zazen

Like I said months ago - the US don’t hold the cards when it comes to China. Why do we think the US is enacting tariffs more harshly on India and Brazil but not China who keeps getting a extension? A great video going into it from Balaji:

But the cause is important to understand how to stop the suffering ? Collapsing all distinctions means we never get to the root cause. And the solution isn’t dissolution of all distinctions into a abstract multi planetary consciousness when we haven’t hacked multipolarity on the one planet we haven’t left yet. Pretty much all of us are morally consistent I think in being against the suffering all these conflicts cause. But it’s about how to practically resolve or minimise them. Saying all suffering is bad doesn’t help solve it except state the obvious. What looks like double standards is often the same standards applied to different situations. Liberalism collapses context and distinction to maintain a moral halo of universalism but never solve anything - except trip up over itself in contradictions and shield itself from reality that pierces through their utopian ideaology. Green is going for a moral play and erases causality - which means no solution. Yellow is most pragmatic (rather than idealistic) as it acknowledges the others views and concerns (security). Then it mentions integrating perspectives to break the cycle. Integration would mean integrating the fact that certain constraints on freedom are required for larger freedoms - and that not all constraint is some assault on sovereignty and liberty. The liberal minded have constraint phobia and want to sovereignty max as if every nation simply floats like a lone cloud and can do everything it wishes as long as it’s democratically voted. Then they ironically speak of interdependence and connected (“oneness”) meanwhile not acknowledging how smaller nations existence depends on not crossing their larger neighbours red lines. If we took sovereignty and liberal maxing to its extreme it would mean every group and tribe voting to secede from territory until we have a 1’000 different nations fighting. Turquoise wants to leapfrog to a multi-planetary level where all distinctions dissolve - when we haven’t even evolved to exist with multi-polarity on one we haven’t left. It’s premature. It then talks of shifting conciousness but what we need now is the current hegemon shifting its conciousness from a unipolar imperial mindset to a multi-polar sharing space mindset. This is peak mystic escapism and geopolitical bypassing because we are “all one”. Non-duality doesn’t mean no duality - maturing is learning to live within duality because as long as we live in form we can’t escape into some formless blob.

@PurpleTree Palestinians are trying to succeed at the self-determination of a state, not seceding from an already existing one. So it’s not about territorial integrity of an already existing state but denying a group the sovereignty of having one their already entitled to. Balochistan is similar to Chechyna - already part of an existing state (Pakistan) but with a separatist movement. They’re dealt with aggressively which is authoritarian but not imperial. Different states deal with separatists differently, some more aggressive than others - but generally no state just willingly gives up territory as it can set off a domino affect for others to separate. We were talking on another thread about Uyghurs and I responded regarding their treatment and how states act to preserve themselves. Spain for example cracked down on Catalonian officials leading the separatist referendum. That can’t be classified as imperialism just because it’s aggressive or authoritarian - there are distinct differences. A country can be authoritarian without being imperial - North Korea for example. Many people misdiagnose security logic and motive for imperialism and domination - which implies there’s no legitimate concerns to be solved diplomatically, thus the only solution is to deal with the “evil Hitler” militarily. A unipolar hegemon like the US is blind to other nations security concerns because they believe they are the exception (American exceptionalism). They’re also the exception from international law and war crime persecution from the ICJ (Hague invasion act). They believe the entire globe is their sphere of influence but another powerful nation having one is imperialism. Its the same underlying mentality Israel has towards Palestinians - arrogance and exceptionalism fuelling domination. It’s this same mentality that flips other countries reactions to imperialism and calls it imperialism itself. That’s how we get US officials calling the South China Sea a national security threat .. all the way in Chyna 😂 Ok boomer.

@BlueOak The difference is that Russia see’s a superpowers imperial reach coming through a neighbour as a threat, while Israel sees the neighbour themselves (who is stateless and powerless) as a threat. A proper threat assessment has to be made to distinguish between an existential threat, a national security threat, or a threat to empire and imperial domination. Otherwise situations are misdiagnosed and what is defensive is framed as domination or vice versa. You can have a legitimate security concern, gone about in an illegitimate (yet understandable) way. Or an illegitimate or inflated security concern, gone about in an illegitimate way ie Israel or a unipolar hegemon maintaining its primacy in a multipolar reality. Israel frames what is a national security concern (October 7th - non state actors) as an existential concern. In fact the far right frame Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat - recoiling at even the mention of the word Palestine. The US frames a threat to their uni-polar hegemony as a national security threat. A illegitimate concern (maintaining global primacy in a multi-polar world ) + inflated concern (treating developments in far off continents as existential), handled in illegitimate ways (wars of choice, regime change, sanctions etc). Understanding why a state feels threatened isn’t excusing what they do about it or how they go about it - in bad ways. But the main reason to distinguish it is because security concerns can usually be dealt with diplomatically whereas a power looking to dominate can’t be reasoned with. Every territorial expansion or war isn’t imperial driven and based on domination - they can be security driven. The gains in territory are incidental and secondary not primary. It’s like saying all water is wet - on the surface it’s true but it oversimplifies and misses important distinctions. Most of the cases you listed start with a proximity based security logic ie their not acting for dominations sake - that doesn’t justify their methods or make them clean. A unipolar hegemon skips proximity logic and treats developments in places thousands of miles away as existential threats. Even their abuses of power are above law. The US literally has a law that allows it to be lawless - The Hague Act legalises them storming The Hague if one of their own are in the hot seat. But legal doesn’t always mean legitimate. Just now they’ve put a $50mill bounty on another head of states - Maduro of Venezuela. This is empire logic not security. I put my those examples into Chat GPT with those distinctions:

@BlueOak Both frameworks can be good or bad - a unipolar hegemon can police the world while also bullying it. I’m not defending either or as much as I’m saying the reality has now changed from uni to multi-polar. It doesn’t look like we’re going back to a unipolar world so the question is how to live in a multipolar one. We basically need to update post WW2 institutions to account for that change and enforce punishment properly. A powerful country may think it can bully its neighbour, simply because it knows that another powerful country stepping in risks mutually assured destruction and they won’t. Like I said - spheres of influence shouldn’t become spheres of imperialism. Multiple powers does mean that multiple injustices can happen if each of them bully their own sphere - so we need new rules and enforcement mechanisms that can punish that. Ukraine is an example of multi-polarity failing as the transition is being sabotaged by unipolar inertia. Acting with a unipolar mindset in a multi-polar reality is why the collision exists. Geography and proximity still matter in a world of ICBMs because shrinking the distance and time to respond elevates the risk for the country on the receiving end. Also, missiles can destroy a territory but not take it - which requires proximity of troops and supply lines. That’s why an adversary being next door or platforming themselves via a neighbouring country is still problematic. For example Iran hit Israel but can never take territory due to geography. The risk of mutually assured destruction might cause one power to risk conventional ground war against another - betting on the fact that they won’t risk going nuclear. The thinking is: let’s put aside the big guns and have a fist fight. That’s a dangerous bet - one a country will avoid wanting to be entangled in on its border against another power being ballsy. No power is going to accept a hostile adversary on their border - England wouldn’t accept Russian/Chinese systems in Scotland nor US in Mexico. This new interview from Sachs goes covers a lot of what we’re discussing:

Appreciate the transparency mate. I’ve just numbered the points as away from laptop and can’t multi quote / don’t wanna spam with multiple comments. 1.) Those are definitely provocative and aggressive in rhetoric and escalatory in action for sure. It’s just that they don’t exist in a vacuum - many of those examples are during the Ukraine war where rhetoric is spicy on both sides. Western examples are the recent comments by General Donahue who said they can take Kalliningrad (Russian territory) within days or much earlier, Kaja Kallas mentioning breaking up Russia into pieces. The prelude to all this was the many years of attempted diplomacy which Mearsheimer covers succinctly in 10 min here: He actually covers Ukrainian agency and the will to want to join NATO from 6:50 which I’ll get to on to in point 2. The INF was ditched by the US first. And the dead hand is an automatic defensive deterrent against a first strike - not about being offensive and striking first. 2.) Sovereignty and agency definitely matter and it’s expected countries would seek some sort of security architecture after that history. It’s just that sovereignty isn’t an absolute that exists in a vaccum - if we live in an interconnected web then surely if your neighbouring a greater power - then you need to account for their security concerns. It’s not utopian but just realistic. That’s part of being in a world with multiple centres of power. No power will allow another power or power bloc to cozy up to it. Just like the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis or the US wouldn’t accept Chinese missiles in Canada or Mexico - rightly so. Spheres of influence need to be considered to avoid big wars - which brings up a wider point of multi-polarity vs uni-polarity. It’s better to be 80% sovereign and alive then 100% sovereign and your decisions risk the balance of the world being upset because two powers are breathing down each others necks. 3.) The default of the world has been multi-polarity, which was obviously messy at times whilst at other times spheres of influence were understood to not be infringed - especially when no set borders existed. True uni-polarity only came with the global scale of the British empire and now the US empire. We can argue this set up is stable because there’s a clear hegemon and no two powers fighting - but empires don’t last forever and they eventually have challengers who rise. Also, the unipolar power mostly seeks to maintain its position by kneecapping others rising - so it’s an unfair system. That uni-polar mindset of universalism still persists due to inertia - but now we are entering or already in a multi-polar world which is where the friction now is. Past friction in a multi-polar world was messy but didn’t destroy the world as the power to do so didn’t exist - but now we are in a multi-polar reality with apocalyptic weapons - and a uni-polar mindset which isn’t adjusting or will reluctantly be left no choice but to because of the stakes. In a multi-polar world it’s understood that powers have natural spheres of influence over those within their immediate orbit - like a gravitational pull. Similar to how the US has over Mexico and Canada for example. It shouldn’t become a sphere of imperialism - that’s bad. But a sphere of influence is only natural and expected. A great power shouldn’t try to then bring that smaller country in another powers orbit - into their own. Whether that small country wants it or not - it’s best to avoid this or else expect a reaction from the power which is then put at threatened (national security - existential risk). Alliances are fine - but not if a small country is used by a larger power as a forward base and platform to push their agenda through - in order to contain the other great power rival. The US had the Monroe doctrine where they not only believed in having a sphere of influence but the entire Western hemisphere of South America as theirs, to not be interfered in by Europe. This is clearly over kill as Europeans being in Argentina pose no existential risk to the US. But for the US to resist interference along its periphery and sphere of influence in Mexico, Canada or the Carribean is understandable as that proximity does pose a risk. The US thinks its sphere of influence is the global sphere - and that influence is not only influence but imperial. For the imperial mindset - anyone’s freedom anywhere, is a threat to their dominance everywhere. A uni-polar mindset in a multi-polar reality - that’s the main tension today. The multi-polar world needs balancing and a respect for spheres rather than a universalism that uni-polar hegemon feels entitled to.

Great post @Breakingthewall Spiritualists elevate the essence of the formless (consciousness) and deny the emergence of form (constructs) which come from that formless essence. Non-duality doesn't mean no duality or that form isn't as real, it's just not all that's real. Could be semantics but I'd say organised religion typically denies human nature (instincts, original sin) while spiritual bypassing denies human nurture (conditioning, constructs) which try to buffer human nature. Hence the hippie, relativist, all is love orientation that indulges human nature and emotion at the expense of its consequences for society and structure. The parallel of this in religion is the puritanical, all is divine law and order orientation that suppresses human nature and suffocates the soul in order to structure and stabilize society. Both are de-humanizing in their own way and incomplete. Man is man but more than just man . Done wrong: religions tend to deny what you are (animal nature, the creature), spiritualism denies what you are becoming (through conditioning, ego, constructs and culture). False religion denies the creature (biology, hardware, nature), false spirituality denies the character (ego, construct / software, nurture). Man is a creature by birth, becomes a character by conditioning, and is a consciousness in essence that is under, over and in all the above.

The negative response to Russia is mostly Western - which makes up at most 15-20% of the world. Most of the world is either neutral or friendly with Russia - much of Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Asia. Much of the world is reacting to the Western led uni-polar order as it exists -which is a imperial order that needs extricating from via a parallel order that doesn't insist on ordering others around or being sanctioned because it doesn't pick sides which is childish school yard politics. The problem is that the West doesn't take Russia seriously, or any countries legitimate interests for that matter. Because in a uni-polar order the hegemonic empires interests supersede everyone else. That doesn't mean caving in to other countries injustices or aggression, but when a country articulates again and again its own legitimate security concerns and asks for neutrality on its periphery to prevent feeling cornered - that should be respected. Post WW2 Japan and Germany were re-built and integrated into the system despite being imperially expansionist - they got some level of respect, but Russia was denied this post collapse of the USSR. This is largely because Germany and Japan subordinated themselves to the US empire via conceding to a US security architecture. Their sovereignty is strategically limited and they don't have red lines in the real sense because they are client states of the US empire - patrons rather than partners. Russia doesn’t want to concede this level of autonomy. They floated becoming part of NATO and worked with the US in counter terrorism post 9/11 - but working alongside the US isn't enough because they empire demand others working under them. The imperial mindset is the key issue here - and its most of the world that is reacting to imperialism, some aggressively (Russia) that is then gaslit and flipped on its head to be portrayed as imperialism itself. Russia isn't a superpower, but that doesn't mean it has no power or isn't a middle to great one - although definitely stagnating and in relative decline. All the more reason not to give it a reason to lash out whilst it still has enough power to fortify its Western flank. I agree with you mentioning Russia doesn’t care for occupying Ukraine for its own sake - but merely as a means to a end which is neutrality and preservation of a security buffer against the Western block that’s hawkish. Powers despite being big, small or super still need space and should be given it. France and the UK being past empires doesn't mean we shouldn't respect them, their red lines, or take away their veto power. A resource rich, nuclear armed country like Russia, with the worlds largest landmass connected multiple continents isn't a midget to just dismiss and mock. A 5ft 9 country being demonized and talked down to will eventually assert itself when cornered. The issue isn’t that Russia see’s itself as 7ft but that the West doesn’t even see it for what it is as 5ft 9 - that if a country is under 6ft it means it’s easy pickings to be bodied 6 ft deep in a confrontation - your comment that Russia can be shattered eludes to that and you mention nukes but then don’t factor it in to the equation. Their continuing ties and trade with Russia from the looks of it. Puling out of oil deals isn't neutral - it’s picking a side. The non-aligned movement in the Cold War emerged precisely because countries were tired of being forced to pick sides and didn't want to get caught in a larger geo-political power play for empire. The same is happening today. Multi-polarity allows for the freedom of neutrality, uni-polarity forbids neutrality and demands obedience and compliance, or else.. Why should India not look out for its own interests - it has over a billion people it needs to feed and lift out of poverty that cheaper Russian energy can help with. They also have historic ties. But the imperial mindset doesn't care for another countries interests or history, only its own - which is the core of the issue here. Imperial mindset and behaviour.

Great channel and Hudson is the best at covering the economic angle of empire. Just see the latest video on Brazil where a clip of Lula is played in the first minute - he lays out how the US is after maintaining primacy and demands the world be subservient to it. I'd add that there is a symbiotic relationship between finance and empire. The empires muscle (military industrial complex) threatens and enforces a game board that is favorable for itself and its own capital interests. Resistant markets or geo-strategic regions are threatened by the use of force (muscle) or are cracked open by force so that capital (money) can flow in (like blood) circulating and extracting from them. The muscle fires the shots so that money can call the shots. Because the empire was largely financialized, this has eroded their hard power. I wrote some time back on this using the analogy of rock paper scissors which ties in well with your great research and comments above:

The only democracy the US cares about is the one it can control, which is no democracy at all. American hegemony depends on the US dollar, 700 military bases, and a financial system they weaponise. Their muscle (military industrial complex - deep state empire elite) fires the shots so that their capital elites can call the shots (market access and subservience to western finance and corporations). Whether a democracy or a dictator are on the end of that deal is irrelevant to the empire. The push for democracy when it does exist is usually a Trojan horse to subvert a country away from its interests and toward the empires. It will hijack any organic ground movement and amplify it to “democratically win” - part of that win will include kissing the ring of the one who helped get them into power. If they go rogue, you know what’s next, back to firing shots lol The American way of life (consumerism) depends heavily on China who isn’t a democracy. It’s the largest trading partner for majority of the world - all the American branded products the world enjoys is being manufactured and shipped through an anti-democracy. America hurt itself when it abused its position of globalisation. Much of the world would prefer it if America isolated itself to its own region and got out of their business. Trump is isolating America diplomatically and rhetorically but not empire wise - pressuring allies to spend on military is just sharing the cost of empire rather than withdrawing it. Essentially - let Europe deal with the Ukraine quagmire and Russia, while pivoting to Asia to go after flaming dragon. Even if American empire retreated to is own region, it’s lost a lot of goodwill it initially started with because of its imperial behaviour there. Just see the first minute of this where Brazils Lula literally calls the US out for all its coups in South America:

Check out what Lula says in the beginning of this video:

Yeah and the thumbnails haha so cringe. But he’s got some good interviews like with Alastair Crook and this Victor Gao’s a straight talker from China who was on chanel 4 etc. Hate what social media and algorithm whoring has done. I think many commentators are valid for appreciating China and what it’s done, but they gotta be careful not get into glazing mode - it can definitely look like that. China actually has a crappy geography (scarce water and arable land) that makes it vulnerable, with an enormous population to feed and keep stable - yet it’s done very well despite that. Meanwhile the US is geographically blessed and with a much smaller population to feed and maintain in comparison. China has already surpassed the US in PPP terms (purchasing power parity) and will surpass it in nominal GDP (dollar terms) in the coming years. That shows us that China is competent in overcoming challenges and constraints - that it’s an enduring civilization and had an aberration of weakness in its 5’000 year history. Now a 250 year old baby country is trying dictate to it and slow it down. How audacious. Ngl though wish Europe had some more dynamism - I hope it doesn’t get left behind US and China, but then again Europes charm is its old world feel and slower pace.

I don’t think the major powers want war with each other - far too much risk today. The Thucydides trap in which majority of rising powers went to war the hegemon of the time is the model being projected onto today - but today we have nuclear deterrence and are economically integrated / globalised. But then again, we are in the economic de-coupling phase to ensure dependencies don’t exist - which means being more resilient for a potential war if it were to happen or if it’s desired. One aspect is simply to contain China’s rise, the other is to have war as a possible option on the table. Empire logic isn’t simply after profit but primacy. So even if we live in a bi-polar world where both sides (West vs East) are self reliant and gain abundance through tech advancements and AI - that doesn’t stop the imperial minded to want to be number 1 and bring down the peer competitor. Maybe nuclear isn’t enough of a deterrence either (India-Pakistan recently happened). Certain powers can be crazy enough to think war will remain conventional and thar the other side wouldn’t dare touch the nukes. Like in a street fight where both parties throw the guns away to fist fight lol Victor Gao brings up the old lens (as you mention) being used for today at 20 min here: Far right nationalism of today is also different to that of the past. The past was expansionist nationalism, today’s is more isolationist. Previous nationalism wanted to expand imperially and conquer land due to no fixed borders + lack of international law framework. Today’s nationalism wants to actually protect itself from being hollowed out and swallowed by globalisation. That doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be flashpoints and friction, just that total war like the old days is unlikely - friction but not really a fracture. The great powers will exhaust every other avenue (trade, tech, cyber and propaganda warfare) before going for it kinetically, if they ever even do.

@PurpleTree @Hatfort Countries without their own security aren’t truly sovereign - unfortunately Europe outsourced much of it to the US. Which is why many view it as a vassal - Trump simply enjoys mocking this relationship for his own ego. Look at them laughing at Rutte’s “daddy” comment. Rubio in the back cracking up 😂 Shit gets worse. How embarrassing. Fully bent over, vaselined and vassalized. Jeffrey Sachs on Taiwan: On China and EU: George Galloway on UK yapping about going to war over Taiwan: We got cheese and steak in security boxes here in London grocery stores, homelessness on the streets, and public services shrinking and shaking under pressure. But we gone fight a manufacturing technological mammoth all the way across the world and in their own sea where the have supply line advantage 😂 hold my fucking beer mate! Just like with Russia-Ukraine. The US has little to no weapons, the EU has little to no money, and Ukraine has not enough manpower. But we’re supposed to believe this is a deal of the century between the EU and US.