zazen

@Lyubov Thats a great way to put it and makes total sense. He just uploaded a new vid updating on the war:

But that imo is where things go too far and become dystopic. Essentially “people aren’t allowed to leave because they might be influenced.” A stable system doesn’t need to trap its population to that degree though, China doesn’t for example. It’s the other end of the spectrum and totalised control. Another thing they have is yeon-jwa-je which is generational punishment or guilt by association. Totally fucked for a family to be punished for sometimes thee generations for the crime of one member.

@Cred lol bro - Western propaganda existing doesn’t mean not being objective on how life in NK is. Unless I’ve been propagandised and am misinformed on those conditions - that’s another thing all together. Are North Koreans even allowed to leave their country?

But the problem is that NK has used that to create dystopic conditions, whilst China hasn’t. Even then, Westerners still view China as being dystopic because they glaze “freedom” and have a childish view of it.

@Ajay0 What about India signing up with US in a deal that agreed to not buy Russian energy? Is that still valid? Seems India has made it choice of who to align with - I said a year ago that the weak link in BRICS would be India as a swing state choosing a side rather than simply maintaining neutrality. And now with Iran: Just saw Jaishabkar’s tweet regarding the naval incident: https://x.com/drsjaishankar/status/2029522979026256168?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “Had a telecon with Iranian FM Seyed Abbas Araghchi this afternoon. @araghchi” No condemnation, only cold language. Cowardly and lacking political courage we were praising earlier in this thread. India should have good relation in the very geographic region it’s in - which it can and will never escape - rather than bend the knee to a aspire all the way over in the Atlantic that suffers little consequence for its imperial adventurism and instead externalises it to its vassals.

Stay safe - I have family in the North too Nazareth side. Hopefully this comes to a end and with little suffering.

@Cred on point. The coalition of the compromised ie Epstein Class - use it as a tool of empire. Moral language is laundered for geopolitical power games. Even spiral dynamics itself is misused to cement the notion of Western supremacy - claiming not only moral but spiritual development.

@LordFall nice share. I think Jiang is predicting worst case outcomes - desalination plant is a major red line. Tbh this could spiral in multiple ways - a Kurdish insurgency is being armed and backed to do the regime change as we speak - probably as a alternative to boots on the ground which is simply catastrophic and which there’s little political will for. This is problematic for Turkey as it could force them to intervene and stabilise their side the border. It seems like if regime change isn’t achievable then regime implosion, chaos and balkanisation is the next best outcome - without care for the spillover affects of such a thing. Looks like carpet bombing or “mowing the lawn” the same term they use in operations in Gaza as Sky News just commented on also: Legend How prescient was Khameini - look at what he says half way through the following about trusting the West and negotiations and note how old the video is:

Countries are usually in tension with: - constraining (abuses of power ie corruption of private interests capturing national interest) - coordinating (state capacity to collectively execute on shared goals and a vision) - correcting (mistakes through feedback, adjusting / aligning incentives). Whatever system best balances constraints, coordination and correction works - not the simplistic binary of democracy vs authoritarian. Communism went hard on constraining private capital. It centralised coordination (in the state) but erased the correction mechanism of pricing signals and human incentives. China overcame this by not centrally planning and micromanaging the economy but instead directing and disciplining it - it has a market economy but isn’t owned by the market or private capital. Clear hierarchy exists where the state remains sovereign over the market and capital. The tricky part remains constraining the state itself to remain disciplined. The West went hard on constraining the state. There came a disdain and suspicion of power and authority due to past abuses of formal power (feudalism, kings). What emerged was structural (a system of checks and balances) and cultural (enlightenment philosophy emphasising individual liberty). Formal state power was constrained to prevent tyranny, but informal private power of the individual wasn’t to the same degree. Formal authority became fragmented and sluggish enough that no actor can discipline informal power fast enough. Informal power now works to steer the state to its benefit rather than align to it - clear hierarchy doesn’t exist because the centre (state) is weak. Hence we have a “deep state” permanent blob of private groups (factions) with overlapping interests using or skirting the state for their own ends. Any state action that attempts to check, discipline or direct private individuals or capital is seen as a slippery slope to tyranny as a liberal / libertarian reflex. Liberalism fails to protect itself from private domination of oligarchic capital, corporate and intelligence elites - because it succeeded in protecting itself from the state being able to dominate. It optimized to prevent tyranny by distributing formal powers, which strengthened constraints on formal abuse but weakened state capacity to constrain informal abuse. The West is feeling disoriented because there’s no clear visible tyranny (of a state dictator) but also no clear hierarchy of a sovereign state that feels trusted enough to protect citizens interests against private interests dominating. Progressive libs railing against hierarchy actually need a hierarchy that isn’t predatory but protective. Communism ate itself through overcentralising what should have been PARTIALLY left to the market of individuals - neo-liberalism hollows itself through over diffusing power and responsibility, assuming free individuals and markets self correct without state authority to intervene. The West lacks coordination to be productive and competitive against rising global players who are able to coordinate better and faster (China) and lacks the ability to constrain informal power of private capital interests that don’t care for national interests. Checks and balances to prevent tyranny now get in the way of coordination and execution speed - by the time something is decided the conditions are already different. Communism feared and crushed capital = bureaucracy dominated. Neoliberalism / liberalism feared the state and fragmented it = allowing for capital to dominate more easily. Both are overcorrections from prior abuse. Balance would be a state strong enough to discipline capital, but constrained enough not to dominate society. That constraint can come from structure but also culture. Cultures producing quality people can make even crappy systems work compared to better systems with lower quality people running them. Culture and structure both matter ie ground up vs top down. Perhaps even better to have a system that selects for the best quality to rise to the top through meritocratic filtering (rather than a popularity contest) ie discernocarcy - those with discernment govern. Whilst simultaneously having a wider culture raising the quality of the general population through good values and virtues. The right culture doesn’t need to get rid of hierarchy or structure but humanises and nurtures it towards better outcomes.

The key word there is weak. A countries behaviour is mostly downstream from its position and profile (strengths and weaknesses). If you have the strength to fight for and keep your own sovereignty and autonomy you do so or attempt to. Small gulf nations ruled by families made the deal to abdicate some autonomy in exchange for their own stability and security - because their small/vulnerable compared to the neighbors in the region. In exchange they allowed military basing and loyalty to the petro dollar. The issue with that is that you get sucked into the geopolitics of that superpower even if it doesn't favor you - you become a pawn with less say say in matters because your survival now depends on the power you outsourced it to - just see whats now happening and what happened to Ukraine who was flirting with NATO on the border of Russia. Countries which have the means to resist capitulation do so. I know you have a hate boner for Islam but it's not solely about some religous identity crisis per se - it's basic human dignity and yes with a religious narrative overlayed on top that gives spiritual strength to it, but the base is human. Why did South American countries resist Western imperialism despite them not being Muslim? Why did Venezuela? The issue is that imperial empires don't want cooperation but capitulation. Just look - Maduro was willing to ''cooperate'' and open his resources to Western corporations: Homeboy still got plucked out like a flower. Because the entitlement and arrogance of the imperial minded demand capitulation not cooperation. Next example - what happened when Russia cooperated with the West after the fall of the USSR and under Yeltsin? IMF shock therapy via privatization that lead to chaos out of which Putin emerged to stabilise things with a hard fist. Russia still operates with that past in mind. China also has a past experience with Western imperialism (century of humiliation and opium wars) and Iran who wanted to nationalize its oil under Mossadegh. All these countries have experiences that shape their posture today to prevent the same experiences ever happening again. ''WhY dOn'T tHeY JuSt CoOpErAtE'' Iran literally cooperated and achieved the JCPOA that was then torn up by the US unilaterally. They were surprise attacked last year during negotiations, and again this year AFTER massive cooperation and concessions on nuclear: Westerners bemoan why Russia China are gaining more influence in Africa - because they actually cooperate like civilized nations not demanding capitulation. Respect is given and earned, with little moral finger wagging. The Western imperial mindset and its flawed foreign policy is a result of its own entitlement and arrogance. Anyone's independence anywhere, is a threat to there supremacy everywhere. This is the same reason why it’s unable to see or accept that another country may have its own interests or security concerns ie red lines. This blindness to the ''other'' is what caused Russia's red lines being crossed resulting in Ukraine, Iran's red lines being crossed resulting in the current show, and what could cause China's red line being crossed in the future if this arrogance continues. Other countries and cultures have their own civilizational identity and path of developing that shouldn't continuously be sabotaged by external pressure of containment. The West talks about liberal values being universal as if other peoples don't have them and are backward for not living up to them - but these are simply common values that are lived up to depending on the stage a countries in. During early phases of stability and security other values take a central role - its phase dependent. The West had its 2-3 centuries of colonialism that externalized chaos and allowed for the geopolitical luxury of riches and stability that allowed them to liberalize a lot more and live up to those aspirational values better. This is being sabotaged for other countries due to geopolitics and empire - and then those countries are continuously judged for not being ''liberal democracies''. Not all countries are even supposed to or will look the same as Western liberal democracies either and that's fine. We shouldn't glaze the Western model of governance - there are other ways of structuring society and having legitimacy. China has performance legitimacy, the West has procedural legitimacy. We have elected officials that often result in low approval whilst the middle class gets hollowed out by oligarch overlords each election cycle - we put up with it because we believe in the procedure of elections being able to change outcomes. ''Maduro and Ayotollah have low approval so we must regime change them'' yeah so does my own prime minister Keir Starmer with record lows - should we now call the US ''democracy as a service subscription'' for regime change to take him out just like Maduro lol China maintains its legitimacy by its performance - lifting 800 million out of poverty in a matter of decades and checking the excesses of oligarchs, whilst in the West they are their own center of power parallel to the state and thus able to divert the national interest towards their very own interests. Western libs complain about this whilst simultaneously complaining about China not being ''liberally democratic'' when it disciplines its own oligarchs for crossing lines not in the national interest. Self defeating and utopian. Liberalism can't do the sometimes seemingly ''illiberal'' actions to protect the liberty of its own people. This isn't that simple and black and white - for example many people wouldn't call Singapore democracy but a hybrid of sorts. Again like I said earlier - what it takes to nation build in early stages matters and differs from how a country becomes later on its development once its secured stability: This guy was a badass. Real civilization and nation building should be left to the adults, not utopian progressives with childish one dimensional views about freedom and ''values'' who stand on the shoulders of nation builders who had to do the hard things to get them to their place of privilege from which they morally posture: Most systems have their own guardian council equivalent to maintain some form of continuation and stability not to be left to the whims of the masses or the ballot box. It's unwise to leave certain decisions to the masses who are unwise - because wisdom doesn't scale. Discern-ocracy - those of discernment need to make certain decisions which can have outsized impact on the country and its trajectory. The issue is always how to filter for those who have discernment. The EU itself is a hybrid - the commission for example is entirely unelected. US presidential candidates are selected by capital and lobbying before being ''democratically elected'' by the demos / people. The filtering process and options are curated by capital, whilst in Iran they are curated by its own process which is more sophisticated than Western projection would care to study. Same with China's system. The question after being the Islamic revolution was how to have democratic elections without leaving yourself exposed to the exact foreign manipulation that couped you in 1953. So they built a hybrid dual system. Hard times due to external geopolitics only entrenches hardliners and sabotages organic reform and development. Perhaps allow countries breathing room to develop on their own path. Countries can be internally bad (repressive etc) whilst also understandably be trying to navigate a geopolitical order under which their constrained.

Exactly. Information and space warfare are the frontier abstract layers of geopolitics. Check this article: https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2026/02/washingtons-war-on-iran-importance-of.html Especailly halfway through under the heading: US Weaponization of Information Space in the 21st Century ''Throughout the 21st century, the US has deliberately and maliciously weaponized its domination over global information space, specifically through US-based social media platforms like X (formally Twitter), Meta/Facebook, YouTube, Google, Instagram, and many others.'' ''The US Threat to Global Information Space Requires Global Defense The nations of Russia and China have - over the course of many years and through extensive work - secured their respective information space. This has - in turn - allowed both nations to secure and stabilize their political space providing the social harmony required to not only survive ongoing attempts by the US to encircle and contain both global powers, but in many instances to thrive. This has been achieved through the creation of domestic alternatives to the US-based social media platforms that otherwise dominate global information space. Both nations have online networks that can be disconnected from Western-influenced information space when and if necessary. Beyond this, both nations have created domestic pipelines ensuring crucial human resources such as programmers and technicians required to maintain the physical infrastructure of their information space are trained in-country and with the nation’s best interests in mind, as well as the media personnel, government officials, and other civil servants who use each nation’s information space. This is not unlike the physical infrastructure built within any sovereign nation. Roads, rail, airports, and seaports are all acknowledged to be integral to national security and thus their construction, maintenance, use, and protection are determined accordingly. Unfortunately, many policymakers across the planet have yet to understand that information space in the 21st century is as important - if not more so - than this physical infrastructure or traditional national security domains. Allowing the US to not only provide US-based social media platforms to nations rather than nations developing their own, but allowing the US to also control the flow of information and thus ideas and consensus on these platforms is as bad, or worse, than allowing foreign interests to control a nation’s physical borders, infrastructure, and even a nation’s own citizenry. The cost of surrendering a key - if not the key - domain of national security to the United States is political infiltration, capture, and even complete collapse as admitted US operations spanning the 21st century from Europe to the Arab World to Asia and back again have sufficiently demonstrated.'' Of course though its a double edged sword that also allows for domestic control of the population.

Test

Man hats off to Jiang for this prediction of if it comes to it ie boots on the ground:

A comment I made on professor Jiang last year - related to current events: A hot WW3 between Russia, China and US will be avoided at all costs unless some major miscalculations happen. Hence we only see indirect support to maintain plausible deniability such like we’ve see in Ukraine - and never direct confrontation. As if the US are going to do anything adventurous around Taiwan after this episode. China knows it’s got time on its side and game theory wise - US being bogged down and depleted in the ME only favours them. Don’t interrupt the enemy when making a mistake. @Lyubov Agree - seems the US is heading for a precarious position with limited options. Interesting comment from a ME expert “the administration has entered a campaign where the only clear path to decisive victory is regime change — and it is far from clear that Washington is willing to invest the resources and long-term commitment such an outcome would demand.” Worth a follow: https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2028728626431111425?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

Related knaaawledge