zazen

@integration journey

@Raze On point as always. Razor sharp on many issues. Jeffrey Sachs on the current situation in Syria: A George Galloway monologue: Old but gold him wiping the floor at Congress regarding Iraq:

South Korea being South Korea with North Korean characteristics. Can’t tell if we’re in the Game of thrones timeline or The Avengers one. Jordan Peterson would say we’re in the X-men one and will be saved 😂

Bidens legacy despite any of the possible good he did will be overshadowed with him presiding over a plausible genocide he didn’t do anything to stop, nuclear brinkmanship with Russia - crossing red lines by green lighting ATACMS for Ukrainians to use before his departure, and giving blanket immunity to his son over a 11 year time period starting from when Ukraine shenanigans kicked off. Biden’s in the fuck it phase of his term - with no care for optics even. Pardoning potential crimes in addition to actual ones sounds more like he’s visited a confessional. This just gives Donald Trump ammunition to be like “Look, see! The games rigged and they don’t care about you” to his base. It’s like a political suicide bomb strapped to the Democratic parties chest. The right will be milking this tit harder than Piers Morgan.

@integration journey Most of the world stands with the Syrian people in general, the issue is groups mixing in like you said and hijacking the cause. The issue is how to wrestle power out of fundamentalists hands if they do come in? They wouldn’t even allow that Santa outfit to exist because it’s haram lol. Only baba clause can exist. A hypothetical to illustrate how easily resentment can brew in this situation - imagine if a 10-15% minority of any nation ran a country and dominated the main branches of government whilst crushing dissent. In France that would be Muslims 10% of the population ruling over the rest, in Turkey it would be Kurds (10-15%) ruling over Turks, in Apartheid South Africa it was 10% white South Africans dominating - and we all now how that ended up. Totally unstable foundation for a country.

@Jodistrict Speaking of machines - the media machine is broken for sure. A story: This thanksgiving, thanks were given. Conspiracising now, someone reign me in.

Yeah, not aligned in total but in part on particular issues. @aurum True, libertarianism can sucker people into thinking the size of government automatically means it’s bad. But no major nation can runs smoothly with a small state apparatus. Perhaps it isn’t the size of government that’s the problem, as much as it is that they should be doing more of the right things rather than the wrong, and serving the interests of the many over the few. Obviously things should also be streamlined and efficient, but that doesn’t mean eradication all together to let the market bring about efficiency through market forces - that just leads to big fish efficiently capturing little fish, it’s less capitalism and more domination.

@integration journey Yeah true, its also possible their are factions with different ideas of whats good or not, and that they also change with the circumstances on who to support and when to turn on each other. Its a tangled mess as Hussein's chart shows. It's possible they operate by a lesser of evils paradigm - ie the great threat as always Iran, with Hezbollah at its border who is supported by them. The new axis of evil is Russia, China and Iran according to the West. Just like in Afghanistan they propped up Al Qaeda to stop the Soviet union, they seem to be repeating round two in Syria to stop Iran. They may have not anticipated the blowback from Afghanistan, or they may view it as a a more manageable threat if they even are one, than a greater power like Russia or Iran. It's more of a strategic gamble, and Syria is the linchpin nation for Iran and Russia - so targeting Syria kills (or injures) two birds with one stone and undermines both Western 'perceived' adversaries. I write perceived because this a old relic of a paradigm from the cold war era which the West is still operating on. But it can't work in a world where there are multiple powers - with the power to destroy the world many times over. Unipolarity only worked in the past when there was a clear hegemon and no one had the power to destroy the planet, but with modern advancements and nuclear weapons, this game can't be played any longer when new powers rise and challenge the existing one. The stakes are too high, which is why we are 90 seconds to midnight on the doomsday clock - https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/ Heres a interesting article regarding Israel / Syria with wikileaks documents being sourced : https://www.mintpressnews.com/conflict-syria-israel-war/231532/ Some juicy parts- ''Leaked emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton further reveal Israel’s role in covertly creating the conflict and its clear role in securing the involvement of the U.S. and other nations in executing its plan for Assad’s removal. One email, forwarded by Clinton to her advisor Jacob Sullivan, argues that Israel is convinced that Iran would lose “its only ally” in the region were Assad’s government to collapse.'' The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies.” This possible sectarian war was perceived as a potential “factor in the eventual fall of the current government of Iran.”

Is this regression or alignment?

@BlueOak True, very hard to predict. Syria is a mosh pit of empires, so many outside interests all colliding here. Turkey, Iran, Russia, Israel/US. Unfortunately a great country with a great history ruined with innocents displaced and dead. It's a fuzzy place with tangled alliances and interests. There's a genuine grassroots movement for democracy due to a disenfranchised majority being ruled by a minority (a recipe for instability and resentment) which then gets hijacked and mixed in with extreme terrorist factions who are anti-democratic and fundamentalist hunting down Christians and minorities. Then there's a combination of US/Israel/3 letter agencies supporting them to overthrow Assad in order to serve their own interests. It's odd that at the same time Israel / Lebanon agree on a cease fire this springs up, also Georgia now kicking off. Possibly - With Ukraine and Israel both struggling, Syria serves to weaken both their opponents. Hezbollah's supply lines can be choked off via Syria and Russia can be bogged down in the mess too. Georgia can become another thorn in Russia's ass also. On the one hand no one wants extremists to overthrow and come in to power (how can we know if it will be the rebels or the extremer factions who will force their way into power) - but no one wants a minority dictator either who suppresses political dissent / plurality and is brutal.

@BlueOak I haven't justified their actions, just attempted to understand them and what can possibly lead to them. As a Westerner myself, I must confront what my own corner of the planet does, as that's the only possible chance at changing outcomes I have - via the ballot box rather than the bullet. At least that's what sold to us, that we're in a Democracy.. but even then, we don't get to vote on national security or challenges to corporate domination, or are lied to about being able to. Just look at the recent government petition ballooning up to nearly 3 million signatures for a call for a general election in the UK - after only a few months of Labour being in power. The people were lied to and Starmer went against his campaign promises. Europe is economically struggling and we are expected to fight a war for elites that are despised and getting us into this mess with their warmongering rhetoric - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143 The hysteria about Russia’s imperialism is misguided. Historically, Russia isn’t the imperialist boogeyman it’s made out to be. They expanded centuries ago, just as every major power did when borders were drawn with swords and daggers. But using today’s moral standards to vilify actions that were universal in a time of conquest is unfair. By that logic, Britain, France, Spain, and the United States would also be guilty of imperialist sins that dwarf anything Russia has done. Yet we don't hear calls to roll back the US empire with it's 800 bases. Because such criticisms are selectively applied to fit the current narrative of Western hegemony. Russia is aging rapidly with a shrinking population. Their demographics are so poor they’ve been handing out incentives to encourage people to have children. That doesn't sound like a country gearing up to expand its borders for empire. Empires expand when they’re young, dynamic, and have surplus manpower. That’s the historical record. From Rome to the British Empire to the Mongols, expansion has always been fueled by youthful demographics. No empire in history has gone on a conquering spree with a population. Russia is already the largest country on Earth. Its borders stretch across 11 time zones, from the Baltic to the Pacific. What would they gain by expanding into areas they’d have to station men in (which they have less of) manage, and maintain? Empire building isn’t just about taking land - it’s about holding it. That requires boots on the ground, manpower at checkpoints, and resources to fund it all - which as you've pointed out they have less of with a collapsing economy. With their declining population and weakening economy Russia doesn’t have the bodies or the appetite for such a burden. They have neither the demographics nor the need. They do have an abundance of resources and a lucrative trading relationship with Asia. Why risk all that for a dream of territorial conquest? Russia is far more focused on securing its existing borders and protecting its sphere of influence within its neighborhood. Influence is different from intervention and imperialism which is what the West largely engage in. sWestern pundits moralize about Russia’s historical expansions while conveniently ignoring their own nations colonial rampages. The British Empire didn’t just expand - it plundered, enslaved, and subjugated. The United States annexed half of Mexico and toppled governments from Guatemala to Iraq. Yet somehow, only Russia’s actions are put under the microscope. The context today is that we live in a world of nation states with largely settled borders. Expanding territory today isn’t just taboo - it’s counterproductive. Russia knows this. They’re not marching westward in some Tsarist fantasy. They’re protecting their interests in regions like Crimea and Donbass, areas tied to their security and identity. These are defensive, not imperialist, actions - driven by NATO’s provocations, not a desire for global domination. If anything, the real question isn’t why Russia is acting as it does - it’s why the West refuses to see the obvious. A shrinking, aging country with no demographic fuel for expansion, already sitting on more resources than it can use, has no logical reason to embark on imperialist conquests. The caricature of Russia as a marauding empire is a propaganda tool, designed to justify the endless militarization of NATO and deflect attention from Western failures. Russia has no need to expand. They’re not the ones projecting military power across the globe - they’re securing their own backyard. And while Western powers cry imperialism, they might want to take a look in the mirror. If Russia’s actions are imperialist, then what are the United State's actions?

@Bobby_2021 @Hatfort Westerners are trapped in the slick narratives of their establishment media. The mainstream narrative acts like history always begins with the latest sensationalized headline and the most vivid display of a transgression. Russia invades Ukraine? Evil. Hamas attacks on October 7th? Evil. Two things can be true at the same time - that an obvious act of aggression is wrong, and that provoking someone into it is also wrong. They never pause to ask what led up to these events because they’ve been conditioned to ignore the endless drip of provocations - the thousands of smaller, less newsworthy transgressions that came before. It’s like watching a dam finally burst and blaming the water for being there. The key word here is provocation, just like in Israels situation its occupation - both words bring about allergic reactions to those who've bought the main stream narrative - because they know it unearths the context their narrative bubbles shield them from. Provoked is such a key term that Scot Horton just named his latest booked using the term - https://www.amazon.com/Provoked-Washington-Started-Catastrophe-Ukraine/dp/1733647376 - already a best seller in the war and peace category. By isolating one dramatic event and erasing the chain of provocations, the narrative gets flipped. Suddenly, the villain is the one who responds explosively, while the instigator quietly chipping away for decades gets to play the victim. This is the sneakiness of plausible deniability: you can’t connect the dots if you refuse to admit the dots exist. The context gets buried, and the propaganda machine churns on. Jeffrey Sachs does a great job at providing the context. When the media omits context and misinforms the public for establishment interests - it leaves the media itself scrambling when challenged by alternative media - and the people unprepared for outcomes that fall outside the constructed narratives fed to them - such as Trump's electoral victories. Blind side galore. The people are made to wear blinkers and gas lit that they're wearing glasses that help them see situations clearly. To protect the bubble of comfort the mainstream has massaged them into so well - they label those critical of it Russian bots or Putin apologists - just like how they tried to discredit Trump with the Russia hoax or tarnish Tulsi Gabbard by calling her a Russian asset. It rings as hollow as Zionists calling someone a anti-semite for criticizing Israel's actions.

As we’re speaking about neoliberalism.

@Raze Agreed. Leo is correct when he says neoliberalism is the only game in town - but it’s more so because the system is rigged to ensure that anyone who challenges it gets crushed, co-opted, or dismissed. People aren’t voting for neoliberalism because they love it - their voting within the confines of a system that only offers them neoliberalism. Europe is proof that this isn’t about people being “undeveloped.” Europes democracies provide universal healthcare, affordable education, and safety nets that protects their citizens. The real issue isn’t that Americans or anyone else “can’t handle” a better system - in fact populism across the globe is a cry for a better system. It’s that neoliberalism sabotages their readiness for it - because it creates conditions which divides, alienates, and stresses people to the point their unable to think of anything better or where they end up choosing the wrong “solutions” in the form of a populist leader who promise change but can’t or won’t bring it. Also, if we follow the logic of “people aren’t developed enough to transcend neoliberalism,” then why stop there? Why not extend that same argument to say democracy itself is a mistake because people aren’t “developed enough” to vote wisely? Why not hand the keys to an enlightened technocracy or the tech bros lol The elitist attitude among the Democrat left is actually less democratic and more in line with neoliberalism itself. Even Black Lives Matter commented the following: “Democratic Party elites and billionaire donors are attempting to manipulate Black voters by anointing Kamala Harris and an unknown vice president as the new Democratic ticket without a primary vote by the public. This blatant disregard for democratic principles is unacceptable.” - https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-statement-on-kamala-harris-securing-enough-delegates-to-become-democratic-nominee/

Many of the core progressive concerns are populist at heart. The establishment obscures these shared concerns through partisan framing so that people are busy fighting along tribal lines horizontally, rather than transcendent lines vertically - against the vested interests who benefit from that distraction which perpetuates the status quo. A lot of the time, the concerns are shared but people are divided about the solutions ie print more money to fund welfare vs de-regulate to boost wealth creation or boost immigration vs increase the fertility rate. Most people regardless of political affiliation want the same things: affordable healthcare, housing and education, safer streets and a stop to wars. These aren’t radical ideas to be boxed into left or right - but basic human needs. They’re popular and populist as they reflect the shared desires of many people. Populism has been tainted with a dark tone because at its worst it can lead to dark outcomes and at its best it challenges elite interests - but that doesn't mean its inherently bad. It's simply whats popular, and whats popular is democratic. It's funny how its democracy when the vote is in favour of the establishment but populism when it isn't. People have more in common than they think, but get lost in a culture war that the vested interests benefit from as it keeps people fighting at the margins on peripheral but valid issues rather than addressing the core issues which challenges the core power structures of our societies. Both the left and right are being played in this regard. To make things simple and generalise - I view the left as a pacifier and the right as amplifier. The Democrats soak up revolutionary rage, take all that energy for systemic change against inequality, war, and corporate domination - and funnel it into performative activism, identity politics and corporate approved “wokeism” that makes people feel like progress is happening when it barely is. It’s pacification by distraction. The rage is neutralized, absorbed into a cul-de-sac of safe, symbolic gestures. Let the people rage about pronouns and micro-agressions whilst the system inflicts macro-agressions that erode the quality of life for everybody and literally un-alive people across the world through wars and destabilisation. The Republicans on the other hand, amplify anger. They feed on the grievances of the disaffected and feed them red meat when they direct this rage at immigrants via ethnocentrism. This doesn’t pacify, it inflames. But it’s still a deflection as it keeps the rage unfocused and away from the multifaceted causes - it’s channeled into culture wars which have some validity but shouldn’t be a priority. The right at least do a better job of acknowledging a lot more of the basics - the need for safety, secure borders, being critical of a de-growth mentality to save gaia at the expense of their livelihoods, the imposition of woke values top down from institutions which is a ideology that denies reality and flirts with cultural authoritarianism. The left are blind to their abuse of power because power blinds those who have it. The right are blind to the problems within their solutions. The libertarian ethos (minimal government) among the right blinds them to the fact that de-regulation can lead to corporate and oligarchic domination. They conflate the idea that less state power means greater freedoms and wealth creation for all - when it can far too easily mean wealth consolidation for the few. In the end, Trump's populist appeal is more built around naming problems, rather than solving them, or only solving problems in a way that causes more on the back end.

I wouldn't disagree either. This is where I have a problem with the left - they are blind to their own abuses of power yet rant about the potential hypothetical abuse of power from a future presidency that is yet to even come into power. Ironically, this is one of the reasons people are disillusioned enough to even re-align themselves against the left. Authoritarianism for me but not for thee - wokism is basically cultural authoritarianism. There has been a quiet creeping authoritarianism that is very much a real thing and not a hypothetical - yet we only signal the red alarm for the hypothetical orange hitler version. De-platforming and cancel culture, financial blacklisting and de-banking, censorship and big tech collusion, political opponents submerged in a sea of legal warfare - these have authoritarian undertones. Remember Trudea's bank account freezing of the Freedom Convoy protesters - that wasn't ''regulation'' but silencing of dissent and freedom of protest. Theres a huge difference between regulation and de-banking. The lefts solution and slippery slope of logic rests upon - embrace authoritarianism today to prevent authoritarianism tomorrow. The fact these tactics are over looked or deemed ''okay'' because its done to the ''right'' people who aren't in our ''tribe'' is dangerous. Because authoritarianism doesn't care for political tribes, and the same tools that become normalised in their use today, will and can be used against everyone tomorrow. The left are having panic attacks over a phantom facism yet to even take hold, if it ever even does - yet ignore the very real authoritarian impulses that have crept into their own camp. Like a fish in water, power is blind to those that have it - and they have it via institutions, media and academia. This is why the right went all in on alternative media - because the mainstream is hostile to them. Just like how BRICS is forming an alternative financial system because the Western one is hostile and weaponised against them. The West loves to pat itself on the back for how virtuous they are, the same way domestically the liberal establishment pats itself for being the “good” guys that can do no wrong. It doesn’t even register amongst them that their “side” does so. As long as Trump lives rent free in their heads, they will miss the wider cause of his rise - and will ultimately fail in the next election again.

Here Sam Harris speaks on how much the far left have captured institutions and levers of power that the far right haven't (time stamp: What radicalised the right) Regarding the rise wokism - it seems to be a combination of a grassroots movement co-opted by power to deflect criticism away from those who abuse that power. The reason it rose so rapidly in the 2010's was because the occupy wall street movement was speaking up to power after the 2008 crisis and gaining traction - this was a challenging threat. Power (corporate) had to co-opt and pacify this revolutionary energy and channel it into a cul-de-sac of performative corporate approved wokism ie hashtag activism. So it became a top down-bottom up movement which is why it feels imposed, in-authentic and hollow - whilst having kernels of truth. They changed the game board people were fighting on, which was a vertical one challenging those above them (elites) - to a horizontal one (between left and right) where people fight among each other over socio-cultural issues as a deflection. They pacified real concern targeting the core power structure, and amplified peripheral concerns to deflect people away from it. The Democrat establishment elite don't challenge power, they contain challenges to it. It's the party of pacification, a pressure release valve for discontent - that re-directs rage towards identity politics rather than the realities of in-equality. The Republican right on the other hand amplify rage like a pressure cooker and direct it to fake solutions of de-regulation and minimal government - but they at least acknowledge the problem of safety and security ie borders, safe streets etc. The directing of real concern over inequality, towards socio-cultural issues - emboldened them into a social contagion of absurdities that the centre now feel hostage to and has everyone walking on egg shells for. Wokism is a threat in the sense that it's captured cultural, institutional, and bureaucratic power - and that it doesn't have a single tyrannical figure we can challenge because its a social contagion that's simply referred to as ''they/them'' pun intended. It's pervasive and stretches from academia to social media, from corporations to mainstream entertainers. They cancel, censor, lecture, and condescend. They emotionally black mail people who aren't as ideologically pure as them - and because in their world they can identify as anything - they'll call emotional terrorism emotional cardio thats just good for your heart. When a state and society starts being overly restrictive (whether it’s conservatives or wokies doing the restricting) - the natural response is to side with the side who will unburden them from those restrictions. In the words of Kamala - to be unburdened by what has been. Of course, not all freedom is freeing, nor are all restrictions restricting. Some freedoms are given up for larger freedoms - some restrictions can be more freeing than some so called freedoms. But the general sense among many people is that some essential freedoms have been breached - and so they swing to the side that claims to uphold them. What they perhaps don't realise is that the libertarian ethos (minimal government overreach) among the right blinds them to the fact that de-regulation can lead to corporate and oligarchic domination. They conflate the idea that less state power means greater freedoms and wealth creation for all - when it can far too easily mean wealth consolidation for the few. Trump's populist appeal is more built around naming problems, rather than solving them. Getting more philosophical on wokism, liberalism and conservatism: Wokism is a misdirected and misplaced expression of the souls yearning to transcend the limitations of form - they destroy or deny form instead. The truth is we are biologically conservative (form, boundaried), yet spiritually liberal (formless, boundless). We are lost in translation between two worlds, the duality we are - and this manifests in many ways including politics. Liberalism honors the formless (God / soul) within each form - thus calling for justice and equality for all. Conservatism honors the stability of form (Gods creation / structure) - thus calling to conserve it. Liberalism taken too far into what we call wokism denies form all together. Conservatism gone too far into what we call fundamentalism see's nothing beyond form even though they claim they do - their literalist interpretation of God contradicts this.

Isn’t Trump being a tyrannical orange Hitler also speculation? He wasn’t that 4 years ago and we all survived.. Meanwhile, Bidens administration presided over a plausible genocide and did nothing to stop it but in fact facilitated it, excused it, and diplomatically shielded it. They did nothing to de-escalate the Ukraine war. Nord stream blowing up is forgotten as if it never happened, the findings aren’t even being released by Swedens investigation which is now closed - though they found it was extensively sabotaged. When Kamala was asked what changes would be made she said she wouldn’t change anything, and was committed to continuity. Two months before Biden leaving office they have escalated against Russia crossings its red line by green lighting missile strikes into Russia. Due to this, NATO are now talking of pre-emptive strikes on Russia, and UK and France are talking of troop deployment in Ukraine. The establishment are backing a plausible genocide flirting with a major regional war in the Middle East that would spiral the world into hyperinflation, and another war of nuclear brinkmanship that would devastate the world to a degree we wouldn’t even exist to worry about hyperinflation. Yet - we should be raging about the hypothetical tyranny of Trump coming in and not about the real tyranny currently occurring? And before anyone says Biden probably didn’t green light it - okay then, but who did? Who’s making the decisions? That is part of the populist point - a faceless machine of an establishment is harder to tackle and far scarier to live with because it’s a invisible leviathan rather than a visible loudmouth buffoon you can just vote out.

@Raze That’s true. Once you get to witness the cheating that takes place, the cunningness involved, and the general level of stress induced from relationships - it can jade a man. You hear similar stories from friends in relationships and who’ve been “successful” also. Also, what gets interpreted as misogyny is sometimes just carelessness. Misogyny is a active hatred and disdain of women, some times - I’d say a lot of the time player types simply don’t care and are indifferent - which is why they also do well. But indifference also causes hurt - it’s just not a active hatred towards the opposite sex.

@Jodistrict I see where you’re coming from. There’s a way of viewing integrity as being beyond bipartisan politics to the point your willing to cross tribal lines for the sake of your cause. Perhaps he’s not betraying principles, he’s betraying the need for applause and risking tribal backlash because of what’s important to get done - being pragmatic over ideological - because the state of a nation requires it. This isn’t some purity contest - which is exactly what a lot of democrat defectors have said it’s become (Cenk most recently). Maybe a lot of the big names migrating to the Republican side view it as more workable and mouldable. Their not necessarily all narcissists or devils - maybe just architects seeing the R party as unformed clay they can work with. None of us can know RFK’s intent or what’s going on in his head, but if he’s pure intentioned then he isn’t playing the political game, he’s thrown the game board away completely for what he thinks matters. Flirt with opinions, date ideas, marry principles, divorce ideologies.

@Bobby_2021 @BlueOak Check out the first 6 minutes of this:

Check out this thread: https://x.com/villgecrazylady/status/1859748387291107797?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Somewhat conspiratorial..but interesting. Politics is one dirty game.

Interesting breakdown of Ukraine

That’s actually a great blog post on RFK and exactly why he could mess up. They should have just got a proper doctor and RFK to advise on the natural health / food / preventative side of the equation.