zazen

Clickbaity title and thumbnail but interesting related vid.

True - if I get it then egalitarianism is a value (reducing unfair disparities), socialism is a property and power arrangement (eliminating ownership to reduce inequalities and classes all together?

Related. MEGA.

This. “The question is whether “True Communism” much like “True Capitalism” can ever be implemented in their purest forms by a human nature that isn’t 100% pure. Communism demands we not be greedy for the sake of community and assumes others will fend for us - capitalism demands we be greedy enough to fend for ourselves and assumes doing so will have a trickle down effect on those less able to compete with us.” Utopianism doesn’t scale - bhudaahood doesn’t scale to where people can and will be egoless enough to work and not see the fruits of their labour - but see those fruits distributed to the community within which some people don’t work as hard or well. Fucks up the incentives. Life is complex and wiggly - any ism trying to force life into straight lines will fail (got that from Alan Watts).

The best video I've come across to understand Epstein: The first hour is mind blowing, even the second. Can skip the last 40 min if short on time. Before and as you guys listen to it - read the following tweet I came across and keep it in mind as to how the world operates https://x.com/matthewstoller/status/2018388941389373748: ''The Jeff Epstein saga isn't a scandal about pedophilia, it's about a Russian word called 'blat,' a Soviet-era word meaning 'the use of personal networks for obtaining goods and services in short supply and for circumventing formal procedures.' It's about a kind of government. As with the large number of 'blatniks' in the Soviet era who made sure their factories got what they needed outside the formal state procurement process, Epstein greased the wheels for the neoliberal state. His job was governance. What does that mean? Well it's clear that Epstein was an entrepreneurial broker across multiple public and private bureaucracies, helping organize 'under-the-table' deals among the legal, business, intelligence, and political elites to allow them to escape the rule of law and traditional conflict of interest restrictions. It's statecraft to allow a superclass to systemically escape the formalized rules. The pedophilia and prostitution were part of it - that is obviously violating the rule of law - but so are the random favors Epstein bestowed. Like Epstein sending Senator Joe Manchin's request for a yacht, a request which came from the First lady of the Virginia Islands, to a random NY financier who might have one. Or working with Joi Ito at MIT and billionaire Reid Hoffman to restructure the Bitcoin Foundation. It's all about matching capital and talent and inputs outside of the restrictions ordinary people are subject to. This kind of governance is particularly important in Soviet-style states, where everyone knows the rules are fake, where skirting the system IS the system. Epstein and his affiliates thrived because of the weakened institutions of the United States, institutions enfeebled in many cases by the men in his network, like Larry Summers. These men adopted multiple roles - advisor, businessman, academic, board member, regulator - and put on the hat that best maximized their self-interest and the self-interest of their narrow network at that moment. The old world, where handing someone your business card meant you represented that institution, disappeared in the 1980s. Over the course of the 1990s, neoconservatives, neoliberals, bankers - ultimately Epstein's network - built this new social order. It was one where you couldn't succeed through the formal rules, but if you were let into the networks of trust by blatniks, you could do anything you wanted. While all the specifics of Epstein's network are not known, and while conspiracy theorists often have crazy views, they have correctly fingered that the world of meritocracy and formalized systems is increasingly a fraud. And that the real government lies elsewhere. In short, when formal democratic institutions like Congress stop governing, the networks of men like Epstein fill the power vacuum. Epstein built what Roy Cohn always wanted to have, but never achieved, because the then-institutions were too strong for him to break.''

Is Putin based then? Thing is pedophilia, corruption and sexual predation are worldwide. What makes it distinct in the West is the systematization and sophistication of the abuses. Like the difference between crime and organised crime. What makes it sinister is the overlay of satanic rhetoric and symbolism we see in the West - that we see more conservative societies and people in the non-West speak against. Perhaps they are conflated and not as linked or coordinated as we think. I was chatting to GPT about it back and forth and came to some explanations: 1. When late stage empires lose a shared moral center, art and culture do three things, in this order: Transgression replaces virtue, Shock replaces meaning, Inversion replaces aspiration - This has happened before: Late Rome (decadent theater, sexualized power, cruelty as spectacle), Late Versailles (mockery of religion, fetishized excess), Weimar Germany (hypersexual, nihilistic art) Hollywood today is textbook late-imperial culture. Ironically, satanic narratives protect the system by making it sound too insane to confront politically. 2. Satanic symbolism is culturally preloaded shorthand for: inversion of norms, rebellion against authority, taboo-breaking, dominance over the sacred. contempt for restraint Artists use it because: it instantly signals “transgressive”, provokes attention, generates controversy (free marketing), flatters the elite self-image of being “beyond morality” It’s aesthetic rebellion, not metaphysical allegiance. 3. Modern culture is governed by attention economics, not meaning. In attention markets: outrage outperforms beauty, shock outperforms coherence, taboo outperforms subtlety So the system rewards: ever more extreme visuals, sexualization, blasphemy, nihilism Not because elites believe in it — but because it sells and dominates discourse. 4. Hollywood sits at the intersection of: extreme wealth. extreme narcissism, weak accountability, performative rebellion, permanent adolescence Combine that with: declining belief in religion, declining belief in nation, declining belief in truth. And what’s left Rebellion without a cause becomes identity. 5. It feels coordinated because: the same incentives apply everywhere, the same social class circulates globally, the same aesthetics signal “elite belonging”. You’re seeing class culture, not conspiracy. Just like: aristocrats once wore powdered wigs, financiers wear Patagonia vests, tech elites wear minimalism, Hollywood elites wear transgression. ** Actual Satanists vs theatrical symbolism 6. Majority of identifiable or perceived satanists use the symbolism as short hand for rebellion and transgression. Not as a metaphysical conviction. It's provocation, not religion. A much smaller fringe group believe in its via occultism, drawing from Crowley and Jung. Still usually non-theistic. More about psychology and identity than power. A even smaller group are actual theistic Satanists. Tiny numbers with no political or institutional power. Just a isolated sub-culture. Why this still feels sinister 1. Because the moral signal is real, even if the metaphysics aren’t. What people are sensing is: A ruling cultural class that openly plays with domination, dehumanization, and inversion of the sacred — because it no longer fears consequences. The imagery is not evidence of a literal satanic priesthood cabal running the world. But it is evidence of something just as consequential: a civilizational loss of moral center at the cultural elite level. 2. The dominant signals in Western elite culture right now are: transgression as virtue, shock as sophistication, desecration as creativity, rebellion without purpose, power without responsibility. That combination tells you something very precise: The culture no longer knows what it is protecting, so it celebrates what it once restrained. That is a late-stage civilizational marker, not a conspiracy. 3. It’s not just that the imagery exists — it’s that it is tolerated, normalized, and platformed. Strong civilizations do not: aestheticize self-degradation, eroticize domination, mock the sacred in mass culture, expose children to nihilistic symbolism, confuse transgression with progress They don’t need to ban it aggressively — they simply don’t reward it. 4. Why this is different from “dark power centers” You’re also right to separate these two things: Imperial intelligence / power networks → cold, instrumental, amoral, strategic Cultural nihilism / decadence → expressive, symbolic, narcissistic, theatrical They can coexist — and they do — but they are not the same phenomenon. Epstein, intelligence networks, informal power, empire: operate through incentives, secrecy, leverage. Don’t need symbolism, don’t care about aesthetics, don’t advertise themselves. The cultural transgression you’re describing is almost the opposite: it’s loud, performative, self-exposing, morally exhibitionist That alone should tell you it’s not the “real control layer”. 5. A civilization does not collapse because it worships evil — it collapses because it stops believing in the good. When that happens: limits dissolve, shame disappears, meaning erodes, power becomes playful, cruelty becomes aesthetic. People reach for satanic explanations because: they’re trying to name moral inversion, they’re grasping for a vocabulary of evil, they feel something has gone fundamentally wrong They’re not wrong about the wrongness — just about the mechanism. 6. If similar symbolism spread elsewhere without resistance, that would indicate moral decay there too. This isn’t “Western evil” as essence. It’s what happens to any wealthy, insulated elite culture that loses restraint. The West just happens to be there now — and exporting it globally. 7. To conclude: The prevalence of transgressive, demonic, and nihilistic symbolism in Western elite culture does not indicate a hidden satanic priesthood or occult governance. It indicates something both simpler and more serious: the loss of a shared moral center. The imagery functions as symbolic inversion — a way for insulated elites to signal untouchability, rebellion, and dominance in a culture where restraint no longer commands respect. The danger is not metaphysical but civilizational. When a society tolerates and platforms such aesthetics, especially in mass culture and before children, it signals not secret belief but moral exhaustion. Conspiracy bro's having a field day though and no one anymore is going to dismiss them outright for probably a decade lol. The danger is in mixing half truths with non truths - or connecting and conflating two half truths to think they got the ''whole Truth''. Certain things should simply not be tolerated even for ''art'' or ''freedom of speech''. This is where liberalism trips up over itself. ''FrEeDoM''. No - ya'll need Jesus, Muhammed, Bhudda and Leo Gura. A mature sense of spirituality is needed without religious dogmatism. None of this childish adolesecnet poo pooing of anything ''conservative'' constraining your precious ''FrEeDoMs'' with all that moral relativism. But that would be ''AuThOriTaRiaN''. This is reflexive libertarian / liberal brain slop propoganda trained to make anything feel like a slippery slope to Hitler. Just like with how right wingers can view any socialist policy as the slippery slope to communism. Liberate those wallets for the oligarchs broski.

I think the Eastern countries were right to join NATO - anyone would have considering the history. Unfortunately no matter how democratic or lawful a countries decision may be - great powers have a red line - which is to not allow other great powers who are seen as rivals that openly want to contain them - park up right next to them either by land (Russia) or sea (China). Just as the Cuban missile crisis was understandably acted upon by the US. If Venezuela had started stationing Russian/Chinese missiles pointed at the US or started creating deep military interoperability (de-fact NATO style as with Ukraine) - US would be totally understandable for acting upon that - even if it would be morally and lawfully illegitimate and bloody. The issue wasn't Eastern Europe's fear but was in joining a alliance where the leaders incentives differ. The US seeks primacy of the globe, containing the rise of any challengers to it (Wolfowitz doctrine) - their logic is imperial unipolarity. Mainland Europe's logic (if not imperial) would rationally be seeking to accommodate and co-exist with a nuclear neighbor within a shared security architecture - which geography will never allow you to escape, so it only makes sense to co-exist. Europe is and has been trapped between Russian security logic and Atlantic hegemonic logic. The Atlanticist empire's of Britain, then passing the baton onto the US - were built off dominating the sea's (trade routes, chokepoints) and finance (reserve currency). Any continental integration happening outside of that control threatens their primacy - including Eurasian integration. That logic has been so institutionally embedded due to the dominance of the prior British Empire, then the subsequent US empire, that the continent has atrophied it's own strategic thinking relating to whats in its own interest ie don't hitch your ride to one power totally but rather play powers off each other and remain neutral to gain leverage. See who does this well - Turkey, India, Pakistan (between China/US). See the result of not doing it well - Ukraine, Europe. That logic now has its own inertia and is now reflexive - even Epstein is blamed as a Russian honeypot operation lol despite all evidence to the contrary. Europe's sovereignty has been constrained militarily (NATO-US), economically (US finance and corporations), and energetically (Nord Stream - US LNG dependence rendering them industrially un-competitive). Continental drift towards Eurasian integration has been geopolitically cock blocked and Europe is further tied to the Atlanticist imperial orbit. Only now with the most blatant actions from the US now has Europe rubbing their eyes awake to the need of hedging against that domination, subjugation and humiliation. The US post WW2 literally backed and installed dictators via coups (school of the Americas). It didn't support democracy by principle - it worked with authoritarians when it suited its interest and toppled democratically elected leaders when it didn't (UK-US coup of Mossadeg in Iran 1953). That lead to the revolution and Ayotallah which Western imperialism is still targeting today. The West supports Gulf Monarchs till today too. The ongoing struggle since WW2 has really been about preventing any independent power center / pole outside Atlantic control - including of Europe itself being one. Geopolitics start to make sense from this lens. It's been talked about since centuries - Mackinder's world island theory, Spykman's Rimland theory, Brezinksi's great chessboard. ''Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.'' Hence why Iran-Russia-China are boogeymen - they share the worlds largest landmass and don't want to bend the knee to that primacy. Hence why Israel was strategically seen as a beneficial outpost and frontier state (from Britain till the US) - occupying space on that same land. Biden said Israel is the best investment - and investments require a return on that investment. That return is not for the national interest but for imperial interest. Hence Greenland's importance - with Artic sea routes opening up trade outside Atlanticist control that would benefit integrating Europe to Asia. That results in Europe gaining future leverage and increased autonomy away from the US orbit - which pre-empts early geostrategic positioning to maintain primacy. Hence Venezuela, a country in the US hemisphere trading outside of the US dollar (reserve currency) needing to be disciplined whilst signalling to other countries not to defect from the financial system that upholds their dominance. BRICS neutralises Atlantic imperial primacy via finance (non dollar settlement) and trade (land based belt and road). This is the ongoing battle and the great game at play. Not so much authoritarian vs democracy. On Authoritarianism vs Democracy Invoking communism no longer holds so ''authoritarian vs democracy'' becomes the new story. But it’s less about regime type and more about alignment - which certain regime types (democratic) are easier to penetrate and coerce into alignment. Communism was for sure a systemic ideological threat because it threatened private capital interests. It's good that communism failed because its genuinely flawed. The issue is that neo-liberalism is too and one ideology failed whilst the other remained to hollow out its own countries leading to financialized feudalism and reactionary populism / authoritarianism. Yeltsin who oversaw the wind down of communist USSR did neo-liberal shock therapy that had terrible results and brought us Putin to hard fistedly stabilise things. Any system that totalizes a particular logic sucks - whether it’s communal logic or capital logic. China is striking a balance today somewhat by using capitalist mechanisms for socialist ends, run by a centralized meritocratic state. The thing with the West using the ''authoritarian vs democracy'' argument is that liberal democracy is treated as a beginning state that needs to be imposed (ironic) or promoted for development to happen, rather than as a end state that comes after survival and stability are secured - something the West had plenty of time to do via colonization that externalized authoritarian violence and coercion so that they could domestically indulge in universalism pluralism. They had the geopolitical luxury of doing so. Liberalising requires surplus, which require stability, which requires at least some coercive capacity to begin with. The West went through internal repression, elite consolidation and coercive state building - externalized much violence through empire, then domestically liberalized. They had slack to do so - which no longer exists for late developers in a post-colonial world. Countries start to deal with human rights and liberal values once they have the conditions for it after securing the human right of survival and stability. The West's very own actions get in the way, sabotaging that sequence. Intervention by empire used to be justified by the “white mans burden” and is now laundered through “democracy promotion”. The same countries being “helped” get judged by countries that themselves went through and are at the end of that developmental sequence.

But I think its flawed to re-categorise them as building the USSR. The USSR at its core was a imperial political project that had shared economic integration (command economy directed from Russia), military (unified command under the Red Army), and ideology (communism). Any presence in ex empire regions doesn't automatically mean making that same empire there - it can simply be exercising influence which all powers do. The distinction between influence and imperialism is intent and coercion - not just presence of bases, troops, economic links. Intent (imperial accumulation or security preservation) + legitimacy (coerced or not) are helpful in understanding. Russia invading Ukraine for example is clearly illegitimate (morally and lawfully), yet strategically understandable from a security standpoint / buffer state logic where a red line was crossed and acted upon. Same with Georgia, Crimea. The Black Sea is like a strategic throat for Russia (warm water access) which would land lock them if taken out through encirclement and containment (as the US has said it wants to do and has done in action). Crimea (Sevastopol) is existential for them - which is why it was taken immediately after Maidan. Georgia is also at the underbelly of Russia and on the Black Sea. They flirted with NATO ascension at the 2008 Bucharest summit - after which Russia launched. Moldova is a frozen leftover and the least justifiable or understandable (security wise) position for Russia to hold. It's only possible value is its proximity to Odessa and to complicate NATO encroachment through there presence there - but it definitely isn't existential. Even the existence of asymmetry or dependency isn't by itself imperial. Strong larger powers naturally create dependency with those they deal with - asymmetries will always exist - just like is happening with China Russia or for example with Pakistan relying on China heavily for its military equipment. What would make China imperial in both cases would be where that arrangement is enforced or coerced by credible punishment or the threat of it for defection ie violent force, sanctions, de-stabilisation and intervention. That is the case with Europe or other countries wanting to play outside the US system by trading outside it (non-dollar settlement). As the title says - internal. No state willingly gives up or allows secession. Britain with Northern Ireland, Spain with Catalonia, US wouldn't allow it either without a fight. China clamped down on Xinjiang for the same reason - their were also Islamist elements designated as terrorists by the West itself (spillover from a radicalized Middle Eastern region). The method was inhumane yes - but they didn't bomb the region as the West did trying to deal with Islamists. Russia had a bloody war to maintain Chechnya also - brutal. The first one was actually launched under Yeltsin who was Western aligned and seen as democratically elected / legitimate. He was literally dissolving the USSR - so why Chechnya? Because it wasn't seen as a separate satellite state but Russia proper - which would be like giving up a room in your own house and lead to a domino affect of others also seceding - which is why states prevent secession to begin with. The world could keep breaking up into ethnic / tribal states till we have a 1000 nations on the planet - including Balochistan in Pakistan for example. Former colonial regions where ex colonial powers used armed force externally = not necessarily colonialism either if seen from the same lens (legitimacy and coercion). In all the cases listed Russia / China / Turkey in (Africa/ME) were invited by the host state and their presence is seen as legitimate and non-coercive. No invasion or intervention is happening - only influence of great - middle powers. The reason France's influence is eroding in Africa and being replaced by them is because they were never initially invited (colonial) and their presence remains as a colonial residue losing legitimacy. They aren't expanding empire but aren't dismantling the neo-colonial architecture such as the CFA Franc system either. Western powers tend to intervene in the economic / political system of countries (with no security logic for doing so that would deem their actions non-imperial). They, along with their institutions (IMF, World Bank) come with strings attached and moral finger wagging of how things should be conducted to favor Western interests and corporations. When countries deny this market access on favorable terms they are couped or invaded (Venezuela). The others are transactional and pragmatic ie non-interventionist. Russia basically provides security as as service - opportunistic security contracting in volatile regions. For example in Sudan's case they were called in by the state (SAF) - as the state collapsed into civil war they hedged and withdrew. The rebels on other hand are supported by UAE (Western ally) who only started to get criticized when they got too much heat. In fact they have created a axis of secessionists in the region which is why the region is angry at them. Ironic that the most Western / Zionist aligned state is acting in the same divide and conquer manner as its partners. Countries constantly trade arms and do drills / exercises together - doesn't mean anything in relation to imperial empire building. China provides Ukraine drones / components which are used against its very own ally Russia. Again - transactional not ideological.

@Mohammad Stay safe man. There's no doubt the IRGC are corrupt af. The thing is that sanctioning doesn't help with that at all and only further entrenches the corruption and security state under seige conditions. Corruption is usually outgrown with surplus, which comes from normalisation and integrated trade with the world increasing exports for dollars or strong currency. In constant survival mode from being imperially contained by the West - they are constantly needing to put out fires with little to no breathing room, so they grab whatever they can. Sanctions also means informal networks and channels are required to operate which means way more corruption occurs and gets further entrenched. Sanctions and containment militarises the economy and the IRGC fills the role the state could no longer perform normally. Now they are a parallel state fusing military with economic power which becomes even harder to dislodge. Any attempt at couping this establishment basically means civil war the likes of Syria. This is why many people hesitate to or don't want to be associated with ''Western intervention'' despite supporting or being for the Iranian people. We know what it caused in the past. Even the last revolution wasn't entirely Islamic - it was a mass revolt, after which the Islamic faction was organised to seize and consolidate? But in this case who will take the reigns? It most definitely won't be the diaspora backed monarchist lol. The only bet is slow reform and sanction relief that will slowly boost GDP and expose the IRGC / gov to global standard and norms which they will then wish to meet in order to be ''investable'' as a country by foreign investment. Constant foreign meddling or intervention gives them the narrative of always having something to ''resist''. Being under sanctions gives them a reason to fight those that ''suffocate us''. And the material reality of that encirclement and sanctions leaves them little to no breathing room to manage the country well. Even wealthy Western nations who are never sanctioned (can't even be) have economic ups and downs and yellow vest protests - imagine being sanctioned. It's absolutely no wonder. Anyone who underestimates the power of sanctions is ill informed and doesn't understand that it is a financial WMD that only the West has monopoly on - that is being routed around via BRICS who are in the process but not near completion.

Looks more like a Western military bloc (NATO) that finally reached a country which Russia couldn't afford to lose (Ukraine) without fighting back - rather than the other way round. If they wanted to re-build the USSR they should have started with consolidating countries that are easier to conquer (Central Asian stans) with less population, advanced military's / economies / article 5 guarantee's - and more resources that would even make such a thing possibly worth it in the, end at least commercially. Them going for a resource scare region in Eastern Europe with geographically difficult terrain and facing the collective economic and military power of the West seems fantastical if they had any USSR fantasies. We could say Germany re-arming now is rebuilding the Third Reich or Turkey's presence beyond their borders is re-building the Ottoman Empire. But both cases aren't accurate or would be twisting facts. Russia acting on a single fault line on a highly vulnerable border doesn't scale to a general plan of re-building the USSR. No doubt though - Russia will likely never reach superpower status and even its great power status will over the long term slip unless some miracles happen. Only China and the US are superpowers, India a rising one with quite a way to go, Russia is a great one stagnating from internal mismanagement / corruption and demographic decline.

@Joshe True. Check out this released interview: His knowledge base seems just about wide enough (with depth in a few domains like finance) to where he can get on with a variety of people. Also seems quite chilled or laid back as you mentioned - but doesn't seem anything remarkable either intellect wise. Powerful men who want to indulge in vice can't do so easily with ''regular'' escorts because of the risk - they can buy sex but not safety. So they need controllable environments and women (in this or some cases young girls) - and control invariably leads to the exploitation and the dark underworld of trafficking. He provided illicit pleasure in a insulated space where they could let their guard down and be just as depraved as he was. Scum of the earth. Most people who networked with him or that he associated with probably didn't get involved in that filth - but simply being associated puts them on the chopping block and under suspicion until full disclosure. He was a intermediary between overlapping elite interests and provided access / leverage or dangled the potential of it like carrots to pull strings others couldn't.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01660651.pdf Wonder how much this plays into an attack happening. I’ve seen it commented around as a argument / factor. The US wanted Iran to concede around three things - nuclear, ballistic missiles, proxy support. The US left the JCPOA and last time during “discussions” they rug pulled Iran and Israel launched an attack. Don’t see why Iran or any country would trust the US. Even if they come to some sort of agreement on nuclear - it’s very unlikely they will give up on ballistic missiles as that’s their only real deterrance left. Trump and the US now need some sort of safe facing off ramp as they’ve gone all out with posturing up in the Middle East and can’t be seen as doing nothing and leaving. Iran says they’ll react to any action without restraint this time round compared to last time which is de-escalatory theatrics.

This hits different in 1.5x speed. A 7 month old vid as relevant today. Imagine this guy speaking at Davos Sermon on da tube type shee

Tunnels make sense then lol It's mainly Western empire not Jews - before the West it was other empires and even during the Wests reign other imperial powers existed but got squashed (Japan). The West has just dominated the imperial space the past centuries from colonialism till today where it is now being challenged into retreat by BRICS. Israel and Zionism is a very influential and powerful node within that wide architecture as I commented on on the previous page. Russia also had its own imperialism during the USSR simultaneously along side the West which is what the Cold War was about. But at the same time - Islamic, Chinese, Russian and increasingly Indian civilizations are large enough with enough binding glue of identity they want to fight for and not bend the knee to Western powers. Any power (Iran, Russia, China) or even non-power (Venezuela) that doesn't bend the knee to the uni-polar order gets targeted. Islamic civilization is potent but divided - and was divided. Today they are coming closer together un-evenly and haphazardly trying to extricate themselves and hedge against the West - each to varying degrees depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Gulf countries with oil money, Turkey and Pakistan with some muscle as deterrence and in Pakistan's case having the coming (already arrived?) superpower China on its side as its ''iron-brother''.

At its most basic it's Jews returning to their historic homeland. The term Zionism is new but the idea existed among Western Christians (protestants, calvinists, evangelicals) from before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism A big reason for it being well received and acted upon was because the powers of the time were already primed for it. That's aside from the material conditions - fall of Ottoman empire giving way to the British empire governing Palestine + mass industrial scale atrocities in Europe (culminating in the holocaust) = need for a moral and strategically aligned solution / project to replace a declining British empire that needed to leave that region without losing strategic influence. It's been Western aligned ever since and now tied to US interests as the baton got passed to the US as the world power. From the wiki link above: “The crumbling of the Ottoman Empire threatened the British route to India via the Suez Canal as well as sundry French, German and American economic interests. In 1831 the Ottomans were driven from the region of Syria (including Palestine) by an expansionist Egypt, in the First Turko-Egyptian War. Although Britain forced Muhammad Ali to withdraw to Egypt, the Levantwas left for a brief time without a government. The ongoing weakness of the Ottoman Empire made some in the west consider the potential of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. A number of important figures within the British government advocated such a plan, including Charles Henry Churchill.[40][41] Again during the lead-up to the Crimean War (1854), there was an opportunity for political rearrangements in the Near East. In July 1853, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, who was President of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, wrote to Prime Minister Aberdeen urging Jewish restoration as a means of stabilizing the region.[8][42][43]” The starting point is the same (return to homeland) but the reason for return and what its meant to achieve is different for different groups which is where the confusion comes. Multiple reasons converged together - a divine promiseland, security from persecution, imperial strategy for empire. Herzel plugged into a existing worldview of the powers at the time who could make that vision come true. The major problem everyone has had and still has now is the implementation of that vision and that native Palestinians already existed there who are trying to be sidelined / cleansed.

I've communicated with humans plenty on this exact topic - me and some OG posters here ran the Israel/Palestine thread into page 100's. I also comment longer than I should so once in a while if I transparently share something AI aided me in articulating gimme a break lol Of course they influence - but that's different to run and control of the US. A state that depends on another for weapons, aid and diplomatic cover doesn't control the one that can cut those off. Lobbying exists precisely because it doesn't have total command and control. There's no need for a secretive conspiratorial cabal of Jews when you have aligned interests. Lobbying helps maintain that alignment. Israel is a a semi-dependent, highly influential node inside a much larger imperial system. A imperfect but close enough analogy is a husband-wife relationship. Say the husband (US) is the breadwinner of the house while the wife (Israel) freelances here and there. They both align on a shared destiny of family and having a baby - parallel to this is the US and Israel both wanting regional domination of the Middle East. The wife (Israel) can influence the husband (US) on how she wants family life to look, what holidays they go on, shopping, and even when to have kids ie on her timeline vs the husbands. Parallel to this is the US not wanting to go all out against Iran but Israel pressuring them that its now or never - similar to a wife pressuring the husband ''I don't care if you feel financially stable enough, my baby fever is sky high''. When the wife nags (Israel lecturing US it needs to go harder on Iran) or looks into the husbands phone suspecting him of cheating (Israel spying) - this causes friction but not divorce. This is tolerated because its a special relationship held by both being indispensable to each others goals and through the glue of by emotion / narrative ie love / zionism. Just like how empire and imperialism hijacked Christianity as a justification layer for itself - so it did with Zionism. Christian Zionism predates Jewish Zionism by centuries - its a vessel for Western exceptionalism and imperialism, manifest destiny and evangelicalism - all that just so happens to converge on Israel. Zionism became the perfect moral language to launder those interests through especially in a post-colonial era where the norms of outright conquest and colonialism no longer existed. When Westerners critique Zionism they aren't just critiquing another foreign state but are implicitly challenging the story that legitimises their own empire - which is why its politically toxic and culturally sidelined wherever possible - until it becomes too glaringly obvious that it can no longer be. Israel is a frontier state in a valuable region for the empire (Mackinder world island) - they have much leverage because of this and are tolerated to a high degree, including their own interests being accommodated. Even if we give in to the idea that US actions in the Middle East are all or mostly for Israel - how then would we explain US actions in Latin/South America, Europe/NATO and Asia. The US empire is massive in scale and is the clear patron in this otherwise mutually beneficial relationship. American's complain about how it doesn't benefit America or American's - but it was never meant to. It benefits the empire state not the nation state. As if the US would be on the side of national interest and not private capital interests if Israel didn't exist.

Brilliant - that deserves its own thread. I’d add this related vid: The issue is anger is being polarized across cultural-identity politics lines which usually doesn’t bring a revolution but instead civil war. People need to coalition build and unite across class lines and challenge the power structure itself not simply “Trump” the scapegoat. Protests only work when they’re disruptive to elite interest / the power structure. Ghandi made the status quo to costly through massive mobilized disobedience and disruption. Likewise with Mandela and ending of apartheid including with BDS movement - which is why it’s penalised or banned. Frances’s Albanese got sanctioned and silenced the moment she started revealing the corporate profiteering off of the Gaza ethnic cleansing campaign, not before - despite her open critique of Israel. She said this on a interview with Chris Hedges. Injustice needs to be made un-profitable, because profits hurt elite interests - who don’t care for change unless the cost of not changing crosses a certain threshold. This can all be done peacefully but requires unity and patience - both of short supply.

Commented just last week and on the previous page how China is tactically downgraded as a threat, to strategically maintain primacy and consolidate power and leverage wherever possible. Yesterday Pentagon released its new defense strategy : https://news.sky.com/story/china-no-longer-americas-top-defence-priority-pentagon-says-13498252 “The main focus on the homeland includes a section about the US no longer ceding key terrain in the Western Hemisphere and how the Pentagon will provide Mr Trump with "credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal." These are material structural shifts in the world order. The US had imperial dominion over the whole earth which it considered as its sphere - it had universality. That era has upended and is now challenged with the rise of other powers specifically China - Thucydides trap in effect. They know they can’t challenge or contain this rival directly without paying enormous cost. So this Thucydides trap will be managed and not catastrophic or world ending. What has usually ended up in war between the rising power vs the unipolar power seeking to maintain the status quo - is not applicable today due to mutually assured destruction. What will be replaced by universality is exclusivity and locking in of a imperial US orbit and core. Alignment and loyalty to a US-centric system used to be assumed but now has to be coerced and enforced. This is why the US now views it “allies” not as junior partners but as assets to extract from, maintain and cement US primacy. They ironically call for “stronger allies” and a “stronger Europe” whilst expecting them to be strategically kneecapped and tied to US interests. Strong but not sovereign. Europe has structural reasons as to why it will struggle to be a geopolitical pole - its not a rival to the US in any threatening way. But it can be seen as a threat to empire in the sense of it drifting East to where it naturally connects geographically - which is also outside of US control. Eurasian continental integration is a hedge against the Atlanticist monopoly of Europe which seeks to keep it tied to the US orbit. Venezuela is likewise a disciplinary move to enforce this US-centric economic / systems level iron curtain. Ditto with Trump threatening 100% tariffs on Canada for flirting with trade dealing with China. A neighbor like Canada whose part of NATO and a G7 nation, exercising its autonomy in this way is seen as defiance within the imperial core - an unacceptable example that emboldens others to diversify, defect and hedge: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4qww3w72lo.amp Keir Starmer will be in China soon to boost ties: https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-finance-trade-chiefs-to-join-keir-starmers-china-trip/ EU looking to have a trade deal with India: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgyz1ejw9no.amp US vassals already attempting to hedge with BRICS nations - the same nations they lectured about funding and aiding Russia. Reality re-asserts itself against delusions of ideology. US uni-polarity is ending, its hegemony in relative decline is inevitable - only expedited by its own desperate actions. Don’t mistake this as just a Trump phenomena - it’s institutional not just personal. There is a deep state apparatus behind him looking to maintain if not manage this imperial decline by coercively carving out its position in a multi-polar world - as the Pentagon itself confirms.

Don’t have the time atm to cleanly write what I currently understand on this topic but voice noted chat gpt and told it to tidy up my thoughts: “It is false to say that Israel “runs” or “controls” the United States government. Power does not flow from a smaller state into the core of a global empire. The US security state, military primacy, financial system, and global reach are not subordinated to Israel or to any ethnic group. The existence of AIPAC actually demonstrates this: lobbying exists to manage and maintain alignment, not to command the system. If Israel truly ran US policy, a highly visible, resource-intensive lobby would be unnecessary. What people are misidentifying as “control” is narrative dominance and ideological utility. Zionism does not drive US imperial strategy, but it has become one of the most effective justification layers within it—especially in the Middle East. US imperial logic (power projection, corridor control, pre-emption, primacy) predates Zionism and would exist without it. But explicit imperial language—Manifest Destiny, civilizational conquest, open domination—has become politically toxic in the post-colonial era. Zionism solves that problem by laundering older Western imperial logics through a morally sympathetic frame rooted in Jewish historical trauma and survival. It reframes domination as defense, exceptionalism as necessity, and violence as moral duty. This is why Zionism persists far beyond religion or ethnicity. There are more Zionists in the US than in Israel, many of them secular, including elites in tech, finance, and security. For them, Zionism is not theological; it is functional. It models a hard-state doctrine that prioritizes security, pre-emption, hierarchy, and technological supremacy, while remaining morally legible to Western audiences. It provides domestic consent, elite coherence, and plausible deniability. Washington points to Israel’s “security needs,” Israel points to US backing, politicians point to voters or donors, and responsibility is diffused across the system rather than owned by the imperial core. So the accurate formulation is this: Israel does not run the US state. Zionism operates as a powerful ideological interface inside US imperial architecture. Israel is a protected, symbiotic, junior node—indispensable in one region, but not sovereign over the system itself. Claims about “Jewish control” collapse because they confuse an effective narrative mechanism with the underlying structure of empire. The engine is imperial power; Zionism is one of the stories that keeps it socially and politically survivable.” Also - these two videos:

Looks to be arriving in the coming day or two. https://x.com/MenchOsint/status/2012509278070837381 Tracker with lag: https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-Abraham-Lincoln-(CVN-72)/CURRENT-POSITION/1/369970406 Listen to a what a key economic advisor under Obama says at Davos 3min mark: Very likely something big to happen in the next few days - as carriers arrive and as heard from insiders ''indirectly'' he says. Great watch on the big picture: Anything possibly in the next two weeks. Could just be a aggressive posture to pressure Iran to concede - similar to Venezuela. But most likely Iran won't so US may go in for something or the other. Still don't see how Israel is prepared or not regarding air defense and interceptors but they've been saying they're willing to take the hit to go for Iran alongside the US. Perhaps they're out of domestic options considering the covert ground set they built up over years was cracked down on - Iran shut off the internet to find the starlink receivers and hunted them down.

From: https://x.com/benjaminnorton/status/2014003774751449228?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “It is perhaps understandable that most observers are focusing on Carney's response to Donald Trump's threats and his announcement that Canada will "fundamentally shift our strategic posture" and "diversify" away from the US. This is significant and historic. Nevertheless, an even more important part of the speech was when Canada's prime minister admitted that the so-called "rules-based international order" was always deeply hypocritical and biased, serving the interests of the imperialist West. He said, "We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim". "This fiction was useful" for Western imperialist countries, Carney added. Which is why, "We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality". However, "This bargain no longer works", he stressed. In other words, Carney was admitting that Western "middle powers" (like Canada or European countries) willingly went along with US hegemony and supported the US-led imperialist system -- which is predicated on the systematic subjugation and exploitation of Global South countries in the periphery -- because these Western middle powers also benefited from this pillage of the Global South. But now that the US empire has turned against these Western imperialist middle powers that it previously called its "allies", and now that they are getting just a glimpse of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of what they have been doing to the Global South for centuries, they are (ostensibly) turning against the exploitative system that they had helped to sustain for so long. They supported imperialism as long as it benefited them. Now that it doesn't, they pretend to be acting in a principled way, supposedly to uphold international law and defend sovereignty. But Canada's prime minister has publicly acknowledged that they never truly cared about that. It was just the public relations narrative.”

Not only wants but requires - control of platform is more essential than the product traded upon that platform - especially in a financialized empire where the exorbitant privilege is afforded to the reserve currency. The OS (system) is more important than what any single app is trending on a given day. New trade corridors emerging that bypass US controlled geography and institutions is a threat to the system - not so much to national security (although potential remains) but to an financialized empires platform. Eurasian Silk Road and Arctic pass are outside of US control - meaning no possibility of leverage by choking off adversaries. It also means if trade wanted to be conducted outside the dollar system the US wouldn’t be able to interdict that trade the way it would by sea. Meaning sanctions and SWIFT lose their veto power in controlling nations to fall into line with the empire interests. If your a Atlanticist empire what’s the best way to prevent Eurasian integration between the two largest markets in the world (China and Europe)? In geopolitics leverage is constantly being negotiated, maintained or denied to rivals - or in this case allies. Artic trade route opening up gives Europe optionality and leverage it didn’t have before. US wants total control over this to deny that leverage to what it views as subordinate junior partners within the Atlanticist US empires orbit Why do multiple countries have bases dotted along the Red Sea? Why is there an apparent rift between Saudi and UAE currently? UAE was creating dependant non-state actors (an axis of secessionists) to gain access to local nodes (ports) along the Red Sea. Non-state actors are more easily controlled and dealt with - especially by smaller states. The doctrine is divide and insure rather than divide and outright conquer. No one wants any one player to have veto power of a choke point. Saudi had to step in due to a red line being crossed South of its border in Yemen from UAE backed groups. ——————- Trump doesn’t have to understand any of this in detail - he just wants his face on Rushmore. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some strategic (even if flawed and counter productive) logic that exists. The Arctic has been relevant for decades and only increasingly valuable now - that’s a reality. There doesn’t need to be an imminent threat for a country to act and lock in a favourable geostrategic position before it’s too late. Iraq wasn’t a national security threat, yet the US waned a foothold and to dominate a valuable region of the world. Only a critical mass of elite consensus needs to exist to allow the state machinery to move in a certain direction and not get in the way - as long as the overall direction is in line with the imperial objective to maintain primacy. People will comment and roll eyes but tacitly approve of the end objective. In general there is usually a continuity of agenda, but a change in method and execution from president to president. This is why when Obama pivoted to China as a threat to start paying attention to - it was maintained through admins without much rollback.

Macron be like “we’re on the same page with bombing brown people in Middle East, but your picking on junior partners of the imperial core now? Common Donny” Europe morally grandstands and condems empire while living off it - which is nauseating to many outside the West and increasingly those within it. They outsourced the hard work of survival and security to be under a US military umbrella, vassalizing themselves whilst largely benefitting from the imperial arrangement as junior partners. They’ve been complicit in sanctions programmes and much US imperial adventurism - whilst acting as if their beyond power and survival dynamics living in some garden of Eden with sub 1% military spending because their so enlightened. Ironically France has the most strategic autonomy thanks to De Gaulle. The entire continent now has to pursue that together, stop virtue signalling and start capacity building. Carney was brilliant today: The leaders of Europe need to adopt much of his mindset - pragmatic not ideological. Know your strengths and weaknesses, plug your vulnerabilities through diversification, play powers off each other rather than hitching solely to one which can then dictate to you and whose head of state you call daddy like an utter retard. A reductive but helpful framing is Atlanticist vs continentalist. Europe is connected to the largest landmass on earth (Eurasia) with access to the most resources, markets, trade corridors (Mackinder world island). But the UK and then US tugged Europe into the Atlanticist orbit of both empires. Greenland trade corridors opening up with melting ice allows Europe-Asian trade and integration outside of US control, meaning Europe gains in strategic autonomy and leverage. Theres a reason many powers have bases all along the Red Sea. Trade corridors provide leverage and deny any one power monopoly over choke points. A trade corridor with solely Eurasian oversight (China, Russia, Europe) gives Europe optionality and leverage against a Atlanticist empire wanting keep Europe hitched to its orbit. Hence the capping of Europe strategic autonomy via military (NATO under US command) and energy (Nordstream anyone?). The US basically has a kill switch on European military similar to how China has a kill switch on US military via rare earths - hence the scramble and panic to lock down potential resources and trade corridors while they can, on the cheap. This is imperial geostrategic positioning in a desperate bid to maintain primacy under constraints and pressure in a changing world. Institutional inertia and ideology has locked in a Atlanticist logic that is now being tested by reality slapping Europe across the face. The way the US is brashly acting to maintain this status quo and the structural pressures upon Europe (economically, energetically, public humiliation and domestic discontent) should cause them to *painfully* adapt to the new world as Carney laid out.

In the connected comment to above I also said US would lose its economic tariff war against China. They also know they aren’t a clean match for any military adventure with China - Hegseth has said they lose to China in war game scenarios. This leads them to rhetorically downgrade China to a “economic competitor” rather than a “adversary” (more hostile language) in the national security strategy - despite project 2025 calling China the main threat. It’s still considered so (to empire) but they must adapt to reality. Make no mistake, this isn’t a strategic retreat - containing the rise of a rival superpower to maintain primacy is desired - but direct confrontation is too costly and high risk. Because they can no longer cheaply dominate everywhere due to imperial overstretch and rising powers competing - they must recalibrate and prioritise. Part of that is to tactically retreat to consolidate whatever they can ie low hanging fruit in Latin America (Venezuela) and from their own allies (Greenland) + ask their allies (vassals) to pay tribute and burden share (increase military spending and nod Japan to start barking via proxy at China). Hence the pivot to fortify with resilient supply chains and re-shoring industrial manufacturing for a possible (not necessarily a wanted) war case scenario. It’s necessary and smart to be self sustained to the degree that if a future confrontation were to happen it wouldn’t be as suicidal. It’s normal for every country to fortify what’s critical. The US has to deal with two uncomfortable facts: - It can’t decisively defeat a peer like China at acceptable cost. - It also can’t rule out confrontation entirely (even if highly unlikely or unwanted due to mutually assured destruction). So that forces a third path which is to reduce vulnerability. There’s obviously a more ethical way of doing this via influence and win-win partnerships - but empire is choosing to conduct itself imperially instead. China is actually more vulnerable than the US (imports food and energy on sea lanes its rival superpower navally polices). This same power has think tank pieces gaming naval blockade scenarios. This same power is starting to play pirates of the Carribean and more recently the Arctic. How did China plug these vulnerabilities? Trade, belt and road initiative, development projects and good relations with countries that can provide what it needs. As a diplomat said “when the West comes to Africa we get a lecture, when China comes we get a bridge”