zazen

Def doesn’t seem to be going after views, guy doesn’t even have a profile pic lol but many doomer videos are with click bait titles and thumbnails. Peoples intuition of WW3 isn’t misplaced but I think there are structural constraints that will hold back any type of hot war between major powers. He understands the state of things well, but is overconfident in things getting kinetic towards annihilation. He’s opened my eyes to the fact that empire has its own logic compared to capital - which I put more weight on driving things. I overlooked empire and would view things from the POV that the financial elite are the main drivers. A helpful way to break it down is: There are twin brothers in the game, each represent a different faction of elites that can be lumped under: - empire (national security elite, military industrial complex, CIA/NSA, deep state) - capital (financial tech elite, consumer industrial complex, hedge funds and Blackrock) Empire elites seek a position of primacy on the world stage - to maintain unipolarity. The capital elites play within this system that is rigged in their favour. Capital funds and profits from empire while empire protects and expands itself. Empire is financialized, capital is militarized : they are distinct but mostly aligned and interdependent. Empire is the muscle that enforces a game board in its favour, capital plays to dominate others on that game board. Capital can only influence players but can’t enforce players into positions the way the military muscle of empire can. During peace time for empire, where there is no clear challenger, capital expands and looks to be the only player dictating things - but empire and statecraft makes itself more overt when the system that capital depends on is threatened. If there is a new game in town (BRICS+) that’s attracting other players to it and threatening the old game, tension arises between the brothers. The split is between how they respond to this threat: primacy vs profit. Empire says we need to flip the new game board over (contain or destroy it), whilst capital says why not play on that game board too - “It won’t be rigged in their favour, but it’s better to have partial access to some new riches than have no new riches at all” because you destroyed it through war, or got denied access for being a belligerent. So primacy is now being threatened (dollar system + trade): empire wants to maintain it whilst capital wants to make a deal with the new game. Capital is more exposed to global markets and so is more risk averse, seeking compromise whilst empire seeks confrontation. Capital brother is less loyal than the empire brother who seeks legacy and heritage. Capital bro can marry out the family and threaten it because capital is free flowing, liquid - can move to new games boards to play on and profit from. Capital wandering off to play new games (BRICS) weakens the board game that empire built for it. Empire seeks monopoly, capital seeks margin. During unipolarity, the Empire doesn’t need to act like an empire overtly. With the emergence of rivals, grand strategy and statecraft of empire re-emerges to enforce the board game. ——- There are three levels to look at it from. The: - nation state (national interest, people) - empire state (geostrategic interest, primacy/power) - capital-cloud estate (profit interest, finance/tech) The nation is heavily neglected for empire and capital. But once the nation has been hollowed out to such a degree it can threaten empire itself via populism. Financialization and empire marginalise and then radicalise the nation towards populism. Empire needs legitimacy of the people to fight for it. Think of empire as muscle (enforces), capital as blood (flows), nation as heart (soul of the people). With the above in mind, the main factors why a hot kinetic war won’t take place are due to: - mutually assured destruction between nuclear powers - no public buy in for empire wars, narrative collapse of legacy media now challenged by social media - muscles are rusty and showing up weak against asymmetric warfare (Houthis as a example) = less confident to go up against main rivals This is where I agree with the professor that Iran was a target. It’s the last player in a geo-strategically critical region, that was defiant of Western empire/capital and within the new games orbit - BRICS. It’s co-building the new game board (de-dollarization, by passign swift, non-Western banking) that threatens the old game. Empire thinks it can threaten Iran into submission, to play on their board, on their terms. The muscle of empire is like a wrench cracking open resistant nations (Iran) for capital to extract from. But Iran is no walkover, let’s briefly compare to their neighbours. The gulf are culturally and spiritually more aligned to the Global South but were plugged into the old game, and don’t have the muscle to deter any consequences of defecting to the new game being built, which is actually more geographically proximate to themselves and just makes sense to be a part of. This makes the gulf transitional players hedging their bets - playing both sides. The gulf states are a clear example of being a capital estate (not empire) that are under the US empire who they’ve outsourced their security to (muscle). Without security there is no true sovereignty. They can only influence with capital which they have plenty of but can never enforce anything. This is why they will never be great powers which require both muscle and money. China seems to have struck a good (but not perfect) balance between the three layers: nation state, empire state (not necessarily imperial, but influential) and capital-cloud estate. They are attempting to serve the interest of all three harmoniously.this is why they will eclipse the US - strong muscle (military), blood (capital) and heart (people). The body is holistically healthier and robust.. Russia is lopsided in this regard - not serving the nation state (people) but the empire state and capital estate of oligarchs.

Check out what this professor predicts in the 1st min, unreal: At the 37min mark he explains exactly what’s occurring now and why, with regard to Iran. The whole thing is worth a listen and very insightful. Blown away and will need to process it.

@BlueOak Agree, boots on the ground would be a catastrophe. Irans one of the hardest geographies to penetrate - place is like a fortress. The troops would get encircled like Kursk, and supply lines don’t exist by land which only leaves air drops that can be hit down by launchers from the mountains. And those are hard to spot in that terrain, similar to Afghanistan. That’s why Iraq and Syria are different (flat lands) and why hubris to take on Iran thinking they did those two next door is folly. Yet, regime change remains the main aim. They can’t de-nuke the country which has the technical know how - knowledge can’t be bombed away - only intimidated to not act upon that knowledge. But that only cements the idea that must go for the nukes in order to deter. I think that’s why they choose regime change as the path. One that is in line with Western terms ie who doesn’t pursue nuclear and opens access to resources for western corps. Even the operation name itself “rising lion” is in reference to Iran before the revolution where the lion was the national symbol during the Shahs who ruled - and who they want back in power. Israel can only do a short intense fight with Iran - shock and awe style the way the US has been perfecting. If it becomes a war of attrition - Iran can bleed out Israel. The interceptors cost many times more than the missiles Iran fires - the math simply don’t math. Also, Israel is small and has a population not hardened to suffer the same way Iran does. Iranians can move around and away from urban centre being hit - way more space to move than Israelis can who go into bunkers. Any gaps or pressure points Israel has (economic-military) will of course be filled by the US or the West - but domestically the West don’t want to give up resources to a ethno apartheid state that’s ethnically cleansing others and has defied all kinds of norms - whether in international law or in their immoral treatment against Palestinians. Americans don’t want to work two jobs and draw blood for a country they subsidise that has healthcare and gets yearly aid with little string attached - these conversations are circulating en mass and across political aisles now. The pressure is on. Enjoying this professor going viral. Iv been saying for a while how asymmetric warfare is blunting the power of legacy military systems and empire itself. US couldn’t defeat the Houthis but think they can defeat Iran lol If there is a pause between conflict I’m sure Iran will procure Russian/Chinese air defence systems to tighten their weak point which was made clear this round. They will also surely be going after a nuke now to deter a hot war in the future - compared to this which was like warm. A strong airforce would also be good but that takes time and training.

Great noticing

These are the kind of psychotic thugs within Western institutions that not only provide Israel the impunity they have, but encourage vile behaviour. Policy director for the United Against Nuclear Iran non profit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Against_Nuclear_Iran Link: https://x.com/jasonmbrodsky/status/1937229409036951649?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

This is what I mean by survival logic distorting our morality to do things we wouldn’t want to in normal circumstances. But with empire logic we suspend or suppresses our morality out of a cold calculation for dominance and empire. The problem is you are holding morality as an absolute. It is flexible and fluid like anything else. You are going to get tainted in this world whether you like it or not. Not so you better now hold your legos too tightly. You will need to collapse the construction and build again.

Great write up. I commented in another thread and your points tie in well with what I wrote. I was writing about how morality is hijacked by circumstances, your writing about how identity is hijacked by morality itself, especially moral outrage driven wild in the digital age. We can have moral clarity ( as you said we can be spot on in analysis ) but problems arise when we make it our identity. Some people may have the same moral positions as each other but may arrive at them differently - one by being a NCP jumping on a trend to feel identified with something (many activists), another through critical thinking and having moral clarity on a issue. Our moral judgment of actors is how we wish the world to be (idealism - Jeffrey Sachs pov) , our understanding of why they act the way they do is how the world is (realism - John Mearsheimers pov). We can understand power as it is, without surrendering our principles about how it should be wielded. Principles are the souls universal morality - power is the worlds conditioned, contextual reality. I think that deep down we have a universal morality, a soul morality (fitrah in Islam, Dao or bhudda nature, telos in Christianity). Its pre-duality, pre-political, pre-cultural and conditional. But then the world of duality means we must contend with circumstances and conditions that distort, suppress or invert our access to that soul morality (which I generally map in the below comment). That's why religion and spirituality usually refers to revelation or a home coming - in the sense that we have good in us that we need returning to, or revealing of.

I agree - but this can easily become philosophical bypassing as @Inliytened1 said. It can paralyze us into in-action if we abstract completely away from the surface because we make things too broad to tackle. Taken to the extreme we could just say ''God did it as he started this whole thing'' - but it's not pragmatic or helpful. That's one issue with the spiritual non-dual community. The non-dual world may bring peace, but it doesn't bring us protection from the dual world we live in. Non-duality transcends good, bad and evil but doesn't negate them in our dual experience which we have to contend with. I was talking about power because you previously mentioned how war is war - meaning any use of power needed to ensure survival is justified. I was trying to explain that there's a line where survival logic (deterrent based) becomes empire logic (domination based) - and how that extends to politics. The right wing emphasizes power and accumulating more (capitalism) while the left wing emphasizes principles and morality through equality (socialism). We can't just succumb to our use of power without any principles (war is war, might makes right). That's been the core tension in human history: between power (to survive, dominate and accumulate) and principle (to thrive, dignify and guide power with meaning and morality). I wasn't giving a pass or justifying - only understanding. The same way Zionists want people to understand why Israel is acting the way it is - which I also outlined. That's why I said Nazism and ISIS are Evil - they completely invert morality. Evil is literally Live spelled backwards (inverted). Devil spelled backwards is lived - the opposite of that which lived. That's why in Satanism everything is about inversion. Moral distortion (due to survival pressures) or moral suppression-disengagement (due to cold calculations for domination and empire) can still do harm - but moral inversion literally calls that harm good or sacred, it makes domination righteous. Like you said, Israel has a tyrant like Bibi who is hell bent on domination - he suppresses morality for empire. But Israel also has fanatical and puritanical elements such as Ben Gvir or Smotrich who are much more ideological. The idea of Zionism started with survival based morality (we need a safe place to live) - it became distorted once they had to confront people living there already. Self-determination is moral clarity, self-determination at the expense of others is moral distortion - which requires the suppression of morality in order to dominate that reality into existence. This also had and still has elements of ideological fanatics who view domination as righteous - the kahanist and messianic Zionists. That's where morality gets inverted similar to Nazism and ISIS. Hence why Zionism isn’t a monolith and there are different interpretations and manifestations of it.

I’m based in UK and from a mixed background. I have critically thought about the situation, and have come to conclusions as to who’s the most de-stabilising force in the world that’s causing death and destruction. It’s not bias to point that out, just clarity - and I don’t have any cognitive dissonance doing so as I don’t identify with any nation, religion or people. Heres how I make sense of it all: If we lived at the time of the British Empire or during the Holocaust - would it be okay for people to just say “well that’s power isn’t it, that’s how the world and geopolitics works, it’s not about morals”. The point is we are humans, not robots. On some level we have a sense of right and wrong which stems from the soul. But then how do we explain why people do wrong yet don’t feel it to be wrong? I think what happens is that peoples moral compasses get hijacked due to external circumstance, but that doesn’t make it an internal condition which is a racist or essentialist claim. Context (circumstances) distort, suppress or invert our conscience (morality). Germans turning around from Nazism shows that context > innateness. Nazism was a perfect shit storm of contextual forces that hijacked human morality on a mass scale leading to the worst atrocities. Moral distortion is psychological-survival based, moral suppression is empire-domination based, moral inversion is ideological-puritanical based. Resistance groups belong to the first category (localised geopolitical struggle), Zionism is mainly a mix of the first two (started with geopolitical survival but became dominating), US nuking Japan and doing all they’ve done till today is mainly moral suppression (morality suspended for the cold calculus of empire), Nazism and ISIS are the last two (global domination to purify the world - apocalyptic politics not just geopolitics) in other words: evil. Distorted morality is survival logic (liberation), suppressed morality is empire logic (domination), inverted morality is purity logic (evil). Israel right now seems to be locked into a distorted feedback loop of (past) trauma justifying (present) domination. The context today is that they have power that is distorted by paranoia, rooted from a time in which they lacked any power to survive. Their moral compass is hijacked by a permanent sense of threat that has been heightened beyond what it really is due to past trauma. And despite being materially developed (powerful) they are morally compromised (in principles). This is the key tension that causes a lot of confusion (even politically between left and right). To defer to power (conserve to survive - quality and might make right) or to defer to principle (liberate to thrive - equality and fairness are rights). These need to be synthesised. The lefts blind spot is to deny the reality of survival and power dynamics because it counters their own idea of human goodness. The rights blindspot is to just succumb to raw power dynamics without principles to buffer and refine power itself. The realities of survival and power threatens the lefts moral framework because they haven’t synthesized the ideals of principles - with the realities of power and survival. They either deny those realities or have an incorrect relationship to it - viewing hierarchy and power as bad ie communism being the extreme political manifestation. The right succumb to power dynamics with little to no moral framework - only justifying power as principle itself, with facism being their extreme political manifestation on the other end of the spectrum. The bottom line is that the physical nature of power isn’t good by default - the concept of good doesn’t even exist in that plane. It’s just raw and neutral - and only becomes good when nurtured by principles from the non-physical plane of the soul. We are both ruled (down to earth) by power and pulled (up to heaven) by principles. Civilization is about buffering the reality of power with the conscience of principles - or them finally coming together.

By that logic, anyone who ‘’starts something’’ opens the door for any response, by any means necessary. Applied universally: the US overthrew Iran’s government in 1953, invaded Iraq, bombed Libya, occupied Afghanistan, backed coups and funded militants - does that mean any group that views itself as wronged now has license to do whatever it takes to end the threat? If so, that’s justifying Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and every suicide bombing framed as retaliation. If “whatever means necessary’’ is valid when you feel existentially threatened, then it’s valid for everyone. You can’t excuse away disproportionate violence like nukes on Japan for example “listen to yourself bro”. The US wasn’t even under any threat when they dropped them. It wasn’t for protection but to project power.

Hezbollah came out of reaction to Israel’s invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon in 1982. Hamas came out of reaction to Israeli occupation, dispossession and denial of Palestinians right to self-determination, October 7th was a brutal outburst in reaction to being under a brutal seige for 16 years. And you aren’t crying the same way you are about October 7th, for something done at such horrific scale on an already defeated people - simply because the US wanted to flex its muscle on the world stage? You think because someone starts something that gives you the right to end things however you want and just dismiss it as “it’s war bro, shit happens”. That’s just Darwinian might makes right logic which is the opposite of what makes people civilised and humane. The point is that if Japan drew the US into war, then by that same logic, Israel’s decades of dispossession, siege, and ethnic cleansing drew Hamas into launching a brutal attack. Doesn’t make it noble - but it makes it understandable in the same way.

So surprise attacks are bad now? Like what Israel just did? I guess it was just “preemptive” like what Israel just did. The difference is that Pearl Harbour was act of war (military target) whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki was act of horror (nuking civilians) which killed approximately 80’000 civilians in a instant on each day the bomb was dropped. Nice try, next.

Why? Do you know the history of the region? How did these proxies (Hezbollah and Hamas) come to exist and what is their purpose? Are Hezbollah and Hamas based upon geopolitical struggles (related to Israeli occupation and aggression) or are their aspirations global (rather than localized) in a bid to expand Islamic purity such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS? These are key distinctions not to be overlooked. Iran is reacting to imperialism, not being imperial itself.

Moral imperfection and shortcomings of state doesn’t give license for another state to act imperially against them. Especially when we know they don’t actually care about those issues to begin with but instead use them as moral cover for imperial interest. What is fact is that one country has nukes and is the only one to have ever used them (twice on Japanese civilian packed cities) - the other country is the only country with a official policy of nuclear ambiguity and is a ethno-apartheid state committing genocide.

What objectives have been achieved by Israel-US? Firstly what are the main objectives: deny (nuclear capability) and depose (current regime). They will rationalise away why this strike was a success and move the goalpost of course. “Our objective was to delay their ability to enrich” when we know it’s to deny Iranians any ability to begin with. - the facility hasn’t been fully destroyed, uranium material and parts have most likely been moved - no regime change in site You can’t bomb knowledge out of existence - the technical knowhow in the nuclear domain still exists. All this has done is reinforced the strategic logic of needing a nuclear deterrent. One positive that may come out of this depends on Irans last move of ritual escalation. All parties involved will have been provided an off ramp to save face and de-escalate back to the negotiating table (less likely imo) or status quo. Israel - US can signal their symbolic mountain hit as a win, Iran can signal whatever they hit next as a win. But it depends on if the other side responds back and continues up the escalation ladder.

It’s called “counter-intuitive”. Something that flies over the heads of Western arrogance. This isn’t the 20th century anymore where the West is the only player in town in a uni-polar world, demanding others dance on its pole. The multi-polar world is here - which explains the West acting in aggression towards it. Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan being their Trojan horses on each continent. Iran said they wouldn’t negotiate until Israel stops attacking, why would they negotiate now after the US itself has attacked - they even decapitated the key negotiator. This is the level of stupidity on display. “We bombed you during negotiations and killed your key negotiator, but please return to the negotiating table - the one you never left but we portray to the world as if you did in a bid to make you look like barbaric backwards Middle Easterners who are incapable of diplomacy”

The world is hip to the game. Anyone still making excuses or rationalising Western imperial action is ignorant at best, or a supremacist imperial bootlicker at its worst. “Deterrence for me but not for thee” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

@Inliytened1 They’re building to deter Western misadventure, not destroy. Why didn’t the US stick to the JCPOA? Trumps talking about peace now when it was already in place. Such gaslightery. Answer this: does Israel have nukes or not?

The world just observed how not to take the US or Israel at its word.

So Seymour Hersh was correct. Whether this escalates and spirals out of control or not - one thing is certain: trust in the US will be even lower, especially with Iran. They lulled them into complacency during negotiations when Israel struck them, and now again with the “two week delay” on a decision which seems was already decided upon and acted upon 2 days after dropping the 2 week notice. Another rug pull.

Like I shared, it’s rhetorical. They can’t and won’t wipe anyone off the map - they’re mainly against the policies. Perhaps US-Israel shouldn’t create the conditions for them to be hated by the world so much. This could be true. Things could de-escalate now as the US can save face with this strike - but Iran now needs to retaliate to the US in order to save face. If it’s contained and theatric, the US could decide enough is enough. But then the US also can’t be seen to be hit by Iran and not do nothing - even if it’s theatric with no lives lost. Remember how Iran retaliated against Israel with advanced warning and didn’t kill anyone? That’s a de-escalatory face saving strike. But this crosses a different threshold between Iran and the US. Each side needs to hit just hard enough to preserve credibility, but not hard enough to force the other to hit back harder. War has its own logic that can spiral out of control. It seems likely the facility isn’t fully destroyed so the question is will Israel stop striking and escalating? This may fulfil the US’s need to maintain its image of being a strong hegemon but it doesn’t meet Israels demand for denying Iran nuclear capability or bringing about regime change. Theatrics and symbolism only work when all players are playing by the same playbook.

Awesome read that made me think. I'll add some nuance in that I think resistance and martyrdom are more a functional tool rather than a foundational identity (same with the concept of jihad in wider Islam). Their identity is capable of resistance but not dependent on it in order to define it self in the negative. Their ethos is one of sovereignty and dignity - which as @PurpleTree pointed out above is also why they fit into the BRICS framework where sovereignty and multipolarism aren't treated as threats. Resistance and martyrdom aren't pathologies (essential) but paths (circumstantial) to being and remaining sovereign in the face of tyranny and domination. They don't resist enemies because they have a fetish for death or need an eternal enemy to affirm their identity - but because a enemy keeps arriving in the form of Western domination through coups, sanctions and encirclement. The trap is the Wests who remain baffled that a nation they tried to conquer refuses to become a client state by sacrificing their sovereignty like others did. The tragedy on the geopolitical stage is that the West insists others dance on their pole, when there are multiple poles that exist and would like to exist. Iran doesn't want to become like everyone else if everyone else means submission to Western hegemony. Thankfully, they have found a home in BRICS multi-polarity, which is carving out a parallel world that respects others distinct from themselves existing within. The tension is that Iran won't normalize to being a pawn, while the West can''t normalize being able to sit down at a table among equals - who instead insists on being at the head of the table.

It's understandable why Israel went for nukes out of survival logic - which was before it had US protection. It comes down to vulnerability which comes in many forms - being outnumbered or outmatched, poor geography, lack of partners or allies. The reason Japan doesn't go for nukes despite being outnumbered by China is because it has US backing. North Korea went for nukes because it was isolated. The gulf don't go for nukes because they have US protection including Pakistan. But its the same survival logic of vulnerability that is causing Iran to want to pursue nukes or keep the capability to do so - it's in a hostile neighborhood, outnumbered by a sunni population if a fight was to ever break out over religious dividing lines, and is surrounded by US bases - meaning outmatched by US military who have massive fire and air power. Iran's the last man standing against US - Israeli hegemony in the region - anyone in their shoes would want to get deterrence through ballistic missiles or any other means possible. Democratic restrains didn't stop the US from nuking Japan including all the other naughty stuff the US has been up to every year of its existence till today. In fact, democracy which allows for change every few years is vulnerable to an extremist or demagogue being voted into power. Trump was voted into power and left the JCPOA which was keeping Iran away from nukes - that's the reliability of democracy at work. This is the same democracy that enabled Libya to give up their WMD programme but that then resulted in Gaddafi being toppled and sodomized with a bayonet in utter humiliation. As Hillary Clinton said “we came, we saw, he died”. This is why the chant ''Death to America'' which is explained here for Khameni: Another clip: https://x.com/me_observer_/status/1936223604175450393?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out why the chant exists after watching what the US has done the past decades. Iran just says the quiet part out loud that most of the Global South and Muslim world feel. They have a culture of resistance and martyrdom to not fear the consequences as much. The West acts surprised that they are stood up to - they act as if no other people on the planet have pride in them to fight back or that they have civilizations (Persian, Indian, Chinese) with spirituality and depth more ancient than even theirs that are worth fighting for. It's dehumanizing at its worst and ignorant as its best. They see anyone's freedom anywhere - as a threat to their supremacy everywhere. ''How dare they resist''

Why do you think Iran is acting the way it does? Your answers found in point 1 you shared from Chat GPT: Proliferation domino effect. Who’s started the nuke race in the region? Who’s incentivised the need for some deterrence capacity to be established (via proxy, missiles etc) due to country after country around you getting intervened in and destabilised? If the conclusions make the US come across bad maybe that’s just fact, too bad it hurts your feelings. Don’t call to cancel me like you did purple tree.