zazen

Imagine complaining about radicals at your gates, then funding the very same radicals. lol

Very interesting points that bring nuance. Yeah Candace and that crowd don’t acknowledge bias enough or at all. They point to “we’re all already equal under the law” and that any disparity is simply merit based (quality that they attribute supremacy to) when it can be discriminatory based. The question is, are the disparities more due to merit or discriminatory bias? Discrimination is hard to quantify and find evidence for, whilst disparities are easily quantifiable and visible. The left at least acknowledge that bias exist, but try to remedy it top down which creates its own counter bias. Thats why I wrote that bias still exists even in a equal system, which you added to with your point that the world still has a bias towards collectivism - viewing people as collectives rather than individuals. But perhaps the remedy to collective bias (racism-discrimination) isn’t collective punishment or reward either, via DEI policies. The remedy isn’t reversing the dynamic but transcending it - which only happens organically at a spiritual/cultural level, not a political one.

This is true. Usually liberal and leftists heavily support Palestine, and predictably also support DEI. But isn't it contradictory: they understand that Palestinians (in Middle East) shouldn't pay for the sins of others who caused a horrific injustice to the Jews (in Europe), but that logic goes out the window when it comes to making groups (white people) in the present, pay for the past historical injustices caused to another group (black people). Both punish one person for another’s sin - and reduce people to their group identity. It's like moral racism or reverse racism - because it's identifying someone based on their race and treating them accordingly to protocol (DEI). Equity (equality of outcome - leftism) negates equality (of opportunity - liberalism). The leftists who vouch for equity, assume themselves to be an extension of liberal equality, but it ends up undermining the very principles of classical liberalism which are built on: fairness, neutrality, individual merit, and equal opportunity. The way to look at the political spectrum and make sense of it is this: Far left: Equity (outcome, forced) Middle Left: Equality (opportunity, fairness) Middle Right: Quality (discernment, earned merit) Far Right: Quantity (domination, measurable metrics) Quantity oriented means that which is visible, measurable, surface level - IQ, race, strength / might makes right, eugenics = leads to supremacist thinking to justify domination. Both extremes (far left and far right) reduce human beings to statistics, labels, or categories. Both extremes are metric based, surface driven, and inhumane in the end. They both assign value based on what you are (on the surface), not who you are (at your depth). They both trap you into a label or avatar of a group based identity - rather than liberating you as a person with equality of opportunity, to unlock the best of your qualities. Equity also doesn’t just steal opportunity from one person to give it to another - it steals dignity from both. Imagine getting a position not because you earned it but because your x group. Justice should be prospective by building towards a fair future, not retrospective by settling a historic injustice. The issue that leftists rightly point out is that bias can and does still exist, even in a equal system. But they can't top down engineer and fix that because it only causes its own version of injustice and unfairness. It just replaces bias with counter-bias - which ironically only empowers the far right to pendulum swing back in retaliation. They try to mechanically correct a spiritual or cultural flaw with a structural or political fix - when its a spiritual cultural flaw. The solution has to happen in the domain of the spiritual and cultural, and more organically - not some GMO forced fakery creating a chlorinated chicken. A balanced society doesn’t guarantee success, but guarantees a fair shot - and a soft landing if you fall. They level the floor from where everyone starts, not flatten the ceiling so that everyone can touch it. It protects the right’s principle of merit (quality) while preserving the left’s principle of fairness (equality). And they are both synergistic in that the more equality of opportunity you have, the more quality is allowed to emerge from it.

@Apparition of Jack Give me some popcorn too brother!

Who’s says they’re unattractive? Perhaps that attractiveness is made discreet as to not attract all kinds of hanky panky. Perhaps, theres some real baddies in the Middle East that be driving men mad enough to fight over them 😂

@Nivsch That’s good to hear. Even this is nice to see:

@Nivsch Do these oppositional voices in Israel ever mention that a worthy reason to end the war is also about ending the suffering of the Palestinians? Because it seems it’s always simply focused on the hostages. It just looks like Palestinian suffering is not morally relevant unless it affects Israeli interests ie getting back the hostages, less IDF deaths or cooling down the worlds anger towards Israel. The ending the war discourse always centres around approx 50 hostages now, as if the thousands upon thousands of suffering Palestinians isn’t worthy enough of a reason to ending the war also. Golan says Israel needs healing and rebuilding as if Gaza hasn’t just been demolished and traumatised to the extreme.

I think there's a lesson here in clarifying the discrepancy between societal talk vs state actions. On one level we can have maximalist aspirations and rejectionist emotional rhetoric expressed on the street, whilst having more balanced pragmatic actions taken at the state - politics level. We see this in how Gulf nations take steps towards Israel (such as the Abraham accords) even though locals are unhappy with it - because at a state level your operating via diplomacy, pragmatism, and state interests that are bound and checked by global norms, alliances, economic pressure, and military risk. In Israels case however, societal aspirations do translate a lot more to state actions - because the usual realpolitik and structural incentives that are supposed to be there to constrain them, are instead pushed to their limits and exceeded thanks to being enabled by the worlds superpower the US. Israel gets to act on its darkest societal instincts a lot more than other states would otherwise. A lot of the fear around a Palestinian state can rightly be pointed to the anger and maximalist positions they may hold at a societal level, despite at a organisational one being more pragmatic (such as expressed by the PLA or today by Hamas). But that fear misses how states function differently than stateless societies. Once Palestinians have a state with defined borders, international recognition, economic incentives, and responsibilities, their behavior will shift - not because their pain disappears, but because statehood tames maximalism. That emotion will be channeled into diplomacy, law, and survival strategy - just like it has for other national or liberation movements ie IRA in Ireland. It's the absence of a state that keeps that maximalism alive. Statelessness breeds desperation while statehood breeds accountability - to allies, trade partners and global norms. Once Palestine is on the map, its government would be forced to prioritize stability, legitimacy, and international support, not slogans. Meanwhile, Israel which is already a state - has no excuse for its behavior. Its atrocities and massacres aren’t theoretical or projection, but fact. Just see how at a societal level many Palestinians in the following videos hold maximalist positions, whilst at a higher level of state or political organisation they are tamed into diplomatic pragmatism in order to further the interest of their own people, even against their peoples own maximalism:

@Nivsch @Raze

@Breakingthewall The official UK government website refers to Palestine as occupied territory. This isn’t Hamas or Al Jazeera either. UK is not only a close ally of Israel, but played a foundational role in founding it via the Balfour declaration. If it’s not a occupation what would you call it? The idea that the land was empty can be de-bunked by a quote from one of the Zionist leaders at the time: “There is no misunderstanding Arab nationalism… It is not possible to bring them to accept the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.” — Ze’ev Jabotinsky, 1923 If it was empty why would they need to refer to Arabs living on it resisting them. The whole “a land without a people for a people without a land,” was a mythic justification with no basis in reality. You just know it’s difficult to find an occupation that ended with peaceful resistance, thus your recommendation for them to do the same would be futile and would inevitably lead them to violence. It would be great if they didn’t have to resort to violence, if non-violent methods like BDS weren’t literally banned, and the world’s superpower who enables Israel would ‘t keep vetoing peace and resolution…the latest from just a few hours ago: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164056 People will then flip around and bitch about me always bitching about the US. No shit Sherlock.

Are there any examples of occupation ending through peaceful resistance?

Where’s nuance and the application of a few brain cells gone? It should be common sense for people to separate an ideology or religion - from the atrocities or injustices committed in its name. Conflating Islam that 2 billion people follow with its most retarded radical expression in a landlocked, tribal and war torn country is nonsense. These are political decrees not universal Islamic rulings. It’s as silly as me saying: a Democracy in the Middle East is committing ethnic cleansing (Israel), another Democracy across the Atlantic Ocean (US) dropped two nukes on a civilian population in Japan.. “But people will still defend Democracy after this?”

The Kurdish issue doesn't have a clear actor oppressing or aggressing against another, because there are multiple countries involved with differing degrees of tension and suppression against Kurdish movements in each. So it's just not as clear as Israel - Palestine. There also isn't any clarity on a solution to rally around, unlike Israel - Palestine which has UN resolutions affirming their right to self-determination and statehood. Kurds are geographically dispersed across multiple nations (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq), often in non-contiguous regions. That gets in the way of forming a unified Kurdish state. It's hard enough for one country to cede territory, imagine having four already established states coming to a agreement to cede their territory and make way for a new state. Palestine is a territory recognized by the UN, even if it’s not universally respected. The Kurds unfortunately missed the window of state formation during the post WWI colonial border drawing. If lines had been drawn differently back then, the conversation today would be different. But once nations have formed and solidified, its extremely hard to re-draw them. That;s why the Kurdish cause is treated as separatist while the Palestinians is framed as liberation. One is a claim to statehood within international law, the other is a challenge to already existing states. If Palestinians just sat there and read eckhart tolle do you think that would stop Israel? Non-violence only works if it can bring about some sort of cost/pressure to the players involved. Non-violence doesn’t mean non-disruption: but Palestinians are largely cut off from the tools of pressure/disruption because they are seiged into a enclave. In liberation movements non-violent resistance is a exception not the rule. Occupation is violent by nature, especially when rooted in settler colonialism which wants to uproot the existing population. Settler colonial projects rarely concede voluntarily. Even Ghandi's example of non-violence wasn't purely so, it was paired with violent uprisings and had its own violent wing. Any non-violent means of resistance only worked so far as they could impose a cost - communal riots, boycotts, strikes, the salt march etc. Same with what aided the ended of South African apartheid. Palestinians are boxed into a system where even non-violent disruption is impossible or crushed brutally if it takes place - say in West Bank. They don't have the same unified platform or space to coordinate mass action like Gandhi's India or South African ANC, because they are fragmented. They also have no real economic clout to pressure Israel with the same way Indian workers had on the British in India. Non-violent tactics don't work the same way under occupation. Which is why its up to outside players to change things, or expect violent uprisings as inevitable, unless we expect Palestinians to be Bhudda's in such a environment. Imagine hearing this kid and expecting a Bhudda to emerge from his circumstance:

You mean people or states? Palestine has been a documented injustice for decades so over time it's built up visibility via a support network of charities, NGO's and journalists backing their cause. It's also not a one off occasion of injustice but ongoing. It's also got the involvement and complicity of the West, which just so happens to be where the most vocal activism is. Palestine also has religious symbolism and is too geo-strategically interconnected to a region with vital resources and trade corridors to simply not care about for states and elite interests - even if they don't care for it at a emotional or humane level. Yemen is of course tragic but geopolitically peripheral to most Western agendas. Public outrage and solidarity are powerful but don't always translate to structural tangible changes unless it can affect elite actors, markets or state decisions. Palestinians can scream, just like Yemenis scream, but unless the scream threatens someone’s interest or serves a larger power’s agenda - it will unfortunately remain an echo. Elite interests change things faster than public interests, even though the soul of a people can be moved faster than the structure they live under can be changed. We've never really seen protest at a global scale like we have for Palestine, and sustained over time. This trickles to the top in charge of the structure because it shows there can be a potential cost to maintaining the status quo of that structure - politically, economically or reputationally. It starts conversations in the halls of power - ''what if they don't vote for us?'' or ''what if this poses a investment risk or reputational risk to our brand?'' Just see how mainstream Western media outlets are now interviewing (grilling) Israeli representatives over this aid massacre: Even The Guardian coming out with a Documentary: Everyone running for moral cover all of a sudden because the immorality of the situation has now become too evident and costly - politically, economically, and reputationally - to be associated with. The vibe shift laid the emotional and moral groundwork. But parallel to that, some elite actors were already realigning for their own strategic and economic reasons. So the public didn’t cause the realignment all on their own, but accelerated and legitimized it. The street and the boardroom are converging - one through outrage, the other through opportunity.

@Breakingthewall Yeah its a dilemma. And both sides are too far gone into trauma and dis-trust to solve it themselves. That's why I think only outside forces can do something about it - but for that there has to be enough incentive pulling the players with enough leverage to cause a shift, away from the status quo. We are seeing signs of this, hopefully its not to late before the Ultra Zionists achieve their final solution. I get what your saying as its strong and emotion based. I think in most cases its top down strategic interests of the elites that drives foreign policy and alliances vs the bottom up cultural affinity and vibes of the people. Top down is like the skeleton and structure that builds alliances, the added cultural aspect gives soul to that alliance which helps maintain them for sure, a bit like glue. For example the US has or has had alliances with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt to name a few - they don't have cultural affinity to each other but serve interests. The US-Israel alliance is unique because it has a cultural overlap with elite interests - that softens and brings warmth to that relationship but I'm not sure it sustains it long term which is what geopolitical alliances are usually built on. It could be the exception though. Another point is that other Western democracies with supposedly similar values to Israel have heavily criticized Israel or taken steps against it. France, Ireland, Spain, Norway, and even Netherlands are taking bold stands. France is co-hosting a major UN conference on the two-state solution later this month and trying to lobby the UK and others towards a two state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state. These are big moves we would have never imaged could happen - even just the way the media has turned. It's unbelievable to even see headlines like this in such a publication as the Financial times: These things take time to play out. But what it tells me is that there has been a clear re-alignment, the old game has been demoted for a newer profitable one. Like what was discussed on the previous page about the funding of radicals, the game used to be: underwrite (fund) radicals, to undermine (sabotage) realism and anti-imperialism. That served geo-strategic goals (resource access) as well as perpetuated a threat narrative to justify military spending and feed the military-industrial complex, which was the dominant industry of the US after WWII. Now the game is transitioning, with resistance and tension between factional elites into: underwrite (partner with) the realists (peacemakers), to undermine the radicals, who cause chaos and kill what could have been your future consumers ($$). Instability threatens capital flow, investor confidence, and long term access to emerging growth markets. The rise of the Finance-Tech-Consumer Complex has eclipsed the Military-Industrial Complex and is slowly re-calibrating US foreign policy against the wishes of the MIC neocons who have more institutional entrenchment. I think viewing the US as a sovereign state in the classical sense trips us up in understanding how it functions ie it's a strong ally that always has our back. It's not like a state pursuing unified, long-term strategic goals and sticking to them. It's more like a platform that different elite interests operate through, usually aligning, sometimes diverging, but more so diverging today. Israel and Palestine right now are locked in mutual trauma and maximalist positions due to that trauma. The ability to force a resolution now lies with bigger actors - not just the US but a mix of financial and diplomatic players (EU, GCC, BRICS) who can collectively bend the remaining elements in the US who get in the way of a resolution. The peace process is bigger than just Israel-Palestine because the stakes are too big now.

Where have I said Israel doesn't have the right to survive? The previous page I literally said the two state solution has the logistical issue of the West Bank being a vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv, thus threatening their security/survival. Your saying who wins is right - as in might makes right..yet on another thread you argue against the US using might to achieve dominance - not survival. That's the key distinction, whether something is for survival or domination. Survival is a right, survival dressed up as domination and imperialism isn't. Just like US-UK maintaining their control over oil resources in a foreign land isn't survival but domination and imperialism. The survival term can get abused when used too loosely to justify anything. Like the recent shootout at the aid area in Gaza of which the details are still fuzzy. A IDF soldier can just say the kid lifted a baguette in joy and I thought it was a rocket launcher, so I shot for my survival.

Economic disenfranchisement is the gut punch, cultural fatigue and overreach is the slap in the face, and a political system not taking either of those seriously is a spit in the face. Ginger Hitler meets park ranger: Society sets different standards for private spaces (where adults are) vs public spaces (where everyone including children are) People feel those norms are being disrupted when drag is in the public square - when it’s historically been for theatrical adult entertainment. Lily Phillips above. Her mate Bonnie Blue below sleeping with a 1000 men in 12 hours: “FrEdOoM” and “LiBeRtY” These very rightful values have been hollowed out into their most juvenile form. Freedom is meant to mean something, to be substantial - but has turned into a performative spectacle. Something dignifying is turned into something degrading. The same people who speak out against capitalism are the ones capitalizing most aggressively on its most sacred illusions - freedom, identity, expression - commodifying those same values into stunts and self-parody. The wider world laughs. Even people these “movements” are supposed to represent laugh:

This is similar to how the US-UK funded radicals from the 50’s to destroy pan-Arabism and keep their assets (oil) from being nationalised by anti-imperialist leaders. A short from Chomsky Then came petro-Islam with Saudi and the creation of a mujahideeen factory against the soviets. The irony of the gulf and Saudi to now be coming out as forces against radicalism when it’s from their region and pockets full of oil money it was instrumentalized for geopolitical goals: Israel seems to have adopted and adapted the same tactic for their own geopolitical goal of domination. What peeves people the most is to have people underwrite radicalism, in order to undermine realistic pragmatism - then have those same people bitch about it when they fight what they helped create, and cause Islamophobia in the process tarnishing 2 billion.

True. I just saw this 6 month old video of various Palestinians being interviewed - basically majority want the maximalist demand of a one state solution. I don’t know if this is because of all the suffering and destruction post Oct 7th or if it was their position before.. But yeah, utterly self defeating and disappointing. The sense I get is that they think/feel that the longer they have suffered and been occupied (over 7 decades) the more they need to be compensated for it (all the land) otherwise what was all the suffering and struggle for - half of what was theirs? The issue is a national identity can’t just be undone once it’s crystallised. Beyond being unjust and promising eternal war - this just isn’t the early 20th century anymore where borders are malleable and colonial powers can redraw a map overnight. Another logistical hurdle IF a two state solution were even agreed upon is like you said - the vantage point from West Bank overlooking Tel Aviv and Israel. They would have to accept it to be de-militarized or national peacekeeping forces there rather than either Israeli or Palestinian security forces. Shit show of a situation - seems like a solution simply needs to be decided by more rational larger powers and imposed for a greater peace to prevail so that the region can move forward. I just look at my profile pic, nod, sigh, then zazen

Should we go back to discussing morality? The culture that actually used nukes, and from which another mouthpiece calls to nuke Gaza - thinks there’s something wrong with the culture in Gaza. Ironic.

Pretty nuts. Numbers not fully confirmed but apparently 40 Russian planes destroyed by Ukrainian drones deep inside Russian territory. At a cost of $2 billion and which are irreplaceable in the short term - destroyed by drones for under an $1k each. Asymmetric warfare at its best. Possibly a turning point in the war - and a huge escalation from Russia in the making - whilst Ukraine and the West celebrate in the interim.

@Breakingthewall You and Raze are debating every detail of who started each individual fight - but the wider issue is what conditions are causing the fight which is the initial taking of land and continued occupation till today. If there’s a cessation of violence for some time and things flare up again, that’s expected when the conditions for violence haven’t ceased. It’s like if you pin me down and I fight back but take a breather, then start fighting again and you say I”m a violent terrorist for breaking the ceasefire - even though you still have me pinned to the floor lol You’re saying what the Palestinians shouldn’t do or want - which is the maximalist position of wanting to exterminate the other side and the entirety of Israel. That’s definitely true and self-defeating - though I doubt that’s a majority belief among Palestinians. The ones purported to have that belief, Hamas - have even said they will not be in political power as long as Palestinians get a state. The question then is what should they do? Obviously not the minimalist position of just being apathetic and accepting their condition. How can they develop themselves economically etc like you mentioned when that is blocked via a blockade. Also why would they prioritise that when it goes against Maslow hierarchy of needs. No one’s prioritising reading Eckhart Tolle whilst being occupied and blockaded in a tiny enclave. The fact is that the world already has consensus on what should be done - it’s just not being allowed to happen by the very few. And the Palestinians are finger wagged and gaslit as backwards and uncivilised when the “civilized” world can’t even uphold an already agreed upon enshrined right.

The West won't decline, their dominance will. Western elite's can no longer dictate global outcomes unilaterally. Their zero-sum logic is being outmaneuvered by a rising multipolar order that’s not asking for permission but is building an alternative via BRICS+Gulf. These Western elites want in on that game which is more lucrative than the previous game they played. Instead of profiting off of destabilizing the region which served their Military industrial complex, they want to de-risk the region and open it up for business (living people are better consumers than dead people) in order to serve a much more powerful faction of their elite, the Fintech lords: a new class of power rooted in finance, technology, and consumer dominance. They profit from stability, integration, and scalable systems. This new elite which has eclipsed the old neo-con elite, need what the Global South has which are: young consumers, raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and growth markets to get returns as compared to stagnant markets in the West. That creates a fundamentally different power dynamic than when the MIC just needed managed chaos to profit off. The old imperial model was: "Give us your resources or we'll bomb you. Even without your resources, we'll make money while bombing you regardless.'' The new model is: "We need access to your markets, and you can set the terms because we need you more than you need us." That's why Palestinian statehood, climate commitments, technology transfer requirements, and other conditions that were previously dismissed are now being taken seriously. The money moved, so the politics followed. The MIC isn't obsolete - but it's been re-positioned as the enforcement arm for when economic integration fails - its not the main game, just a tool in it. This explains puzzling policy contradictions. Why does the US court Saudi investment while threatening military action elsewhere? Because the Gulf has successfully integrated into the new financial architecture, while other regions remain "resistant markets" requiring traditional coercion. This is the fight the Global South are up against. The empire evolved from conquest-based to subscription-based, but kept the old enforcement mechanisms for non-paying customers. MIC still lashes out by inertia, but it’s no longer in alignment with the new geopolitical reality - where BRICS, the Gulf, and much of the Global South are building a cooperative, investment-driven future. The old game hasn’t ended fully, but the new money is re-calibrating to the new reality.

That’s already included in the 3rd faction of the ideological religious complex brother. The two mythic frameworks are the secular (non-religious) kind: American exceptionalism, which is the civilizational mythos of liberalism. The other is the religous kind : Christian evangelical, which is a divine mythos with an end times prophecy. I should have clarified that better.

True - he’s there for the lights and money, but remains a vessel nonetheless. News from just few hours ago to show quite nicely the two factions at play here. Saudi representing the new vision for the region that Blackrock and “new money” are on board with (Financial elite) vs Israel representing the old neocon paradigm (Military industrial complex) getting in the way of it. This is the tug of war taking place. Many headlines will come out in the next weeks - keep in mind this frame work of players and interests. Angry muslims and liberals rage at the gulf saying they betrayed the Palestinians. Meanwhile: They can understand the Israeli occupation of Palestinians but can’t extend that concept further to see how the gulf nations are soft occupied by a security architecture the US dominates. They can’t understand the level of survivalist chess being played. All they can fathom is who shouts loudest at the karaoke as the one who will make things change. As Israel’s economy gets squeezed - the Gulf along side Kushners fund can step in to economically inject some life into the economy. This will be economic leverage over Israel for which concessions can be extracted. The longer time goes on the more distressed the assets become - ripe for negotiations. Systemic entrenchment = leverage = concessions = Palestinian self determination.