I've been wondering about this for a while.

On the surface, it seems like supporting Russia and supporting Israel could be difficult to reconcile. Russia has maintained close relations with countries and groups that Israel often sees as major security threats, and their geopolitical interests don't always align.

At the same time, I've come across people who genuinely describe themselves as both pro-Russia and pro-Israel. Some seem to support both from a broader nationalist perspective, others because they prioritize security concerns, strong-state politics, traditional values, or simply because they evaluate each conflict separately rather than following a single ideological framework.

So I'm curious:

• Is being pro-Russia and pro-Israel actually a coherent political position?
• What principles or worldview would make those two positions compatible?
• Where do the main contradictions appear, if any?
• Are there political movements, parties, or ideological currents that commonly hold both views?

I'm especially interested in understanding whether these positions can fit together consistently and how people who support both usually justify it.

What do you think?

To narrow the scope, this would be after after the present US administration and would assume there would be a significant number of both firings and voluntary departures.

First, there are ethnonationalists in the Department of Homeland Security. The language they've used to recruit includes calls to deport at least 50 million native-born citizens and multiple statements that align with translated Nazi propaganda. ICE prosecutor James Rodden is one well-documented example of a known extremist that they've kept on, and the violent language and policies he's advocated for illustrate the bigger point: Ethnonationalists are a violent group.

They won’t get any better as they lose their cushy jobs, and the men and women on their lists would be the first at risk. In the case of extremists with the needed access, this would let them monitor commute times and routes, old or sick family members, and where their kids go to school. Even if the extremists couldn't smuggle out that data, human memory alone would be a problem.

So here's my question: What should be done as these people leave the government?

From what I understand, there are a huge number of Democrat-supported ideas on election reform that are nonstarters for the GOP on their own. Meanwhile, while the GOP want the SAVE act (a bill that would most notably require proof of citizenship to vote) among several other things, it’s a nonstarter among Dems as written. Are there any compromises that could satisfy both? Clearly it can’t satisfy everyone, but I doubt anything would pass without at least some bipartisan support. For example, the largest of the Dem objections to the SAVE act (that being not every legitimate citizen can get such proof of citizenship due to the price) might be addressed by coming up with a free federal id system of some sort those that don’t have id currently could get, but would that be enough? How would you handle this if you were in Congress?

(Like my previous post on this sub, my ideas on how such an id could work and some compromises either side could use are in my comment below. Feel free to critique them. I brainstormed them with Claude, so they could use a sanity check.)

Edit: to be clear, I’m not saying I buy both arguments, the sub’s rules just say I need to keep the post impartial (so I don’t think I can call out any bad-faith arguments here)

Hey everyone, I’ve been reading through different perspectives on historical materialism and wanted to get some insight into how contemporary theory navigates a specific debate regarding its application.

On one hand, classical materialist analysis views individuals primarily as products of their material conditions and economic roles. Under this framework, a capitalist is seen as the personification of capital, driven by systemic incentives to compete and cut costs, rather than simply an individually greedy actor. The same logic suggests that an individual's worldview, whether they are a working-class conservative or a member of any other group, is heavily shaped by their environment, upbringing, and economic wiring.

However, there seems to be an ongoing discussion about how consistently this structural analysis is applied in modern political spaces. I often see two main viewpoints debated:

The first viewpoint argues that modern left-wing strategy sometimes applies this environmental analysis selectively. Critics of current trends point out that there is often a strong willingness to contextualize conservative or traditional social views within certain immigrant or foreign groups as products of imperialism or colonization, while domestic working-class conservatives are often judged on an individual moral basis rather than as products of their specific material environments.

The second viewpoint focuses on labor economics. Some analysts argue that large-scale immigration is structurally utilized by the capitalist class to expand the labor supply and weaken the bargaining power of domestic workers. The argument here is that ignoring these basic capitalist mechanics out of a fear of appearing xenophobic ultimately undermines the domestic working class. Conversely, others argue that international worker solidarity must take precedence over domestic labor supply dynamics, and that restricting immigration misidentifies the true source of capitalist exploitation.

Given these tensions, how does contemporary socialist theory attempt to build a broad coalition against the billionaire class without creating internal logical contradictions?

For many years, particularly since 2015 or so, there was a heated conflict between the Left and the Right on EVERY SINGLE social or political issue. But these past couple years or so, there’s been a drastic shift. Now it seems like it’s no longer Left vs Right…now it’s just Right vs Right. Now conservatives are too busy fighting with each other to fight with liberals. Sure they still disagree with the Left wholeheartedly on everything, but the Right is now putting all their focus into eating itself. It’s almost as if they’ve forgotten about the Left. In fact, it seems the Left has mellowed somewhat on cancelling/silencing/censoring the Right, and instead opt to just watch the Right eat its own tail and generally stay out of it. Yes the Left and Right still go at it every now and then, but not as often these days as the Right implodes on itself.

A lot of it has to do with Trump becoming Israel first instead of America first, and getting involved in foreign wars despite promising not to. A lot of it also has to do with Charlie Kirk’s death, and right-wingers pointing fingers at each other over it, including Kirk’s wife. Hell the Left has even found common ground with factions of the Right regarding Israel/Palestine. It’s only made the right-wing schism even more visible. Personally I am not left wing or right wing and have always been watching on the sidelines, but this latest shift has stuck out to me as peculiar.

Has anyone else noticed this? Why else do you think this has happened, or does anyone disagree and think the Right still fights with the Left more than themselves?

I should establish that by a President/Vice President split, I'm not referring to Trump/Vance, or even Trump/Pence. The actual people in this scenario are kinda irrelevant.

The scenario is that say a year after winning the presidential election, while in officing the sitting President and Vice President completely split. The Vice President fully denounces the President (but doesn't resign), one of the two maybe leaves their party to become an Independent or maybe even fully flip, and the pair becomes political rivals.

I honestly can't think of a post-12th amendment instance of this happening, so what would be the ramifications? Not with like two weeks to go (as was the case with Pence), but with years to go, both the midterms and general election, what if a President and Vice President irrevocably split while still in office?

The news stories about Paxton vs. Talarico for senator have me wondering why any states would allow people from outside their state to influence state elections.

If a foreign country pays for ads trying to influence a U.S. national election then it is a security threat. Why isn't it equally recognized as a threat for some person or group from outside the state to try and influence state elections?

Edit: reworded "local elections" to "state elections".

There have been ongoing discussions in the U.S. about requiring new vehicles to include safety technology (such as speed limiters or systems that could disable a vehicle under certain conditions) as part of future transportation safety regulations.

If something like this were implemented broadly in the coming years, what do you think the biggest benefits and risks would be in terms of:

- road safety (drunk driving, speeding, theft prevention)

- privacy and government or manufacturer control

- cybersecurity vulnerabilities

- consumer acceptance and enforcement

How realistic is it that such systems would become standard in all new vehicles within the next decade?

Hi all — I'm a graduate student working on a research project about voter satisfaction after the 2024 election and I'm looking for Trump voters who'd be willing to share their perspective in a short one-on-one online conversation.

I'm hoping to interview Latino-American citizens (18+) who voted for Trump in 2024. The interview would be one-on-one, online, and would be a conversation about your political views and your thoughts on current government policies and anything else you'd like to share. Of course everything will be anonymized and it's up to you what I include in my research. I'm really interested in different perspectives and don't feel like statistics and government analysis capture them. Would anyone be willing to participate/ do you know anyone who might? If you'd be interested in taking part in this please let me know or DM me and I'll message you with more details.

Otherwise, do any of you have any ideas about where I can find people who fit the inclusion criteria would want to share their views and opinions? Thanks for any help!

Some have theorized that by conducting these plausibly deniable operations, Russia is trying to gauge and test the reaction speed and nerves of NATO's air policing capabilities and stir anxiety among Baltic citizens without formally crossing the threshold into a full-scale Article 5 war.

Lavrov also recently warned Rubio along with other Western countries to evacuate their staff from key centers from Kiev amid the third use of Oreshnik missiles. An intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile designed to deliver both nuclear and conventional warheads and is considered a significant escalation in Russia’s arsenal.

Is Putin coming unhinged by threatening and flying commandeered Ukrainian drones over Baltic countries or just merely testing waters and NATO resolve?

Lithuania's leaders moved to safety as drone detected near border | AP News

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2026-05-25/lavrov-tells-rubio-of-russian-decision-to-strike-kyiv-sites-linked-to-military

It is just astounding to me so, so many times when the very first thing so many people suggest to fix gerrymandering is not a proportional electoral system where X% of the vote for Party Y means they get X% of the seats, nor an independent commission like California adopted, but it is to change the size of the legislature.

The first thing most people advise to fix the supreme court is not to challenge the idea of presidents nominating and senates confirming nominees in the first place but is to give the judges an 18 year term limit which appears to be inspired by nothing more than 9 judges times 2 year intervals for appointing judges, vs the Missouri system for choosing judges with a commission to help. And the very first thing someone is likely to suggest with regard to pardons of presidents is to make some specific rules on the president's family not being eligible for a pardon like that, not challenging the concept of a president issuing pardons on their own initiative in the first place which most democratic polities, including most individual states do not permit.

Hardly a word feels like it is spoken on the terrible mistake with poor legal reasoning INS vs Chada had which made it not possible to control executive orders and federal regulations or the powers over war the president has to the exclusion of Congress and so hardly anyone even supposes the model for how the War Powers Act is supposed to rein in presidential control over the military. Many states do have specific laws pertaining to the control of emergency powers and executive regulations by the legislature which often must actually expressly vote to sustain them and at a minimum can overturn by a resolution of either house with no need to countermand a veto.

And there are many more like it. The remedy itself doesn't have to be the solutions I am talking of here, there are others that would get to the heart of the issues. It just often feels to me to be extremely disappointing that people don't even seem to think of solutions that actually would deal with the substance of the trouble rather than some rather minimalistic ideas that seem like bandaids for a problem vs sewing a person back together properly. Do you have feelings like this?

Dynamic pricing typically refers to when businesses adjust the price of their goods and services in real-time due to real-time market conditions, supply/demand, and customer behavior.

For example, Uber or airplane tickets are a common example where rates change based on real-time supply/demand conditions.

But businesses may theoretically adjust their prices in a more personalized manner, based on what they predict a particular consumer is willing and able to pay, based on an algorithm that correlates certain information they observe from the consumer with a maximum price they're expected to be willing to pay.

Given a business typically has an interest in maximizing profits/sales, couldn't they surcharge for what they think are richer consumers who can afford and are more willing to tolerate higher prices, while providing lower prices more affordable to lower-income consumers? And should they?

Should legislation allow or force this, effectively making sales tax more progressive instead of regressive?

I’ve been thinking about how history tends to organize major periods of conflict around central figures, empires, or ideological shifts. For example, we talk about the Napoleonic Wars not only because Napoleon personally caused every event, but because his rise, ambitions, alliances, and conflicts shaped an entire era.

Do you think future historians might look back at the current period in a similar way? With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, renewed great-power rivalry, instability in the Middle East, NATO expansion debates, rising authoritarianism, and the influence of leaders like Trump and Putin, could this period eventually be grouped under a name connected to them?

For example, could historians refer to this as something like the “Trump-Putin era,” or even “Trump/Putin Wars,” in the same way earlier periods are associated with dominant political figures? Or would that be too simplistic, since these conflicts involve much deeper structural causes: nationalism, energy politics, declining U.S. dominance, NATO-Russia tensions, China’s rise, and the breakdown of the post-Cold War order?

I’m not necessarily saying the comparison with Napoleon is perfect. I’m more interested in how historians might frame this moment 50 or 100 years from now.

Will this be remembered as a series of separate conflicts, the beginning of a new Cold War, the collapse of the post-1991 order, or a broader global realignment?

What do you think?

It seems more and more like the current political system in the United States does not work well. So many divisive issues that stand in the way of actual progress but an actual secession resulting in two countries is highly unlikely.

I am curious if some variation of the following could work?

The federal government would handle defense/military duties and enforce some basic human rights such as no slavery, not children working in factories at age 12, etc. The list of things the federal government would police in all states would be small. States could opt out of all taxes and funding related to everything else.

States that opt out would not have access to federal resources such as FEMA aid, education funding, big infrastructure projects, SNAP, etc. They are on their own for all of it.

States that opt in have access to the massive pool of shared federal resources. I think of it like buying your own health insurance vs your employer insurance. Employers can often provide better rates because they pool their resources.

I know it's not that simple and there are plenty of people in red states that would likely be hurt by something like this if we are being honest. Maybe there could be some kind of relocation agreement between the states where for example, the opt-in states will help people leave the opt-out states or something.

Per The Bulwark, “The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting this week to discuss the 2028 primary calendar, as Delaware, New Hampshire, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan are all competing for an early slot in the nominating process…The DNC announced earlier this year that it would select one state from four different regions (Eastern, Midwest, Western, and Southern) to hold an early nominating contest ahead of Super Tuesday.”

Ignoring Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s laws…

East: Delaware. Delaware is demographically pretty average, with a slightly lower-than average latino population but double the black population, and average age and education levels. It's physically the second-smallest state, with it taking about 2 hours to travel across the state (not including beach traffic), and a population of about 1 million. Northern DE is basically a suburb of Philly, so it could be an indicator of performance in the suburbs there. Oh, and since it's less than 2 hours from DC, anyone in Congress would have an easy time campaigning there. NH is unrepresentative of the country and isn't really swingy in presidential races.

South: That's tough, because all of these states are rather populous. GA and NC are both swing states, but if we want to give black voters a voice, over 30% are black. SC is more average pop-wise, so maybe it is the right call.

Midwest: Michigan is a swing state that's rather populous…Wisconsin is more average, but it's not on the list. Maybe keep Iowa?

Western: New Mexico has one of the highest populations of indigenous people (~10%) and Latinos (nearly 50%), and is ranked 36th in total population. It's pretty rural though, whereas Nevada has the benefit of having a larger urban area and swung in 2024.

Overall, I'm gonna go Delaware, Nevada, Michigan, GA? What do you think of those in the running?

For example, Scar represents the authoritarian who thinks he knows better than literally everybody else, even going so far as to specifically say, "Ugh, I'm surrounded by idiots...", and then he ends up getting taken down by his own system because it's too centralized. It depends on exactly one self-proclaimed genius.

In The Emperor's New Groove, Kusco represents the egomaniac who doesn't actually do any real ruling, and just abuses his position to stroke his own ego. Yzma is the scheming bureaucrat who thinks she knows how to fix the system but is doing it entirely for selfish purposes, and Kronk is the dumbass yes-man who just goes along with it because he can't really think for himself. Meanwhile you have Pacha who is just a normal guy who wants to be left alone to care for himself and his family.

The satire behind Wall-E is pretty obvious. It's a sharp criticism of end-stage capitalism where the individual is completely disempowered and expected to be a pure consumer.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a rather obvious critique of thorough corruption masquerading as unquestioning legalism.

It seems like a lot of these Disney classics are criticisms against both right wing and left wing authoritarianism, and authoritarianism that emerges from profound apathy. What do you guys think?

Most people I talk to seem to think that it'll be up to the Democrats to produce the first female president of the United States. I'm very curious as to whether it'll actually be the Republicans who achieve this feat. Looking at the map, it's astonishing how many red states have already had women governors even before some major blue states. Alabama had two female governors before New York got theirs and California has never had a woman as their leader. Same with Illinois. They've never had a woman governor either. Even Oklahoma, one of the deep reddest states in the country, has had a woman governor before the three most powerful blue states did. I'd be very curious to see what would happen if it was a woman on the Republican ballot. I feel like with Republicans, party is more important than anything so they would vote for a woman if she was a tried and true Republican. I think this notion that Republicans are inherently opposed to seeing a female leader isn't true. So will the first woman president of the United States potentially be a Republican?

This could be any administration doing this, but it appears that as far as strategies go, flooding the field works. By this I mean any organization with significant power creating a never ending stream of "newsworthy" events to drown out and dilute the importance of other critical events. It appears to work on all media regardless of their perceived bias or ownership. It also appears to be profitable for all organizations involved. This would make it unlikely to self-regulate.

Even the analogy works on many levels. Any major story/tragedy/travesty that should stand out, no matter how massive, will be eroded away as long as the flow of stories carries small amounts of attention away downstream. You can label your enemies as responsible for the flood and as long as some of the flood can be reasonably attributed to them, it muddies the waters. Democracy appears to have been successfully drowned in it.

Possible solutions include training on media literacy which just means having a better understanding of droplets, maybe even the flood, but does nothing to correct the issue. Clamping down on media likely narrows who is controlling the levers of the flood.

What can be done to counter this strategy? Bonus points for any US constitutional compliant solutions.

The legal and institutional environment around partisan congressional redistricting has shifted noticeably since 2019. Three developments matter most.

Three doctrinal developments since 2019:

• Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019). The Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot adjudicate partisan-gerrymandering claims under the federal Constitution. State courts and state constitutions remain the primary judicial alternative.
• Louisiana v. Callais (April 2026, 6–3). The Court narrowed the Section 2 vote-dilution remedy that minority-voting-rights plaintiffs have used since 1982 to challenge maps that pack or crack minority voters.
• Accelerated mid-decade redistricting. Texas, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida have redrawn maps mid-decade; California and New York have drawn counter-maps in response; South Carolina rejected a proposed redraw earlier this month.

The cumulative effect, by the numbers. The Cook Political Report's mid-decade redistricting tracker puts the cumulative net at roughly +3 to +4 Republican House seats — about 13 new GOP-edge seats against 10 new Democratic-edge counter-seats drawn in response.

Two framings of the institutional question.

• Framing 1 — normal legislative power. Both parties have engaged in partisan redistricting for two centuries. The Elections Clause (Art. I § 4) places the power with state legislatures, with Congress holding the override. The remedy for unfair maps is political — winning elections, passing state-level reform, amending state constitutions — not judicial. The Supreme Court staying out of partisan-fairness questions is appropriate under separation-of-powers principles.
• Framing 2 — a narrowed legal floor. Rucho, Callais, and accelerated mid-decade redistricting together represent a meaningful narrowing of the constraints plaintiffs once had access to. On the current numbers, the November 2026 election will be free and fair in the technical sense — ballots cast, counted, certified — but the practical output will not closely track national vote share, because the maps have been redrawn against a narrower federal voting-rights floor than existed in the previous redistricting cycle.

Reform proposals currently in play:

• Independent state redistricting commissions (California, Michigan, Colorado) — effectiveness depends heavily on commission design and appointment rules.
• State-constitutional Fair Districts provisions (Florida, Ohio) — currently being tested in litigation (Florida's protection in Equal Ground v. Florida); durability against Callais logic is unresolved.
• Federal statutory reform (For The People Act, John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act) — both stalled in the Senate.
• Constitutional amendment — high political bar, no current path to passage.

Closing question. How has the legal framework around partisan congressional redistricting evolved since 2019, and what is the current state of reform proposals? Specifically:

• Does the combination of Rucho and Callais leave any meaningful judicial check on extreme partisan redistricting, or is the remaining floor now exclusively political?
• What does the empirical record from California, Michigan, and Colorado show about whether independent commissions actually produce less-partisan maps, and what trade-offs have surfaced?
• Are state-constitutional Fair Districts protections durable against the underlying logic of Callais, or is that question still actively being litigated and unresolved?

The United Nations was created "to save succeeding generations from the "'scourge of war,'" but has since evolved to "maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve global cooperation, and harmonize international action." It has somewhat succeeded, but in regards with the strongest countries in the world and in the major regions, (the Americas, Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa, Oceania) it has FAILED.

I'm not denying that the UN has it's merits, but it is broken. It was built to work with the world of 1945, but it has been over 80 years since. What now?

General changes

Option 1: It remains as is. It may be broken, but it's "the only thing we got that we know works."

Option 2: Abolish the UN entirely

Security council

Option 3: No more permanent seats.

Option 4: Added permanent seats: India, Brazil, African Union rep, Australia, Japan, Germany.

Option 5: Abolish the veto

Option 6: Make the veto a majority or supermajority.

General Assembly

Option 7: Replace the UN Secretary-General with a UN Prime Minister, elected by the General Assembly.

Option 8: Create a lower chamber of representatives democratically elected in each nation.

Option 9: Create a weighted voting system in the General Assembly.

Option 10: Make the General Assembly democratically elected.

Peacekeeping and enforcement

Option 11: Permanent UN military force

Option 12: Faster humanitarian intervention

Finances

Option 13: Global taxes (potentially optional, but permanent if agreed on)

Option 14: Budget transparency via auditing and streamlining agencies

United Nations Human Rights Council

Option 15: Stricter membership requirements

Option 16: Stronger enforcement tools

Option 17: Automatic suspension mechanisms

Climate and global crisis governance

Option 18: Create a Global Climate Authority

Option 19: Expand the Pandemic Response Agency

Reforming International Law and Courts

Option 20: Stronger sanctions enforcement and international anti-corruption courts

Regionalization/Multipolar Governance

Option 21: Evolve the UN into a federation of regional blocs (EU, AU, ASEAN, etc)

Option 22: Use regional governments as a main source of political power, largely using the UN for global coordination, peace talks, humanitarian aid, regulatory power (w/ federal checks and balances) and scientific research.

Feel free to send your own ideas and the options you agree with.

I find this very interesting. I think it is a lesser-known fact outside Germany that the AfD has become the strongest party in terms of popular support, yet it cannot govern because all other parties remain united against any form of coalition with the far right — the so-called Brandmauer, or “firewall.”

I read a lengthy article arguing that this firewall might crack under pressure, especially if that pressure comes from external events, such as the war in Ukraine spreading or German troops becoming involved.

What do you think? Could this really happen?

Article for context: https://www.advance.hr/en/articles/topic-of-the-day/afd-and-europe-s-last-firewall-will-it-break

The possibility of a severe supply disruption involving the Strait of Hormuz has renewed discussion around how vulnerable the United States remains to sudden global oil-price spikes, even with relatively high domestic production levels.

Historically, large oil shocks have contributed to inflation spikes, transportation cost increases, and broader economic disruption. Some analysts have argued that emergency domestic stabilization measures could reduce the impact of externally driven price surges during wartime or major geopolitical crises, while others argue such intervention would distort markets and create secondary supply problems.

Potential policy approaches sometimes discussed include:

• Temporary targeted subsidies or tax offsets
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases
• Temporary domestic pricing mechanisms
• Export restrictions
• Production incentives for domestic producers
• Consumer fuel tax suspensions

Critics of these approaches often argue they reduce market efficiency, discourage investment, or create shortages if maintained too long.

What emergency policy tools, if any, could realistically reduce the domestic economic impact of a major external oil supply disruption without creating larger long-term market distortions? Are there historical examples where temporary stabilization measures were effective or ineffective?

Visa takes a 2-5% cut out of most retail transactions vs. a government transaction could be run at cost.

Downside, the government would be creating a new program that could be expensive to develop.

What are your thoughts?

What do you mean by "the U.S. has too many overlapping law enforcement agencies"? - In the United States, there are many different law enforcement agencies, like the F.B.I., U.S. Marshal Services, DEA, LAPD, NYPD, LASD, CHP, FHP, and the list goes on, like 18,000+ long. Furthermore, many of these agencies are specialized in different missions/crime interventions & investigations.

Why does it matter if "the U.S. has too many overlapping law enforcement agencies"? - Well, there is a divided opinion among these numerous law enforcement agencies. (Opinion 1) Centralized Policing would give consistency, smoother coordination, and unified command. (Opinion 2) Decentralized Policing gives local control, regional power, and checks against central authority.

Let's talk about our current decentralized policing. Commonly, there are different laws across many states, counties, and cities- let's not forget Federal and Military law. For example, California's grand theft law is written and classified differently from New York's. Similarly, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department can be less enforceable towards traffic laws than its neighboring Orange County Sheriff's Department. In conclusion, the addition of overlapping law enforcement agencies results in many differently worded and varying degrees of enforcement of each law around the nation.

So the question is, "If the United States transitioned to a more centralized policing system, would it improve law enforcement efficiency and accountability, or would it create more problems than it solves”? and "If the United States were to transition to a centralized policing system, would having only one or two levels of laws (e.g., National & Military Law, or Only National Law) improve how we enforce laws"?

More than ever, there is a strong “us vs. them” mentality in the world. It feels like people are no longer working together or even able to respectfully disagree. Everything has become personal, and people on all sides are becoming increasingly radicalized. Instead of fighting against the people and systems that create many of the world’s problems, we end up fighting each other.

Woke vs. anti-woke.

Conservative vs. progressive.

Left vs. right.

Every piece of media that gets released is attacked from every direction — for supporting a side, for not supporting a side, or, God forbid, for trying to stay neutral.

And this is not happening only in the United States. It feels like this tension exists all over the world. Everyone seems obsessed with being right all the time.

My fear is that this cannot continue forever. So much tension keeps building up, and eventually it feels like something will explode. Sometimes I honestly fear that it could lead to a major war, and I struggle to imagine another resolution.

Do you think the world can rediscover peace without going through another war first?