 8% for high earners. Today, it reaches 27.5%.

  In 1950, Brazil's total tax burden was between 13% and 15% of GDP, significantly lower than the current ~32% to 33%.

   I researched all of this to show that the narrative and push to increasingly tax the rich is nothing new. 

   If it were going to work, it would have worked by now.

   Brazil is not a developed nation (with a very high HDI) because of our ideological choices.

  A maximum tax burden of 30%, a serious fight against corruption, and center-right policies are the steps that would naturally lead us toward high development... not overnight, given how extensive the damage has been. 

  But at least we would be heading in the right direction, and in two generations, Brazil would be recognizably better. 

  We would become at least a modern-day Canada, with a much larger GDP due to the size of our population."

Largest Economies 2026 - Link

✧✧✧
.

Six-Day War

 

  Ernest Hemingway:   "No matter how necessary a war may be, it is always a crime."

William>> When dialogue is not enough, the option is to yield on everything, to "turn the other cheek."

  I am not a masochist.

  I prefer to try "self-defense."

  Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

  Israel did this against the Arabs; that is the only reason it still exists.

  In 1948, when Israel declared independence, the neighboring Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon invaded the territory.

  The Israeli War of Independence lasted from May 15, 1948, to July 20, 1949.

  In 1967, countries like Egypt, Syria, and Jordan began surrounding Israeli borders with armies and closed vital shipping lanes.

Realizing the imminent risk of invasion, Israel decided to act first.

  The preemptive strike of the "Six-Day War" took place.

  The Israeli air force launched a surgical surprise attack and destroyed almost the entire Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground, in a matter of hours.

  Without air cover, the troops of the neighboring countries were left vulnerable.

  The speed of the action guaranteed Israel's victory and reshaped the Middle Eastern map.

Wipe off the map - Link

  I don't like wars, but if they happen, I always root for the more civilized side... in the case of the Cold War, I preferred the Americans; in the Middle East, I prefer Israel.

✧✧✧

.

Far-right

 

Jean: Left-wing extremism is just as bad as right-wing extremism. 

  I don't even need to mention the atrocities committed by the far-right, mainly because everyone already knows about them and condemns them.

William: Actually, you do, because a lot of the atrocities attributed to the "far-right" don't hold up under logical analysis. 

  I'm center-right the right advocates for minimal government, while the far-right advocates for no government at all, which is anarchy (libertarianism).

  Keep in mind that "anarchy" doesn't mean a weak state like in Somalia or Haiti; it means no state (government) whatsoever. 

  A far-right regime is just as utopian as Communism... which also preaches the end of the state.

Adam Smith vs Karl Marx - Link

✧✧✧

.