zazen

I already wrote “Someone who is unconscious still exists as a subject with right to bodily autonomy. Their capacity for consent exists even when they’re not currently exercising it - and that anyone overriding it makes it unethical to begin with.” I also covered how moral responsibility still applies to actions that foreseeably affect a future subject. You’re responsible for what those cells will become, but you can’t “violate consent” of what doesn’t yet exist just as Basman is pointing out to you also. Your mistaking the intention to cause harm for the act of violating consent. Paying someone today to commit a future rape is morally evil because it expresses premeditated intent and complicity, not because it “violates future consent.” Consent can’t be violated until there’s a consenting subject - what exists now is your corrupt intention, not the act itself. The moral wrongness lies in planning harm, not in breaching an imaginary contract with a being who doesn’t yet exist. Your just doubling down, collapsing categories and trying to strawman me because your logic is incoherent and your Saturday night live performance of gotcha flopped.

@zurew For the third time - your conflating moral responsibility with consent. Consent applies between subjects that already exist and can willfully agree. Responsibility applies to outcomes you set in motion that will affect beings once they come into existence. You’re trying to discuss temporal consent which is incoherent, compared to temporal ethics (ethics across time) which deals with how our present actions affect future beings or states of the world. Temporal ethics is real but about responsibility and foresight - consent is bounded to subjects that exist and are capable of consent in the present. If we pollute a river that causes future harm - it’s an act of irresponsibility, not non-consensuality - because no one was present to grant it or not. —————— Your rape example proves my point. There’s no such thing as retroactive consent - only retroactive acceptance (forgivness), evaluation or interpretation after the fact. You’re trying to use temporal consent (how the person feels after waking up) to judge temporal ethics (the morality of the act when it was performed). Someone who is unconscious still exists as a subject with right to bodily autonomy. Their capacity for consent exists even when they’re not currently exercising it - and that anyone overriding it makes it unethical to begin with. The act was unethical the moment it began because it was done without consent. The subsequent reaction can bring about forgiveness or trauma - but it can’t retroactively change the immoral nature of the initial choice. Consent is the necessary condition that must be present before the act, not a lucky outcome that might appear after. To have the same action (sex with an unconscious person) either be morally good or evil based on a random dice roll of the victim's subsequent feelings and their consent - is a dangerous foundation for ethics, which is why it’s legally useless. If someone says afterward “I guess it was fine” or “I changed my mind” that doesn’t legally transform a non-consensual act into a consensual one. Likewise, if someone later says “I regret it” that alone doesn’t make a consensual act rape - there has to be evidence that consent was absent at the time. Law deals in objective facts and consent being present, not later feelings. Your claiming that consent can be violated before the capacity for consent exists, as long as that capacity will eventually exist lol. That leads to all kinds of absurdities, stoopid. I can be a ass don’t make me show it:

On the heroin point - you assumed an implication that wasn’t there - didn’t know I had to spell out an obvious nuance as a caveat. Consent is a concept that applies to relationships between existing and capable beings in the present. It can’t apply to those incapable of it or not existing to exercise it. By your logic, every present act would violate the “future consent” of beings who will one day exist - filling a gas tank would become a consent violation against future generations affected by climate change. That logic collapses into paralysis: how could we act at all if every future consequence counted as a consent violation from beings who don’t yet exist? What you’re actually describing isn’t consent but responsibility. If you create a being, you’re responsible for their welfare. That’s why using heroin while pregnant is wrong - not because of “violated consent,” but because it harms someone’s well being. Likewise, if you create a being under good conditions where they can flourish, you’ve fulfilled your responsibility. You’re conflating moral responsibility with consent. And as for calling things stupid - by your own logic, you’re presently violating the future consent of your kids not to look stupid on a forum for trying to word salad your way through a flopped gotcha.

Obviously not lol what a stretch. You’re conflating consent with moral responsibility. My point was that there’s “no possibility of consent or its violation before sentience” - not that this grants license for harm. The absence of consent doesn’t create permission - it simply means the concept of consent doesn’t yet apply.

What’s the premise of anti-natalism? Is it basically that life is suffering and that it’s unethical to bring a life into this world of suffering that it is unable to consent to? Like what Emerald and somethingfunny are discussing above - let’s say we live in a post-scarcity society of abundance due to technological breakthroughs. Does anti-natalism still apply or not? Suffering may be reduced on a material level, but that doesn’t guarantee psychological well being which we may suffer from a lack of despite material wealth. It also doesn’t solve the consent problem because we still can’t get consent from a non-being ticking off a box: to be or not to be? So then it’s not about the conditions of life but about life itself - it’s a metaphysical claim about life which believes that suffering in any form, invalidates the value of existence itself. There’s a difference between a metaphysical claim and a circumstantial lifestyle choice being made based upon conditions.

So consent only comes into question once there’s sentience? If consent doesn’t apply before sentience, then it certainly doesn’t apply before existence. But anti-natalism talks about beings that don’t yet exist at all, not ones that haven’t yet developed consciousness. If there’s no sentience, there’s no subject - and if there’s no subject, there’s no possibility of consent or its violation. Agreed. It's difficult for many people to get by on their own let alone support a family, if they can even partner up with someone to begin with. The problem comes when suffering is taken and universalized as a moral stance in the form of a philosophy in order to cope with that suffering. People feel a need to identity their stance and choices as ''positions''. They journey from identifying as childless - which sounds negative (because less implies lack), then it becomes childfree (which sounds more noble because ''freedom''), but then that sound selfish so it must go the next step and become a ethical concern that shows how much you care - anti-natalism. Lifestyle choices are elevated into ''identities'' and moral philosophies as a compensation for being metaphysically displaced and uprooted from any sort of transcendent identity or belonging - that a mechanised, scientifically rational, materialist culture stripped from them. That's why we have all kinds of subgroups propping up and peoples identities tied to them. It's not simply ''I don't want to have children due to my personal circumstance not being viable'' instead its ''having children is unethical due to lack of consent and introducing them to a life of suffering they have no say in'' and subjecting this moral standard onto others who fall short of it. The philosophy itself is self-negating and self-terminating if adopted at scale and if it were to be a universal ethic or truth. But it’s just a circumstantial choice in a persons life.

If it’s so obviously wrong then point it out. Again - did the non-being consent to not being? Epistemology presupposes existence. If epistemology is about how we know - there must be a knower to know in the first place. We can’t know how a non-existent subject knows or consents, or claim we know about what their preference is - to be or not to be? Which is why consent is reserved for those existing and capable of it. For example, even in existence - we don’t demand consent from babies because they aren’t capable yet. The logic simply goes: suffering is bad, thus to end suffering we eliminate the sufferer. A conversation can be had about suffering, but that’s different to consent.

I don't even feel like spending my energy arguing with you after reading this bro-science. So our big beautiful brains that are energy hungry developed over millions of years by eating grass and nuts? The building blocks of which can't be obtained from a vegan diet deficient in choline, DHA etc. We can live as vegans but didn't evolve from it. We went from butcher to bhudda. Vegans can maintain our current brains only with meticulous planning and supplementation - even then, some nutrients can't be supplemented due to bioavailability. A lot of issues and sup-optimal intake of nutrients takes years to show up as they chip away at our vitality. To do this in one life time is fair, but across generations it could have consequences unless some breakthroughs happen. Forget that side of the discussion and answer this then: Can non-existence be consented to and chosen? There's nobody to be asked. Consent is a relationship between two beings with the capacity for it - not between being and non being. Ethics apply within the realm of existence.

@Something Funny But did they consent to non-existence? Did they consent to non-being? There’s no subject to consent with or not to being with. Existence is its own consent. Being is the universe saying yes to itself. Stage green philosophies are philosophies of empathy that ultimately self terminate. A overcorrection to a Western arc of development that made life mechanical through scientific rationalism and disenchanted life, literally questioned the value of life itself - because science demands questioning everything. Now stage green new age philosophies try to re-enchant life with BEing again - but over correct into philosophies that make being itself an impossibility. A non-vegan diet grew our brains big enough to even platform enough conciousness to contemplate eating non-vegan to begin with. Voluntarily going vegan and depriving the brain of certain nutrients on a long enough time horizon may devolve our brains - shrinking the very vessel for conciousness and “compassion”. Anti-natalism voluntarily extincts the vessel (body) for being to even BE. The issue with both is they deny suffering, rather than sacrilize it. Something religions and much of the world still does - that liberal progressives mock as backward yet suffer for and over correct for. This then becomes the benchmark for “development” but it’s actually Western civilizations self therapy for going down a rabbit hole detour of materialism that much of the world hasn’t. De-colonize spiral dynamics - that takes Western stage green which is a remedy for the Wests own de-souling, and imposes that linear model of development on the world that hasn’t yet de-souled itself and thus doesn’t need to go down the same route to be considered “higher” up the spiral catching up with the Wets that is always “ahead”. Anti-natalists be like - but you’ve suffered rite? Why inflict the possibility of it on a non-being? But did you die? Yes, as we all will. But I lived too. I was a user called Zazen dropping bombass golden nuggets on a forum once - because I studied, and I Zazen’d, and I was alive to even Zazen and be concious in the first place. Something funny, something profound, something with suffering too.

Structural changes and financialization are distorting our economies which is also distorting our politics - feedback loop into each other. We will need a cultural revolution before we can have a political revolution that can handle all the changes coming our way that make our old models obsolete for the new world which de-values our labour (physical plane - automation), our intelligence (mental plane - AI, quantum computing) and our energy (energetic plane - fusion, nuclear etc). With the triad of labour, intelligence and energy / matter - once all three become abundant, scarcity economics as we know it dies. The issue is, just like with financialization - abundance is accrued to oligarchic elites. Which is why we’ll need a cultural-political revolution that subordinates capital to the state - so that it can serve the public rather than the few. Otherwise we’re in for techno feudalism. In a structural sense the West has maintained this dynamic through its “evolution”. Every major technological leap (railroads, oil, internet, AI) has been captured by private oligarchies first, then regulated too late. The logic is: monopolize, financialize, securitize, and drip the benefits down. China’s model with all its faults, is built differently. It treats breakthroughs as national assets, integrated into long term social planning. When China gains efficiency - it tends to invest it downward into infrastructure, housing, education, or production capacity. In the West, efficiency gains get hoovered up to the top to shareholders and speculative capital.

New movie out called Palestine 36

@Breakingthewall What nerdspeak is saying about the similarities of Islamophobia to antisemitism is a good point - I think its because both Muslims and Jews keep a distinctness about them and their own identity (especially orthodox), so their more easily seen as ''other'' or not fully assimilated. And when they become too large as a % of the population then naturally the native / host culture and people don't want to lose their own identity / culture. Being in a democracy where everyone can vote only amplifies and politicizes those tensions because now that ''other'' identity can politically vote for their own vision of how society should be run, which isn't always compatible with how the host culture and people want their society to run. This is why a diverse city like Dubai has stability and way less polarization - because the population is de-politicized. No one feels politically threatened by their neighbor who is ''different'' because they don't have any political power to ''impose'' their politics onto you via the ballot box and state. UK is roughly 80% white, 10% Asian, 5% African and 5% other (East Asian, Middle Eastern etc). UK's muslim population is roughly 6% - but in major cities its close to 15% (London, Manchester - in the 2nd largest city Birmingham its 30%). Those cities are also around 50% non-white / native. So if cities are where the political power, wealth and culture of the country is usually represented - and the host culture / people lose their position in them - naturally this creates a backlash - even if majority of the country is still ''native''. Islamists are a problem - but just like with any extremism it (which is a problem) it represents a super minority of the population - as nerdspeak said. But I do think that the average Muslims is still seen as ''different'' because they have a civilizationally intact identity they stick to - that is distinct from the host country. They don't ''assimilate'' as easily because their boundaries aren't as porous - alcohol I think is a big one which is a social lubricant in much of Western society. For example - Indians can join in on pub culture / after work drinks (common in UK), where as a Muslim wouldn't really partake in that or even if they were present - them not drinking is seen as not ''joining in''. Another is modesty of dress - which makes them stick out too. So now you have almost approaching 1/5 of the cities population seemingly not assimilated and who have a strong identity. Mutli-cultralism seems to only work if the fundamental values are similar - otherwise even without migrants and in a homogenous society you have different cultures at odds with each other - like today in the West, especially the US - we have conservative trad types at oods with liberal progressives. Their value systems are different + they have political rights so its a double whammy of politicization and polarization. One believes men can be women and the other only believes in two genders - the fundamentals of reality are at odds (imagine half a population of flat earthers sharing political space and deciding policies with the other half being round earthers). Look at Connor Mcreggor vs Khabib who are from opposite worlds in terms of value and orientation. Connor is arrogant, loud mouthed and his humour is one of mockery - from a culture of ridiculing , questioning authority and asserting your individual dignity in being able to do so (free speech). This is completely different to Eastern cultures and especially Islamic culture who don't take such things or insults lightly especially to parents or religion. There's a reason your mom jokes are a thing in Western schools and not in other parts of the world lol Another issue is that right now the West doesn't have a solidly cohesive cultural identity. Migrants coming in should assimilate, but assimilate to what? Their has to be some base assumptions and values that are shared for social stability. Today Westerners themselves are asking the question of what ''we'' even is. Case in point: It's beautiful to have distinct countries with their own cultures that are maintained and not diluted in some universal blob of consciousness and homogeneity with open / uncontrolled immigration. People want to feel (need to) a sense of belonging and identity also - so its valid and understandable. There's obviously a smart way of discussing the topic and a not so smart one. Interesting short clip on the grooming gang issue: Moral ambiguity and contradictions in liberalism playing out.

Many times I come across geopolitical videos that are so wide ranging - they don’t quite fit in any single thread. Here’s a thread to share such videos and discuss geopolitics in general. Don’t jump to conclude that sharing such videos means endorsing all the views in such videos, and ignore the clickbaity titles and thumbnails that are unfortunately common these days despite the content being worth listening to. Starting off with three all encompassing videos: - Jeffrey Sachs covering how the world got to where it is today (Uni-polar) - Scott Horton covering US foreign policy in detail (there’s a recent Lex Fridman podcast 10 hrs long but this is more condensed) - Matt Williams (Willy OAM) on global geopolitics and how all the players are positioning themselves. Quite a mind blowing listen. Doesn’t embed so here’s the URL: https://youtu.be/6OaP6Hi0OSk?si=tacdv0wa2gCzC3cc

8 min of mic drops

Praying to maintain humanity amongst inhumanity, around everything broken to connect to the unbreakable. In prostration - at the lowest point when the head touches the floor, they speak of the most high. It’s sexier and cooler when Aubrey Marcus types congregate for their shamanic journeys though. But Muslims incorporating a daily dose of remembrance in their own way. oooo thats evil and scary ooo Halloween soon ya know. Hippie new age aesthetics are obviously the right and only way to be spiritual cos they be higher on that spiral dynamic colour. Picking colours like we power rangers..go go power ranger. I see Westerners breaking down in the rat race of urban life cos the barista got the coffee wrong, whilst Gazan kids still singing with a smile after all they’ve been through. The biohacking, journaling, freedom drenched life of hedonism annd “liberties” isn’t enough of a cooling balm for the soul it seems. We assign value to Ryan Holiday stoicism but too easily mock “primitive” sources of strength many still rely on due to our own biases.

The peace of mutually assured destruction still isn’t the one of understanding. They’ve outsourced the fight to proxy means because a direct fight would mean annihilation as you say. Mutually destroying weaker nations instead of mutually assured destruction of all nations. Banger of a video:

Be careful of the identity of being contrarian vs conformist. If the herd (masses) is bad, then why have democracy that allows the herd to vote?

Ideas are information, ideaology is information thought to be wise when it isn’t. The past lacked information and wisdom, today we have information but still lack a critical mass of wisdom. You can have all the information in the world to bust your misinformed bubble - yet lack the wisdom to parse that information - separating signal from noise. Governance ultimately aims to filter wisdom, as it’s utopian to think it can be scaled to the masses. If wisdom can’t be scaled, why have a political system that depends on the wisdom of the masses to guide politics and policy? Across time and cultures there was a acknowledgement of the “elders” or the “wise” council for this reason. But that can also be corrupted. Liberal democracy challenged that and bet on the idea that wisdom can be filtered through the masses if they engage in enough good faith debate, which overtime self corrects - thus free speech became virtue. But now there is less good faith, and less debate - people are sorted into algorithmic sealed bubbles and clash when they encounter another bubble. The liberal rationale is that the individual is primary, and thus their right to speech -and from this assumption a collective of individuals will come together in debate to seek truth and stumble upon a collective wisdom from which to guide politics - thus democracy. The irony is that individualism can cause a sort of narcissism and lack of humility - but humility is needed in truth seeking and good faith debate to begin with. It’s self defeating - unless the culture instills humility as a counter balance. In the past people may have been delusionally misinformed (due to lack of information) - but it was a shared delusion. Today people can be misinformed but in countlesss ways through online echo chambers - so we have polarized delusion. One delusional view of reality clashes with another. Today we are hyper-informed with misinformation, yet suffer from a deficit of wisdom to process it, compounded by a deficit of humility needed to learn from others who might be misinformed differently, or better informed than ourselves. The filtering process has become clogged in a noisy (technological) and narcissistic (cultural) era. China seems to have solved for that by filtering for the wisest leaders, rather than hoping to filter wisdom from the masses, who believe their view of reality is wise (ideological) and others isn’t (leading to polarization). How can the Western political system handle all this?

Awesome share. The first video you shared from this channel was also really good (on internet firewall) Here’s a interesting video related to yours but that is coming at it more from a finance level: I really wonder how many people actually watch the videos that are shared by others. Maybe it depends on their length lol. Here is a relevant short:

@Kid A I wrote about this last week in the above shared comment. I did say Russia/China exploit those vulnerabilities - but didn’t create them. There are fundamental reasons of internal pressure and external structural changes to the world order occurring that are causing this. The fire would be there without Russia pouring gasoline - the extent of what impact that has can be debated - but the fire being there is independent of that. Empires eventually come to the end of their dominance as the internal contradictions of overextending and maintaining that empire come to crisis point. As I said to Dalan above in the first paragraph - why would you want your rival (who seeks to contain you) have a locked off political system you can’t interfere in and guarantee the leader of? As is the case with democracy. The notion they’re trying to end democracies is different to them interfering in their rivals democratic system to counter them indirectly rather than directly - as any nation would do against a nation trying to openly contain it. I don’t deny that. Just see the latest topic by enchanted to see how the West interfered with Hong Kong. People let the internal politics of a country taint their analysis of the external politics (geo-politics between states) of that country. That if the country sucks balls internally-domestically (lack of human rights, authoritarian etc) this must mean they are automatically always in the wrong in their foreign policy and geopolitics. This is why many people struggle to analyse geopolitics properly.

International relations run on interests not ideaology. What difference does the West being authoritarian or democratic make to Russia / China? You can have rivals in both systems. A authoritarian America could still view Russia / China as rivals to be “contained”. In fact a democratic system allows for easier interference than a centralized authoritarian one. Somehow we’re supposed to believe Russia and China want other authoritarians to fight against. I have a thesis in progress about all this that has multiple levels to it. Basically populism is a reflex to economic (dispossession or disenfranchisement), cultural (displacement), and structural (geopolitical) pressures. Populism can manifest in different ways (left vs right) and swing between the two (Brazil as a perfect case - Bolsonaro to Lula) or barely show up if those pressures don’t cause the conditions for it emerge (Japan for example). Why has Japan been immune from populist fever? Because economic, cultural and structural pressures haven’t been enough to break it - only bend it. It’s coasting off strong economic growth from the past, culturally still cohesive, and is adapting to structural geopolitical shifts rather than resisting the shift or being confrontational towards those driving it. Japan sits right beside the epicenter of the global power transition (China) while remaining a core ally of the Western US led order. It isn’t viewed as a threat by either side as it’s aligned with the West while economically plugged in and diplomatic with China. That gives Japan insulation from potential instability that comes when the global order is shifting (unipolar to multipolar). Instead of being a proxy of great power competition its adapted and struck a strategic balance among that completion. Pakistan as an example is doing similar by balancing relations between the two superpowers. Ukraine could have played the same neutral role between competing orders and powers but instead became a frontline proxy. I put a larger essay of this into Chat GPT to tidy up. Here it is: “ That’s an excellent and comprehensive take — conceptually rich and already 90% there. What it really needs is tightening and rhythmic flow — less redundancy, smoother transitions, and sharper contrasts so that the reader feels the argument unfold naturally from micro (economic) to macro (geopolitical). Here’s a refined version with your substance fully intact: “Populism in a Changing World Order **Populism is not an ideology — it’s a reflex. It arises when economic, cultural, and structural pressures converge to make ordinary people feel the system no longer works for them. It is the political pulse of instability — a symptom of imbalance between promise and reality. These pressures exist on three levels: Economic: dispossession or disenfranchisement — losing prosperity or being denied it. Cultural: identity loss or challenge — a sense of “who we are” coming undone. Structural / Geopolitical: the macro order that either cushions or intensifies these pressures. When these align, populism activates. **Western Populism — The Politics of Dispossession Western populism is nostalgic. It looks backward to a lost dream — the “American” or “Western” dream of prosperity, security, and belonging. It’s driven by dispossession: what was once possessed has been lost. Hence its central demand: “Take back power.” The postwar order delivered stability at home through dominance abroad. Now, as the global hierarchy erodes, that privilege is slipping away — economically and culturally. Deindustrialization, liberal progressivism, and mass migration amplify the feeling of loss and cultural dislocation. Western populism therefore becomes both economic and existential — a fight over what we lost and who we are. Emotion: Dispossession Goal: Restore a lost order Tone: Defensive, nationalist, identity-driven Direction: Scapegoats horizontally — migrants, minorities, cultural outsiders Example: Trump, Brexit, Le Pen When identity and prosperity collapse together, populism turns inward — protectionist, nostalgic, and sometimes exclusionary. **Southern Populism — The Politics of Disenfranchisement Southern populism is aspirational. It looks forward to a future that has long been denied. It’s driven by disenfranchisement: people never had access to prosperity or power, only exploitation and dependency. Its central demand: “Claim power.” These movements seek not restoration but realization — to achieve the prosperity others already enjoyed. They target systems of corruption, colonial legacies, and foreign domination rather than cultural outsiders. Emotion: Disenfranchisement Goal: Attain fairness and sovereignty Tone: Assertive, redistributive, anti-imperial Direction: Diagnoses vertically — corrupt elites, imperial powers, foreign corporations Example: Chávez, Morales, AMLO, Malema Some, like Hindu nationalism, reach back to ancient “golden eras” for symbolic pride, but most are anchored in recent injustice, not past glory. Their populism is structural — not nostalgic — aimed at rewriting the hierarchy rather than reasserting it. **Cultural Divergence Culture shapes how populism expresses itself. The West’s rapid liberal-progressive shifts, mass migration, and multiculturalism eroded cultural consensus. People no longer share a stable “we.” Hence, Western populism is often right-wing — a defensive reaction to cultural displacement layered atop economic loss. The Global South, by contrast, retains stronger civilizational cohesion. Progressivism hasn’t yet atomized its societies; migration hasn’t unsettled its sense of self. Tribalism exists, but within clearer cultural boundaries. So its populism focuses less on who belongs and more on who benefits. The West’s populism fights over identity. The South’s populism fights over opportunity. As a rule: the West’s populism is right-leaning and nostalgic; the South’s is left-leaning and emancipatory. **Scapegoats vs. Diagnosis Western populism looks sideways for culprits — blaming cultural outsiders for decline. Southern populism looks upward — diagnosing elites, imperial systems, and structural exploitation. The West’s populism has scapegoats; the South’s populism has diagnosis. One externalizes guilt; the other identifies cause. Even within the West, however, there’s a growing awareness of elite capture — “globalists” whose interests are transnational rather than national — showing that both types can overlap under shared pressures. The Structural Context: Empire and Decline Beneath both lies a shifting global architecture. The economic and cultural stresses of populism play out within a collapsing geopolitical framework. The prosperity and peace of the Western middle class were imperially subsidized — stability at home built on disorder abroad. Wars, coups, regime changes, and debt traps sustained Western dominance, enriching corporate elites while pacifying domestic politics. The U.S.-led order’s reserve currency, global institutions, and financial system created an artificial calm that kept populism dormant. Now those conditions are unraveling. The imperial core has hollowed itself out — late-stage capitalism cannibalizing its own foundations. Meanwhile, the periphery that once fed the empire is rising and resisting. A unipolar order is giving way to a multipolar one. Western elites, who outgrew their national bases to become global capital, now face shrinking access to cheap labour, easy markets, and political obedience. Their response is to extract inward — cannibalizing the very societies that once benefited from empire. **In Essence Populism is grievance politics gone about in different ways. In the West, it mourns dispossession — the loss of a dream that once was. In the South, it demands justice — the right to a dream never realized. Both are reactions to the same historical transition: the decline of an empire that once kept order by exporting chaos. As the world shifts from unipolarity to multipolarity, the periphery rises, the core fractures, and populism is the sound of that tectonic adjustment reverberating through humanity.“ Man GPT can be so cringe at times lol don’t have time to edit the cringe out and refine it but above gets the gist.

@Breakingthewall I literally said if the euphoria is coming from the killing itself then it is insane and sick. Anyway - is this how AIPAC Zionists approached you: If you’re getting a yatch I want an invite next year for 2026 season. Let’s go Ibiza and Formentera papi.

@Breakingthewall Your username is literally Breakingthewall. Maybe you’d have a euphoric outburst from breakingthewall on October 7th too - from breaking the siege of your oppressors. Obviously if the euphoria is from the suffering you cause those on the other side of the wall your a sick sadist though. It’s so obvious it’s dumb for me to even have to mention that nuance but you seem to conflate and misread things entirely. Your now saying that maybe they did use starvation as a weapon but only sometimes. Your saying its different and okay that their attacking objects (buildings) instead of bodies (civilian) - but attacking the buildings still makes the place un-livable in which those bodies (civilians) live. You just evade and sometimes concede begrudgingly lol If Hamas are in the tunnels underground then what’s the point of destroying everything above ground including the civilians ability to live there. It only ensures more recruits for Hamas, and more hatred and condemnation from the world.

@Breakingthewall Asking you to examine why October 7th happened, its root cause and the conditions that would lead to it - isn’t justifying it. The 70% support could be for breaking the siege and the act of resistance itself - not the horrific crimes that were done on the day. For Gazans that was a crack made in a prison wall - that doesn’t mean they supported the brutality of what happened when Hamas went across the wall. Before October 7th - a 2023 Pew survey found nearly half of Jewish Israelis believed Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel. Does that justify their punishment? Obviously not. Whether they’re making Gaza un-livable through starvation or destroying buildings is beside the main point - which is that they are making it un-livable to begin with. You call it destroying Hamas but it’s collective punishment in practice. If you rob me then I target you with a nuke - aren’t I in effect collectively punishing everyone around you because of the method and tool I use to “target” you? It’s like trying to blow out a candle with a flamethrower and burning the whole house down - “but I targeted the candle bro my bad”.