zazen

Wrote the above in another conversation but it fits here. Look at the comments on this short of people saying how Islam spread to Asia or Africa - largely through cultural transmission and trade. Muhammad was addressing a tribal society facing tribal warfare and immediate challenges - of course he’s not going to speak in fluffy language. Despite having spiritual awakenings or experiences he still needs to deal with practicalities and guide his people. In fact the ethics around warfare that he introduced were revolutionary at the time - no innocents, women children elderly or animals, no destruction of crops or property etc - basically no scorched earth policy of pillage, plunder and or even vengeance.

Besides some things just not adding up about the incident - upside down flag, journalist access with a seemingly perfectly placed Quran in there etc - it's a correlation / causation fallacy to now go '' whats wrong with Islam that causes this''. Any religion or ideology can be used to justify anything - that says nothing in particular about those ideologies or religions but says more about the individuals. This same type of logic applied would say: Why did Kamikazee attacks come exclusively from Japanese? Whats wrong with Shintoism that makes people fly planes into ships.. Why do school shootings happen in America at the scale they do? Must be something up with Christianity or Democracy.. The Bhagavad Gita discusses warfare thus Hinduism is violent too. When Japanese people (or any other) do something heinous, we understand it as a historical anomaly tied to specific circumstances. But when Muslims do something, suddenly it's treated as some inherent, unchangeable aspect of their religion or culture. It's like saying "only Americans dropped nuclear bombs, therefore there must be something uniquely violent about democracy or Christianity." Majority of Muslims don't subscribe to ISIS's interpretation of Islam. If that was the case we'd have world wide carnage in a world of 2 billion Muslims. We wouldn't be sitting here on a forum. This is a super minority of Muslims, that have unfortunately been enabled by imperial interests for imperial goals within the Middle East. The ultra rigid interpretation of Islam that underpins groups like ISIS is not some organic, widespread representation of Islam. It’s a fringe ideology that just so happens to have been exported globally with the helping hand of the Western ally Saudi Arabia for their own game of imperial chess in trying to topple Iran / Assad in Syria etc. The same hands that enabled this extreme fringe, paint the majority of Muslims with the ISIS brush. ISIS had to recruit heavily from Western countries precisely because they couldn't convince most Muslims in Muslim majority countries to buy their bullshit. The very regions that critics love to point fingers at turned out to be the most resistant to their perverted ideology. They had access to 100's of millions of Muslims in Africa, Middle East and Asia yet decided to recruit from the secular West. It's the places where Islamic education and community support are lacking, that ISIS found its most vulnerable targets. When people actually understand Islam, grow up with its teachings, and are embedded in a community that practice it properly – they can spot a twisted interpretation from a mile away. It's like they have built in antibodies against extremism - partly thanks to Islam itself providing the social structures and support systems that prevent alienation and vulnerability in the first place. Check this video if you get the chance: Did anyone see the video of the burning woman on the New York subway while people just walked by filming it? Imagine for a second if that happened in any Muslim country – the headlines would be screaming about "Islamic indifference to human life" or some other orientalist bullshit. But here no one's writing think pieces about "The Crisis of American Values" or "What's Wrong with Western Civilization?" In Gaza we've seen people digging through rubble with their bare hands to save strangers while bombs are still falling. But in the "civilized" West, people can't even be bothered to help a woman on fire apparently.

From Chat GPT: The Islamic Golden Age was its own Renaissance and Enlightenment, building on Greek and Roman works while innovating in science, philosophy, and art. It wasn’t just about preserving knowledge—it was about expanding it, creating advancements in medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and more. This intellectual flourishing didn’t happen despite Islam—it thrived within it, shaping a vibrant, creative civilization. But like all empires, the Islamic world faced decline, with invasions and instability curtailing its momentum. Europe, through contact with Islamic Spain and translated texts, picked up the baton. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were fueled by the intellectual groundwork laid during the Islamic Golden Age. Here’s the part that gets erased: Europe’s development wasn’t isolated genius—it was built on the foundation of Islamic brilliance. But the narrative conveniently skips this because it disrupts the myth of self-made "Western progress," rooted in whiteness and colonial superiority. They disconnect from their own history to maintain the illusion of unchallenged exceptionalism.

It isn't objective fact though, but even it it was - we can't attribute the reason for violence being inherent to the ethnicity, religion or ideology of such and such group. More accurately, you are saying that Islamic societies are more oppressive, is what you mean. But by your version of oppression being ''too many rules to follow'' we could say US is the most oppressive place on earth because it has the most laws on earth - which is a point the guy in that video makes - and which is false. Just as woke progressives frame everything as oppressive - this is doing the exact same. We're equating spiritual dietary and aesthetic practices with oppression. Hindu's don't eat beef, Jews only eat Kosher, Jains don't eat any type of animal product, Sadhguru's or Osho's ashrams only serve vegetarian - are we going to complain that people are being castrated by the vegetable industrial complex? Cultures can prioritize different values like spirituality, humility, or a connection to the divine over the glorification of human ego in the form of portrait art. Not everything needs to fit the Western mold to be valid - what if they didn't focus on calligraphy and geometry - those are beautiful in their own right. They had their own reasons at the time which was to stop idolatry and instead to re orient people towards a transcendent One God that is formless, and that they found the material world of form which has many forms was a hindrance to. Despite that - it doesn't even say that this type of art is forbidden in the Quran - it just came out of a preference. There's plenty of figurative art in and from the Islamic world too - https://asiangeo.com/culture_and_people/the-face-of-islam-in-praise-of-an-inimitable-creation/ Every society has dress codes and norms. The difference is in degree, not principle. There's public decency laws that prohibit nudity and require you to cover certain body parts. But it's oppressive for other cultures to do the same, just with slightly more fabric. The priorities need to be straight here - sure, it is restrictive and women should definitively have a choice in whether to cover their hair - but Western critics cry oppression about the covering of hair while justifying wars in the Middle East that blow their entire heads off. Again - what I keep saying is that Islam isn't a monolith. Out of 50 Muslim countries only 2 legally mandate it - Iran, Afghanistan- Saudi who just recently removed the law under MBS - so 4% of Muslim countries. I'm aware that even if not mandated, social pressure and discrimination can coerce women to still wear it. But I wouldn't call that oppressive, it's more discriminatory and stifling. Just like how white males may find DEI to be discriminatory in hiring practices - to equate that with being oppressive is just a bit of a stretch - unless there is state sanctioned enforcement where no choice is given. These things should change though - but the way isn't to legislate it away - it has to be more organic and grassroots. A lot of these Islamic countries are still dealing with the hangover of Western colonialism and military intervention - declaring this is their natural state is like bombing someone's house and then criticizing their interior decorating. We need to allow them to develop and not judge so quickly. It's just unfair to view Islamic societies as some oppressive hell hole based off of a rigid interpretation of Islam by such a minority of Muslims. This is a caricature created by Western propaganda the same way China and Russia are painted to be boogeymen.

Wow he got roasted lol. He’s like some right wing fertilizer giving oxygen to every right wing movement he can in the West. He can’t decide whether he’s Thomas Jefferson or Tony Stark. People on X are even speaking against his new algo changes to promote more “positivity” which probably is cover for whatever suits his narrative. So much for being a free speech absolutist. The latest chapter in American Empire. Trump wants to re-name the Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of America. Manifest destiny 2.0. The same people who scream basic biology at trans folks are simultaneously trying to trans an entire gulf into becoming American. They’ll try convince us that Greenland has always felt American deep inside. That Canada's been questioning its identity and wants to Iive its truth as Americas 51st state. Panama Canal? Ditto. What next? These techno imperialists will claim Mars is a 52nd state when Musk shits on it. The empire has decided that self-identification is totally valid - as long as it's the empire doing the identifying.

These kind of conversations need more nuance man. Things are being conflated and selectively picked, omitted or reduced. Islam isn't uniquely restrictive or violent - it does has more visibility because a quarter of the world’s population is Muslim. We also can't reduce religions to bumper sticker words as Nilsi pointed out. Theres plenty of calls for love and mercy in Islam, for example - In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate (Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim) is often said. Anything can be twisted to be violent and oppressive - even secular ideologies or high sounding ones. Look how democracy and human rights / liberation has been weaponised by the West for their own interests across the world. Does that make democracy inherently evil? Or Christianity? Of course not. Both religions adapted to their times and circumstances and were shaped as much by politics and survival as by their spirituality. Christianity has been used to morally justify crusades, inquisitions and later colonisation. I'm not going to reductively jump to demonise Christianity because of that. Buddhists have also been violent - look at Sri Lanka or Myanmar - but no one paints Buddhism as violent because there aren’t as many Buddhists to pin incidents on. The scale skews the perception. But violence is still being committed today by the West - at scale in the Middle East - what do we pin that on? Christianity? Probably not because Christian rhetoric isn't driving it. A more secular state is behind it - so what, does that mean secularism is now inherently violent? No - and that's the problem with conflating things. Just look at homicide rates per 100'000 inhabitants. Malaysia's is 0.7, Indonesia is 0.3 - in the same region Cambodia is 1.8, VIetnam 1.5, Philippines 4 - which are non muslim countries. Majority Hindu India is 2.8. In the Middle East - Iraq is 15, Afghanistan is 4 (both high mainly due to Western intervention and destabilisation so it’s an unfair comparison) Syria's is oddly low at 2. Egypt is much lower at 1.3 and Jordan which is in the same volatile region as Iraq is 1 - because it hasn't gone to or been involved in war. Meanwhile over in Americas - Mexico is 24, Brazil 20 and US is a 5.7 (a developed non muslim country - the worlds superpower in fact). The point is - I can take these statistics and conflate that Christian nations have much higher homicide rates than muslims ones (except in the cases of war) and come to the conclusion that their respective religions or ideologies are inherently violent. (Source I used: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) But I won’t because we can't ignore environmental or economic factors. If Bhuddists lived in a geopolitically fractured Middle East facing colonization, invasions and warfare over resources - they may exhibit similar behaviours and resort to extremism far more often as a last resort. If Muslims lived in isolated regions like Bhutan or Thailand which are geographically hard to penetrate and thus be bothered by outside meddling or hostile actors - maybe they'd be blissing out too over there - in fact there are many Muslims in the South of Thailand bordering Malaysia who live happily side by side with Bhuddists. Everyone can be deemed a hypocrite because humans are messy. Every faith has followers stumbling their way to growth. Thats why theres the idea of repentance in both Islam and Christianity. Also, why be selective about hypocrisy? Just look at the Western actions with regards to backing Israel as the most latest and blatant example of hypocrisy. Bhuddist monks have hundreds of precepts on how to live every day life that would make Islam looks lax. Obviously the average Bhuddist doesn't follow them, they just have the 5 precepts / principles which align with Islam and Christianity also - no killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying or intoxicants. Are we going to say Christianity is restrictive because Jordan Peterson tells us to make our bed, bear our own cross and sacrifice for something higher? Faiths have their restrictions and guidelines. The irony of the argument about development is that the very thing your criticising (Islam's rules and regulations) is what makes it more developed, not less. Similar to the argument against libertarianism - the fact we have complex societies that function, only do so because of the framework of rules and regulations, not because we live in a free for all society of anarchy. Islam was religion made worldly - they developed a framework for governance , ethics and society - to buffer against the excesses of human nature, not to indulge it. A powerless religion like Christianity when it was born - could afford to preach nonviolence because it’s wasn't in the business of governing or surviving tribal warfare. Islam was born in a different context. Also, in a time and world of little to no rules or ethics , you would rather have rules and ethics around domains that are inescapable for humanity. Wars will always come and sexuality announces its arrival at the sight of the opposite sex - best we have rules and ethics around how to conduct human affairs than not. This isn’t some hippy commune being run, a civilization requires a framework. A Islamic foundation for a society isn't a strait jacket for societal development - although ISIS would like to make it one. Only the minutest minority of Muslims are approaching Islam in the way ISIS do. If it were true that a sizable portion of Muslims follow Islam the way ISIS do, the world would be carnage - but it isn't because most muslims don't. It's not just about the text (Quran), but the context in how it was revealed, to whom and where. A Islamic foundation doesn't mean its inherently limiting - the Islamic Golden Age wasn't called golden because Muslims sat around feeling limited and oppressed by their foundations - because they still had flexibility in operating their societies with diversity and autonomy. As for being the Quran being the word of God. A man who's had enlightenment experiences as say Leo - speaks to us in videos and on this forum - yet we discuss at length everything he says and shares. If Leo's ideas are discussed at length, what of God? Theres a whole field in Islam called Tafsir (explanation) where scholars go into explaining the Quran. Some things in the Quran are descriptive of the history at the time it was revealed, some things are prescriptive, and other things are broad principles like justice, compassion and kindness that are supposed to be adaptive to different times and contexts. Which is why there is no monolith in how Islam is practiced across the world - from Turkey to Malaysia. Again, this highlights the problem of conflating cultural or imperial practices with religious teachings. Islam itself neither prescribes nor endorses the use of eunuchs or harems - in fact it caps polygamy to 4, and only in certain strict conditions and for specific reasons (war deeming there less men available to protect/provide for women etc). In Malaysia and Pakistan for example polygamy is permitted but men need permission from the first wife. In Tunisia its outright banned - again, emphasising that Islam isn't a monolith. Harems arose from political and cultural contexts, not religious doctrine or prescription. In fact, Europe was one of the largest sources of eunuchs historically, as castration was not prohibited in Christian lands but was prohibited in Islamic lands according to sharia law. Thats why they would be sourced from Europe by rulers in Islamic empires. The presence of queens in medieval Europe doesn’t reflect respect for women as a whole. Queenship was tied to aristocratic bloodlines and dynasties. In the backdrop witch burnings, keeping women illiterate and no property rights was the norm. Meanwhile, Islam drops into 7th century Arabia and says women can inherit property, get educated and run their own businesses.

@Breakingthewall You should watch this video brother. In conjunction with this:

So people who violate the law and murder/kill should suffer the consequences? How about Israel then..debunk the following video or reconcile and square that circle.

Bro the frustration you’re describing is real - and it’s exactly what marginalized or minority groups experienced and still do today and to which wokeness was a response that has become its own form of discrimination. When there aren't any black and white policies or laws that are discriminatory, but people still experience or perceive bias in reality - its one of the hardest things to point out because how do you provide evidence for bias to begin with. Saying that - diversity hiring quotas or like in your message you say ''stores in my city which say explicitly they prefer hiring females'' are obvious examples which point to more defined examples of discrimination which Emerald is perhaps asking for. Beyond codified discrimination - it’s the cultural atmosphere that can shape decisions subtly but powerfully. That’s the insidious part - it leaves those who feel disadvantaged grasping at smoke, with no tangible proof to point to. Wokeness has created a cultural environment where hiring managers may unconsciously prioritize diversity as a moral badge. It doesn't have to be written or spoken out loud “Don’t hire this person”. It's the same plausible deniability minorities have faced. The results are real, but the mechanisms are hard to pin down, which is why the frustration on all sides exists. Instead of dismissing your concerns or others, we should appreciate that culture, conversations and narrative shapes behavior, often unintentionally creating new inequities even as it tries to solve old ones. On the flip side its also true that even if a choice wasn’t influenced by wokeness and a hiring decision was made fairly, the cultural narrative makes it feel like it was. If we think DEI training is happening in all these work places and those same place don't hire us, we can automatically lay blame to those practices. Even if the workplace doesn't have anything of the sort, maybe just the conversations taking place in the culture regarding equity, justice etc is influencing people to hire differently, or not. Wokeness pushes so hard to right past wrongs that it changes how we see decisions.

Check out this Taliban spokesperson speak: The audacity of the following interviewer asking how does the Taliban government benefit Western countries just over 2 min in. This is what the Global South have had to deal with: Check out the vlogger Arab currently chilling with some Talibros: There is a problem of thinking something - a book or religous text in this case - is THE truth vs speaks on or about the truth. That’s what causes people to take a literalist approach vs a more metaphorical and flexible one. Also, it can take extensive study and understanding to know how to implement something - there is a lot of jurisprudence and debate within Islam. It’s not as simple as “God said something on page 42 so we do it” - the context and interaction with the entirety of the text has to be taken into account. Most muslim women aren’t being forced into marriage or to wear hijab even. Of course there’s extreme cases, but in general it’s not the rule. In fact some women who try wear the hijab in Western countries find it can be challenging - not because of being forced to but by how they are perceived and can be treated by non Muslims. Odd looks, a rude comment here and there, thankfully not frequently - people act as if it’s easy for them to do but it’s the opposite which challenges their “belief system” and faith in how they conduct themselves. Even men should adhere to modest dressing. Some Muslim gym bros tell their other bros not to wear such tight fitting clothes that show off their muscles to the “sistas” lol. Some of you act like Islam is some alien oppressive thing and misunderstand how a lot of Muslims live day to day. For relationships also, in general men and women are introduced by family / friends, but the choice is up to them whether they want to marry. It’s not arranged marriage as much as it is arranged introductions.

From the video below which I highly recommend ''Violence is the resort of those who have no other resort''. Luigi Mangione is a case of someone who felt no other way out and resorted to what he did in revolutionary rage. Now is he deploying a Game A tactic or is his ethos and way of life that of a Game A predator? Does he live and breath domination? Did the other revolutionaries? Both of you are making valid points. Nilsi is right that sometimes chaos and disruption feel like the only way to make change happen when everything is broken and stacked against you. And Scholar is also right that this kind of approach can spiral into something destructive that ends up doing more harm than good. But I think what’s missing here is the understanding that there’s a massive difference between someone using Game A tactics and someone actually living by a Game A ethos. Game A - the imperialist, exploitative, zero-sum mindset - isn’t just a set of tactics but a whole way of thinking or operating from. It’s about domination for the sake of domination. But that’s not what’s happening with everyone who acts in a Game A way. A lot of the time, people or nations resort to those tactics because they feel like they don’t have a choice. Violence and desperation aren’t their ethos - they’re a last resort when everything else has failed. This can be applied on the macro to nations and geopolitics as I've outlined in my previous post with Russia, or on the micro with individual revolutionaries like Malcom X or Fidel Castro. These weren’t people looking for a fight because they loved chaos. They were fighting because the systems around them left seemingly no other way. When you corner people, they lash out. That’s just human nature. Sometimes that fight changes the course of history but that doesn’t mean it’s ideal or the way things should be. The real issue is that we keep mixing up who’s forcing the violence and who’s responding to it. We look at Russia and say “Imperialist'' or look at Malcolm X and say “radical.” Meanwhile, the actual Game A players - the ones running the systems that push others to this point - get overlooked. Ideally, we wouldn’t need chaos and violence to make change. And people / nations would have outlets to resolve issues cooperatively before things ever get to that point. But as long as Game A players keep slamming every other door shut, they’re the ones dragging everyone else down into that chaos. The worst part is we misplace the blame because of an elaborate and sophisticated propaganda machine the empire has running 24/7 into the meat jelly in our heads. Perhaps the bigger issue isn’t the people or nations using Game A tactics in desperation - it’s the ones who operate from a Game A ethos, creating the conditions that make those tactics necessary in the first place for others to use - which keeps us locked in a dangerous cycle.

That's brilliant. That's the point bro - conflating hegemony with imperialism and power with domination. Hegemony or power isn't inherently bad - a hegemonic nation isn't the same as a imperial one, not all power is abused or exercised in the same way. Like I said or was trying to: being the dominant player is different to being a dominating player where you subjugate or exploit others - hallmarks of imperialism that we should all resist and that the US was correct in resisting in the past during the Soviet era. But the tide has turned in that China/Russia are now resisting US imperial power and encirclement / containment within their own neighborhood - and modern day Russia is different to its Soviet Imperialist past. What matters is how power is gained, used, and maintained. If China and Russia are addressing security concerns or building economic partnerships, that can't be equated to being imperial. Every country should have a long term strategy on how to gain power and grow - nothing wrong with that, its in the how that makes it imperial or not. Theirs a tendency to assume that any pursuit of power outside the Western model must be imperial or malevolent. But it's the Western way of pursuing power that has historically been imperial and is so even today. China, emphasizes non-interference and economic cooperation - core tenets of the very philosophies you mentioned, like Lao Tzu and Confucius. If their focus is on infrastructure, trade, and development rather than military conquest or corporate vulture funds leeching off nations - its false to frame them as imperial offenders. With Russia, Putin’s rhetoric about national pride and historical significance is no different from Western nations invoking their past glories - whether it’s “Make America Great Again” or Brexit’s appeal to Britain’s former influence. Nations aspire to greatness which isn't in and of itself a issue. The issue is how greatness is pursued. It's also extremely rare for a nation to be expansionist / imperial when it has a aging and declining population - being imperial usually goes hand in hand with the demographics needed for it. In the case of Russia - it's also already the most resource rich nation on earth by a margin, with one of the longest borders that needs defending, that requires more men it doesn't have to defend it. I think for now it's implausible to label Russia as imperialist or expansionist - until it goes beyond buffer zones to areas that pose no risk to its heartland. Its actions in Ukraine are not a reflection of imperial preference but rather a response driven by the necessity of ensuring its security. Them deploying a Game A tactic or behavior, isn't them operating a Game A mentality in its totality and operating from that ethos. A fun but illustrative analogy on the distinction between being dominant vs a dominating player: Lets say I'm the largest diner at a dining table with others - I'm big, well fed, clearly dominant. Depending on the context, that doesn't mean I am dominating others at the table by gorging all the food for myself. How did I get to that size and maintain it? If I stole food off others plates and stopped them from having their own share - that's bad and naughty of me. If I got big by tending my own garden and eating my own food, then when I got to the table I acted civilly by sharing food and passing the mains around to others at the table - that's a good boy. Not every big player is so and remains so through not playing nice with others.

What started as a great critique of psychologists has become something much more revealing: an expose of the Western psyche itself. The same binary, fatalistic thinking that has us talking past each other is the same mindset behind imperialism that the West has illustrated to the world so well. Western fixation on binary thinking, where only one game can be played at a time is a trap. In reality, Game A and Game B dynamics coexist. Utopian progressives naively think we can get rid of Game A, or don't even acknowledge its existence all together. The goal isn’t to eliminate inescapable Game A pressures but to cultivate systems where Game B principles guide long term strategy - while Game A tactics are reserved for survival. We should aim to shift the balance so that Game B principles -cooperation, trust, and mutual benefit - take precedence. BRICS offers a tangible example of this balance. These nations are working toward a multipolar world grounded in Game B values while still navigating the Game A pressures imposed by Western hegemony, and that we can never truly escape regardless. A zero-sum Game A mindset dismissing those efforts as naive reflects the West’s inability to imagine alternatives to its own predatory systems. Being in a dominant position doesn't necessarily mean acting in a dominating or subjugating way - thus lashing out at other players on the board who are gaining in dominance / rising powers challenging the current hegemon. In Geopolitics - acting out in a Game A way (aggressive), doesn't necessarily mean operating in a Game A way as a default (being the aggressor) - which is what the West actually does as a reflex. China and Russia act in Game A ways out of necessity rather than preference. There's a major difference between being in a dominant position, and behaving dominantly to get and stay there. That conflation causes misdiagnosis - misdiagnosing a nation acting in a Game A way in a certain context or scenario (primarily for survival) with how it operates in its totality. We swap the primary cause of its actions with the secondary and incidental gains it makes from those actions - in territory, power or resources - in effect framing them as an imperial actor which is only rational to resist, although they are reacting to imperial action themselves. Gaslighting wizardry at play. In the past we could afford to have a uni-polar hegemonic power, because the power to destroy the world many times over didn't exist. But in a world with multiple powers with enough power to destroy the world many times over - there's no choice but to be multi-polar and share power with others, rather than have power over others. Otherwise as the current hegemon starts to inevitably be challenged, as always happens in history (thucydides trap) - it won't be pleasant for much of the world if that hegemon arrogantly views those rising as needing to be checked back into place. Viewing anyone’s success anywhere in the world as a threat to your supremacy everywhere in the world - reflects a civilization running on a pure Game A operating system, rather than reserving Game A tactics for survival. And no, security isn’t securing your dominance and hegemony - which is another important distinction. The choice before us isn’t whether to play Game A or Game B - it’s whether we continue defaulting to zero-sum domination or consciously nurture a world built on shared stability and cooperation. The faith point @Nivsch touched on and mentioned that is very much needed is correct. But it’s not an immature idea of faith in a celestial grandfather fixing things for us (which organized religion falls for) but the mature kind of faith in our ability to nurture the nature we’ve inherited towards better ends. Isn’t that what actualizing is partly about anyway.. More related on this that I've written before:

Amazing how Elon can deflect attention away from the visa debate towards dunking on the UK by spamming Twitter/X with the grooming gang scandal. All of a sudden it’s all over X and has everyone talking - he’s made the UK headlines for also calling out Keir Starmer and calling for election. Not that any of it isn’t true or valid either, but it seems to be a cynical use of the issue to deflect from his own issues. Like a wizard of algo attention. It just comes across like he’s desperately trying to re gain popularity with the core voter base he offended - he even changed his name and profile pic (to Pepe the frog) which he has now changed back - though I’m not sure if connected. The grooming gang scandal and him sharing Tommy Robinsons documentary is a way to show his lost fans he cares about mass immigration and social cohesion to appease some racists. Dudes just spamming regarding the issue, which no doubt is an issue - but he’s weaponising it for his own gain it seems. The irony of him being a genocide enabling Zionist boot licker flies over his head though. Then there’s all these attacks occurring being framed as ISIS.. Whitney Webbs take: “Some of the same prominent people who rightly have been pointing out that the FBI and CIA are deeply corrupt (which they obv are) are now saying we should believe those agencies about the motives and identities of those behind the recent attacks and also believe FBI/CIA people that the US is now infiltrated and invested with Al Qaeda operatives poised to bring chaos to the US in 2025. Even more odd, some of these people used to rant for hours about how Al Qaeda and ISIS were creations of the US govt, either directly or indirectly. Funny how narrative management works. Al Qaeda is definitely a US creation and fear over current and/or future attacks will be used to market a complete techno-tyranny takeover. You'll be told that digital ID, digital surveillance money, and Palantir big data pre-crime algos are the only ways to stop the terror attacks and it will be disturbing to see how many fall for the ruse. Don't give into the fear and don't consent - digital ID and many of these technologies will only stick if you voluntarily comply and adopt them.”

@Husseinisdoingfine @Bobby_2021 So sad, and disappointing considering it could have been prevented. People can say that hindsight makes everyone wiser. The issue isn’t only hindsight - but refusal to see what’s always been in plain sight. If people truly saw the past and connected the dots, they would see the chain of provocations that created the so called aggressor of today. They dehumanise this aggressor to the point of not being willing to negotiate with it. After all, how can anyone ever rationally negotiate with “evil”. And even if you could, why do so when evil is notorious for not being trust worthy. From the following video - obviously has to be translate captioned but I've time stamped it:

It’s unfair to call my comment shoddy when it largely falls in line with Leo’s core insight which you agree with being accurate - “out of touch with survival needs”. It’s a forum post after all, not a dissertation where I need to get into every granular detail of real world examples which you haven’t done so yourself. I’ve broadened the question of what wokeness is including its historical parallels. That philosophical broadness enriches further critique towards case by case examples in the real world - which would be shoddy without understanding the foundational dynamics that give rise to wokeness in the first place. You dismissed OP post the same way you have mine - missing the forest for the trees. By focusing on one detail you disagreed with, you miss the broader point of how wokeness can overreach in negative ways. But this is the exact reason why movements like wokeness - and by extension, political factions like the Democrats - struggle to connect with the populist vote and risk failing to win the next election. Leo’s observation about wokeness being detached from survival needs is mirrored here: “Wokeness thrives not because it is practical or even moral, but because hard times have not yet forced it to reconcile with reality. It is, as writer Rob Henderson says - a ‘luxury belief.’ You can only afford to argue that men can get pregnant or that dismantling police departments is sensible when your belly is full and your streets are safe. But reality doesn’t debate, it demonstrates. In the decline phase of empire, luxury beliefs give way to necessary beliefs.” That directly touches on wokeness being unmoored from survival realities and existing only in the context of abundance - exactly the point Leo makes. Leo then says wokeness “fails to understand stages of development below itself,” - I highlighted how wokeness deconstructs foundational structures below itself here: “Wokism seeks to escape form, rather than evolve a better way of living within it. Progress integrates new understanding and environments with eternal principles.” Basically wokeness often rejects the “form” or structure provided by earlier stages - family units, traditional values, clear boundaries - without appreciating how they came about to meet survival and social needs. Instead of evolving those forms, wokeness attempts to erase them entirely, which alienates those still operating within them. ”Wokeness deconstructs everything while reconstructing nothing - a nihilistic carnival of progressive performance where complexity and nuance goes to die. It mistakes surface-level deconstruction for genuine liberation.”

@Twentyfirst Nicely put. First 2 minutes of this: From Mearsheimers substack Titled ''The Moral Bankruptcy of the West'' - On 19 December 2024, Human Rights Watch issued a 179-page report detailing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. - On 5 December 2024, Amnesty International issued a 296-page report detailing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. - On 21 November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes. - On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that a plausible case can be made that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Given the West’s presumed commitment to human rights and especially to preventing genocide, one would have expected countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany, to have stopped the Israeli genocide in its tracks. Instead, the governments in those three countries, especially the United States, have supported Israel’s unimaginable behavior in Gaza at every turn. Indeed, those three countries are complicit in this genocide. Moreover, almost all of the many human rights advocates in those countries, and in the West more generally, have stayed silent while Israel executed its genocide. The mainstream media has made hardly any effort to expose and challenge what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Indeed some key outlets have staunchly supported Israel’s actions. One wonders what people in the West who have either supported Israel’s genocide or remained silent tell themselves to justify their behavior and sleep at night.'' ----------------- If Iraq took the clothes off the empire, Gaza took the mask off it - rendering it naked for the world to see. Preachers of virtue, whilst being practitioners of violence. I will go mask off on the West, scorched earth - not as a hater, but a lover of what we claim to be but aren't in practice, or at least what our state isn't in practice. I love what the West says about itself, but hate the fact its not lived. Western imperial alchemy is turning blood into brunch spots that serve oat milk lattes and calling it progress, it’s paving and building skyscrapers over the bones of the global South which they refer to as collateral damage, and calling it development. The deepest and darkest irony of all this is this: The land that inspired so much of the West's humanity now reflects the death of it. Pagan Europe was originally a world shaped by brutal dominance and survival, deeply influenced by the harsh, resource scarce environments of the continent. Those conditions necessitated a focus on strength, conquest, and hierarchy - qualities adapted for survival in such a climate. Christianity came with its radical ethos of compassion, humility and elevation of the meek - as a counterpoint to the Pagan ethos. It introduced a different set of a principles to a world where power was the primary principle. It served as a soothing balm over Europe’s cold harsh reality and over centuries infused and reshaped European culture, transitioning it from a dominance driven worldview to one more attuned to the ideals of human dignity. The transformation was so profound that these values became the cultural backdrop of Europe and later the West. The same environmental pressures that shaped Europe’s early ethos of survival also bred its imperial mindset. Scarcity, competition for resources, and the desire to secure abundance drove Europe’s conquest focused expansion into warmer, resource rich regions. Paradoxically, the same ethos of compassion introduced by Christianity was often co-opted to justify those imperial endeavors, cloaking domination in moral language - which still goes on till today in as a battle of impulses within the Western psyche. Today, the birthplace (Palestine) of that ethos now serves as a mirror reflecting the West’s failure to live up to the values they claim to embody. We can't just look at things, but need to look through them. Like someone said, stare into the abyss long enough, and the abyss stares back. Well, stare into Gaza long enough, and it reflects the deep civilizational conflict at the heart of the West’s identity - which is a tension between the ideals it claims and the actions it takes.

If no ones critiqued it well, and I've overplayed my hand then maybe give us a hand and critique it when you have time? Isn't it being ''simply out of touch with the survival needs'' as Leo mentioned.. Or what is it then.

A major error that happens is when we conflate a position of dominance (within a hierarchy) with the behavior of being dominating (within that hierarchy). Even Ken Wilber talks about this - though I forget exactly how he worded it. On the macro, this is the mistake the West makes when diagnosing the actions of other powers challenging their power, and labels them imperial/ dominating (China or Russia). On the micro, this manifests when we take every act or disparitiy as as assault on our dignity and place in society,and call it a microaggression whilst the empire we sit comfortably in commits microaggressions around the world.

@Nivsch Great vid bro, thanks for sharing. She had a good new year video for 2025 also.

@SwiftQuill I get you. The issue is like you and others have said - overcorrection and conflating critiquing that overcorrection with terminating cliches (I like that phrasing) - essentially nuking any discourse aimed at redressing valid grievances. Also, in trying to equalise disparities we create others. This doesn’t have to be written black and white in government policy for us to point out, it can be a cultural climate and corporate posturing that influence behaviour. Essentially silent hiring x candidate over another to make the company look good, or those in it. Its actually the opposite of dignifying - to be hired based on superficial traits as what’s between your legs or the pigment of your skin, the feeling of being somewhere like some trophy - talk about being unseen.

Canada and Scandi culture is way more passive than Americans who have a more stand your ground type of mentality and stand up to shitty behaviour - they also have guns. That deters aggression a lot better. Another factor is American culture is better at assimilation. The rate of immigration matters too - rapid increases in shorter time frames means less time to assimilate whereas America has been a melting pot for much longer. Theres something about America - I think the distinctness of its identity - which makes many identify first as American, then as their origin nationality. It’s more common to hear American Asians say their American with Asian origins, whereas in Europe they usually say their Asian but obviously born/raised in Europe. Americans find it more peculiar when asked where they’re from, but like really from as in originally. Not sure if anyone else noticed that? This guy just uploaded some clips with Taliban apparently, when you see them interact thy seem like chill dudes. They use twitter / X , amusing or interesting..

A message sent with two ticks, but will it be read.. This is a constant tension that manifests itself in many domains: how to structure a society that creates quality and excellence whilst also providing equality and dignity for the collective. Or in simpler terms it could be worded: how to obtain quality (domestic or global) without creating inequality to the degree of destabilising society.

''A famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers - from Kissinger to Chomsky - who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored'' https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1700719253685678286.html - Kissinger, in 2014, he warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that it therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO". - John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome." - Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed" -Clinton's defense secretary William Perry explaining in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning". -Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war." -CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests" -Pat Buchanan - assistant and special consultant to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan - writing in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation." Just because a nation is acting aggressively in the present, doesn't mean its the aggressor. Separate being aggressive from being the aggressor and instigating provocateur of a situation.