Neven, I don't see that ANYONE is promoting "violence and pushing for war" anywhere on these threads, so I don't understand why you bring it up.
Maybe not directly, but by so meekly following establishment narratives, pushed by corporate media, there can be only one outcome: Further conflict and tensions. Forces on the Russian side are trying to accomplish the same. That's why I believe that if we absolutely have to think in polarized terms, then let us at least think of it as 'forces who want division and conflict to increase power and profits' vs 'the people who don't want it', and not along archaic lines of USA vs Russia, or rich vs poor.
But it looks to me you are one of the few who pushes to "change the system", a concept that still feels alien to me.
Maybe that's because you haven't focused enough on underlying causes. I could be totally wrong, but I've come to believe that the root cause of all global problems is this system that is geared towards increasing concentrated wealth at an exponential rate. My feeling is that you and many others are being distracted by the trees (individual fragments or symptoms) and therefore do not see the forest (the system or underlying causes). That's not your fault, it is done on purpose to manipulate you.
It's really hard to solve the symptoms if the underlying cause remains untouched. Mind you, this system is amoral and war has always been an excellent way to increase power and wealth.
That's why I think that as a society (and this forum is a small representation of it) we need to discuss ways of getting out of the conundrum, instead of letting the media hypnotizing us with sensationalized details. Rather than spend so much energy on the insignificant question of who poisoned some double agent, for instance, we'd better discuss the best way to prevent events that increase tensions, and thus militarization, and thus conflict. We're hardly doing that here, and thus in society at large.
Russiagate is useful as a piece of the pie that shows that Trump is corrupt and part of the establishment. But if it is treated as some kind of panacea that must dominate all efforts and attention, there's a high probability of backfiring, which will make it even more difficult to change the system (more time lost).
We have a democratic system right now, and it will deal with Trump and the GOP in due time. As opposed to Russia and China where there are now "presidents-for-life" in place.
That democratic system is rigged, and has been for quite a while now, to serve the interests of concentrated wealth. I forgot what the word is, but here's an oligarchic system that puts up a semblance of democracy, predetermining the range of what is electable and what not. That's where the USA is at right now, IMHO.
You can deal with Trump and the GOP, but if the aim isn't to change the system (ie concentrated wealth getting bigger by rewarding politicians etc), it won't be a real solution and you'll soon have an even worse version of Trump on your hands.
Are you suggesting that we "change the system" to some sort of authoritarian rule ? If not, what do you mean exactly with "change the system" ?
If the core problem is the exponential growth of concentrated wealth, you somehow need to stop it from growing, at the very least taking out the exponential aspect of it. In other words, you fix the inequality so that it doesn't become too large, where it starts killing its host. History is replete with examples of empires collapsing because inequality became too large to bear (see Piketty).
Also, taking a couple of steps back, and a bird eyes view, you mentioned a couple of times that a new Cold War would impede the fight against AGW. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
But if so, why do you believe that ?
Because it costs huge amounts of money, armies aren't known for their green credentials, and worst of all, it causes paralyzing fear, which makes the masses amenable to all kinds of policies restricting their freedom. The danger of that is that as soon as leftists or environmentalists are perceived as some kind of threat, they will easily be taken out. And, of course, wars leave scars that hamper progress.
Why wouldn't a free market (with, or even without alternative energy incentives) be able to tackle AGW, regardless of a second Cold War being ongoing or not ?
Because first of all, a free market isn't possible when concentrated wealth has its thumb on the scale (both fists would be more correct). Furthermore, it is my firm belief that the current set-up cannot be greenified. We can't have our cake and eat it, not with a large percentage of the population forced in a treadmill to work for concentrated wealth, and barely have anything left to live a peaceful life and develop the wisdom required for meaningful change.
It will probably all depend on what happens with automation, AI, robotoics, etc. If its advantages accrue mostly to concentrated wealth, things will not get better. If it frees up everyone, by providing a minimum income or some such, things might head in a better direction. But when that happens, the system will have effectively been changed. In other words, the system needs to change, if we want to have a real change of solving not just AGW, but all global problems.
It won't change by itself. We must demand it. And replacing Trump, no matter how, no matter what, is not going to cut it. What will you replace him with? This is essential.