zazen

@Ajay0 What about India signing up with US in a deal that agreed to not buy Russian energy? Is that still valid? Seems India has made it choice of who to align with - I said a year ago that the weak link in BRICS would be India as a swing state choosing a side rather than simply maintaining neutrality. And now with Iran: Just saw Jaishabkar’s tweet regarding the naval incident: https://x.com/drsjaishankar/status/2029522979026256168?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “Had a telecon with Iranian FM Seyed Abbas Araghchi this afternoon. @araghchi” No condemnation, only cold language. Cowardly and lacking political courage we were praising earlier in this thread. India should have good relation in the very geographic region it’s in - which it can and will never escape - rather than bend the knee to a aspire all the way over in the Atlantic that suffers little consequence for its imperial adventurism and instead externalises it to its vassals.

Stay safe - I have family in the North too Nazareth side. Hopefully this comes to a end and with little suffering.

@Cred on point. The coalition of the compromised ie Epstein Class - use it as a tool of empire. Moral language is laundered for geopolitical power games. Even spiral dynamics itself is misused to cement the notion of Western supremacy - claiming not only moral but spiritual development.

@LordFall nice share. I think Jiang is predicting worst case outcomes - desalination plant is a major red line. Tbh this could spiral in multiple ways - a Kurdish insurgency is being armed and backed to do the regime change as we speak - probably as a alternative to boots on the ground which is simply catastrophic and which there’s little political will for. This is problematic for Turkey as it could force them to intervene and stabilise their side the border. It seems like if regime change isn’t achievable then regime implosion, chaos and balkanisation is the next best outcome - without care for the spillover affects of such a thing. Looks like carpet bombing or “mowing the lawn” the same term they use in operations in Gaza as Sky News just commented on also: Legend How prescient was Khameini - look at what he says half way through the following about trusting the West and negotiations and note how old the video is:

Countries are usually in tension with: - constraining (abuses of power ie corruption of private interests capturing national interest) - coordinating (state capacity to collectively execute on shared goals and a vision) - correcting (mistakes through feedback, adjusting / aligning incentives). Whatever system best balances constraints, coordination and correction works - not the simplistic binary of democracy vs authoritarian. Communism went hard on constraining private capital. It centralised coordination (in the state) but erased the correction mechanism of pricing signals and human incentives. China overcame this by not centrally planning and micromanaging the economy but instead directing and disciplining it - it has a market economy but isn’t owned by the market or private capital. Clear hierarchy exists where the state remains sovereign over the market and capital. The tricky part remains constraining the state itself to remain disciplined. The West went hard on constraining the state. There came a disdain and suspicion of power and authority due to past abuses of formal power (feudalism, kings). What emerged was structural (a system of checks and balances) and cultural (enlightenment philosophy emphasising individual liberty). Formal state power was constrained to prevent tyranny, but informal private power of the individual wasn’t to the same degree. Formal authority became fragmented and sluggish enough that no actor can discipline informal power fast enough. Informal power now works to steer the state to its benefit rather than align to it - clear hierarchy doesn’t exist because the centre (state) is weak. Hence we have a “deep state” permanent blob of private groups (factions) with overlapping interests using or skirting the state for their own ends. Any state action that attempts to check, discipline or direct private individuals or capital is seen as a slippery slope to tyranny as a liberal / libertarian reflex. Liberalism fails to protect itself from private domination of oligarchic capital, corporate and intelligence elites - because it succeeded in protecting itself from the state being able to dominate. It optimized to prevent tyranny by distributing formal powers, which strengthened constraints on formal abuse but weakened state capacity to constrain informal abuse. The West is feeling disoriented because there’s no clear visible tyranny (of a state dictator) but also no clear hierarchy of a sovereign state that feels trusted enough to protect citizens interests against private interests dominating. Progressive libs railing against hierarchy actually need a hierarchy that isn’t predatory but protective. Communism ate itself through overcentralising what should have been PARTIALLY left to the market of individuals - neo-liberalism hollows itself through over diffusing power and responsibility, assuming free individuals and markets self correct without state authority to intervene. The West lacks coordination to be productive and competitive against rising global players who are able to coordinate better and faster (China) and lacks the ability to constrain informal power of private capital interests that don’t care for national interests. Checks and balances to prevent tyranny now get in the way of coordination and execution speed - by the time something is decided the conditions are already different. Communism feared and crushed capital = bureaucracy dominated. Neoliberalism / liberalism feared the state and fragmented it = allowing for capital to dominate more easily. Both are overcorrections from prior abuse. Balance would be a state strong enough to discipline capital, but constrained enough not to dominate society. That constraint can come from structure but also culture. Cultures producing quality people can make even crappy systems work compared to better systems with lower quality people running them. Culture and structure both matter ie ground up vs top down. Perhaps even better to have a system that selects for the best quality to rise to the top through meritocratic filtering (rather than a popularity contest) ie discernocarcy - those with discernment govern. Whilst simultaneously having a wider culture raising the quality of the general population through good values and virtues. The right culture doesn’t need to get rid of hierarchy or structure but humanises and nurtures it towards better outcomes.

The key word there is weak. A countries behaviour is mostly downstream from its position and profile (strengths and weaknesses). If you have the strength to fight for and keep your own sovereignty and autonomy you do so or attempt to. Small gulf nations ruled by families made the deal to abdicate some autonomy in exchange for their own stability and security - because their small/vulnerable compared to the neighbors in the region. In exchange they allowed military basing and loyalty to the petro dollar. The issue with that is that you get sucked into the geopolitics of that superpower even if it doesn't favor you - you become a pawn with less say say in matters because your survival now depends on the power you outsourced it to - just see whats now happening and what happened to Ukraine who was flirting with NATO on the border of Russia. Countries which have the means to resist capitulation do so. I know you have a hate boner for Islam but it's not solely about some religous identity crisis per se - it's basic human dignity and yes with a religious narrative overlayed on top that gives spiritual strength to it, but the base is human. Why did South American countries resist Western imperialism despite them not being Muslim? Why did Venezuela? The issue is that imperial empires don't want cooperation but capitulation. Just look - Maduro was willing to ''cooperate'' and open his resources to Western corporations: Homeboy still got plucked out like a flower. Because the entitlement and arrogance of the imperial minded demand capitulation not cooperation. Next example - what happened when Russia cooperated with the West after the fall of the USSR and under Yeltsin? IMF shock therapy via privatization that lead to chaos out of which Putin emerged to stabilise things with a hard fist. Russia still operates with that past in mind. China also has a past experience with Western imperialism (century of humiliation and opium wars) and Iran who wanted to nationalize its oil under Mossadegh. All these countries have experiences that shape their posture today to prevent the same experiences ever happening again. ''WhY dOn'T tHeY JuSt CoOpErAtE'' Iran literally cooperated and achieved the JCPOA that was then torn up by the US unilaterally. They were surprise attacked last year during negotiations, and again this year AFTER massive cooperation and concessions on nuclear: Westerners bemoan why Russia China are gaining more influence in Africa - because they actually cooperate like civilized nations not demanding capitulation. Respect is given and earned, with little moral finger wagging. The Western imperial mindset and its flawed foreign policy is a result of its own entitlement and arrogance. Anyone's independence anywhere, is a threat to there supremacy everywhere. This is the same reason why it’s unable to see or accept that another country may have its own interests or security concerns ie red lines. This blindness to the ''other'' is what caused Russia's red lines being crossed resulting in Ukraine, Iran's red lines being crossed resulting in the current show, and what could cause China's red line being crossed in the future if this arrogance continues. Other countries and cultures have their own civilizational identity and path of developing that shouldn't continuously be sabotaged by external pressure of containment. The West talks about liberal values being universal as if other peoples don't have them and are backward for not living up to them - but these are simply common values that are lived up to depending on the stage a countries in. During early phases of stability and security other values take a central role - its phase dependent. The West had its 2-3 centuries of colonialism that externalized chaos and allowed for the geopolitical luxury of riches and stability that allowed them to liberalize a lot more and live up to those aspirational values better. This is being sabotaged for other countries due to geopolitics and empire - and then those countries are continuously judged for not being ''liberal democracies''. Not all countries are even supposed to or will look the same as Western liberal democracies either and that's fine. We shouldn't glaze the Western model of governance - there are other ways of structuring society and having legitimacy. China has performance legitimacy, the West has procedural legitimacy. We have elected officials that often result in low approval whilst the middle class gets hollowed out by oligarch overlords each election cycle - we put up with it because we believe in the procedure of elections being able to change outcomes. ''Maduro and Ayotollah have low approval so we must regime change them'' yeah so does my own prime minister Keir Starmer with record lows - should we now call the US ''democracy as a service subscription'' for regime change to take him out just like Maduro lol China maintains its legitimacy by its performance - lifting 800 million out of poverty in a matter of decades and checking the excesses of oligarchs, whilst in the West they are their own center of power parallel to the state and thus able to divert the national interest towards their very own interests. Western libs complain about this whilst simultaneously complaining about China not being ''liberally democratic'' when it disciplines its own oligarchs for crossing lines not in the national interest. Self defeating and utopian. Liberalism can't do the sometimes seemingly ''illiberal'' actions to protect the liberty of its own people. This isn't that simple and black and white - for example many people wouldn't call Singapore democracy but a hybrid of sorts. Again like I said earlier - what it takes to nation build in early stages matters and differs from how a country becomes later on its development once its secured stability: This guy was a badass. Real civilization and nation building should be left to the adults, not utopian progressives with childish one dimensional views about freedom and ''values'' who stand on the shoulders of nation builders who had to do the hard things to get them to their place of privilege from which they morally posture: Most systems have their own guardian council equivalent to maintain some form of continuation and stability not to be left to the whims of the masses or the ballot box. It's unwise to leave certain decisions to the masses who are unwise - because wisdom doesn't scale. Discern-ocracy - those of discernment need to make certain decisions which can have outsized impact on the country and its trajectory. The issue is always how to filter for those who have discernment. The EU itself is a hybrid - the commission for example is entirely unelected. US presidential candidates are selected by capital and lobbying before being ''democratically elected'' by the demos / people. The filtering process and options are curated by capital, whilst in Iran they are curated by its own process which is more sophisticated than Western projection would care to study. Same with China's system. The question after being the Islamic revolution was how to have democratic elections without leaving yourself exposed to the exact foreign manipulation that couped you in 1953. So they built a hybrid dual system. Hard times due to external geopolitics only entrenches hardliners and sabotages organic reform and development. Perhaps allow countries breathing room to develop on their own path. Countries can be internally bad (repressive etc) whilst also understandably be trying to navigate a geopolitical order under which their constrained.

Exactly. Information and space warfare are the frontier abstract layers of geopolitics. Check this article: https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2026/02/washingtons-war-on-iran-importance-of.html Especailly halfway through under the heading: US Weaponization of Information Space in the 21st Century ''Throughout the 21st century, the US has deliberately and maliciously weaponized its domination over global information space, specifically through US-based social media platforms like X (formally Twitter), Meta/Facebook, YouTube, Google, Instagram, and many others.'' ''The US Threat to Global Information Space Requires Global Defense The nations of Russia and China have - over the course of many years and through extensive work - secured their respective information space. This has - in turn - allowed both nations to secure and stabilize their political space providing the social harmony required to not only survive ongoing attempts by the US to encircle and contain both global powers, but in many instances to thrive. This has been achieved through the creation of domestic alternatives to the US-based social media platforms that otherwise dominate global information space. Both nations have online networks that can be disconnected from Western-influenced information space when and if necessary. Beyond this, both nations have created domestic pipelines ensuring crucial human resources such as programmers and technicians required to maintain the physical infrastructure of their information space are trained in-country and with the nation’s best interests in mind, as well as the media personnel, government officials, and other civil servants who use each nation’s information space. This is not unlike the physical infrastructure built within any sovereign nation. Roads, rail, airports, and seaports are all acknowledged to be integral to national security and thus their construction, maintenance, use, and protection are determined accordingly. Unfortunately, many policymakers across the planet have yet to understand that information space in the 21st century is as important - if not more so - than this physical infrastructure or traditional national security domains. Allowing the US to not only provide US-based social media platforms to nations rather than nations developing their own, but allowing the US to also control the flow of information and thus ideas and consensus on these platforms is as bad, or worse, than allowing foreign interests to control a nation’s physical borders, infrastructure, and even a nation’s own citizenry. The cost of surrendering a key - if not the key - domain of national security to the United States is political infiltration, capture, and even complete collapse as admitted US operations spanning the 21st century from Europe to the Arab World to Asia and back again have sufficiently demonstrated.'' Of course though its a double edged sword that also allows for domestic control of the population.

Test

Man hats off to Jiang for this prediction of if it comes to it ie boots on the ground:

A comment I made on professor Jiang last year - related to current events: A hot WW3 between Russia, China and US will be avoided at all costs unless some major miscalculations happen. Hence we only see indirect support to maintain plausible deniability such like we’ve see in Ukraine - and never direct confrontation. As if the US are going to do anything adventurous around Taiwan after this episode. China knows it’s got time on its side and game theory wise - US being bogged down and depleted in the ME only favours them. Don’t interrupt the enemy when making a mistake. @Lyubov Agree - seems the US is heading for a precarious position with limited options. Interesting comment from a ME expert “the administration has entered a campaign where the only clear path to decisive victory is regime change — and it is far from clear that Washington is willing to invest the resources and long-term commitment such an outcome would demand.” Worth a follow: https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2028728626431111425?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

Related knaaawledge

Class in session (new drop by professor) : Also: LOL blame shifting begins because things aren’t going to plan The imminent threat is a belligerent allie who has shared goals (regional dominance) but a different risk tolerance and timeline to the superpower they rely on. The imminent threat is the collapse of US global primacy that rests upon dollar dominance that Iran trades outside of - as did Venezuela - as would Europe be able to in bypassing trade routes via opening artic routes. British and subsequently US empire rests upon finance and naval domination. The Atlanticists vs the continentalists who can by pass them via land routes - hence the importance of the largest landmass on earth (Eurasia) connecting major economies and resources.

Fiery interview with Scot Ritter:

Both things can be true - I was just stating a fact that he is revered amongst Shia Muslims which is why even in Pakistan they stormed the US consulate etc - not that I revere him in any grand sense. True as well - but I think its a stretch to say they want to promote violence against Sunni's in the ME even if that was a geopolitical outcome. Iran has a history of trying to be imperially contained by the West going back decades, and with the emergence of Israel in the region that has only complicated matters and required asymmetric proxy warfare as a by product. Iran has good relations with the region and normalized with Saudi etc - they frequently refer to their neighbors as brotherly neighbors including sunni majority Pakistan who they thank for having their back. It's less sectarian and more geopolitical - not denying sectarian tensions exist at a social or street level, but states behave differently because they have a different level of responsibility and standards to operate on. It used to be that even in London for example a sunni guy once told me ''don't buy from that corner shop, he's shia'' utterly retarded. Now days I'm seeing sunni muslims say that despite differences they are against the downfall of Iran because its destablising to the region and because the West will gets its way ie puppet control and exploitation. UN has no teeth and Iran won't go the humanitarian route of laws when they're literally being struck by US/Israel lol as if laws will stop them. In all these years nothing could be done for Gaza with all the global support then nothing will be done for Iran which has much less support. Iran's objectives are clear - maintain internal stability and impose external costs on the US/Israel and it allies who may be able to influence them to pipe down. Hence the strategic hits on ports, radars, bases in the gulf and wider Middle East - blinding US/Israel from early warning, disrupting logistics and stretching the empire. Hence now needing to call in the European countries and UK providing US to operate from its bases - because ME bases have been hit and can't be used properly or at all in some cases. Iran can't win decisively against the US (as its far away) but more importantly doesn't need to. This is asymmetric warfare where they simply need to make US/Israel operations of regime change (or Iran balkanisation and state collapse) extremely costly. It's like a porcupine (Iran) vs a lion (US) - make it painful. Spreading the missiles to multiple locations simultaneously means draining the interceptors stock pile faster than if targetting at single location ie Israel. Iran hasn't even got out the big guns yet: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-28/iranian-missile-attacks-set-to-strain-us-interceptor-stockpiles Like I'v said before and even two months ago - US needs a short campaign of shock and awe and to go in hard to seize the initiative - they clearly didn't do enough - they were hoping it would be as easy as Venezuela or that their initial blitz would rally domestic uprising to take over and regime change themselves. The window is now closing as the optimal time for street protests and storming of institutions would have been when millions were out on the streets - some celebrating Khameini's death and other mourning his death. Like I said in my post above about Trump wanting and looking for a off ramp, the question is will Iran allow for it or continue up the escalation ladder pulling in an already desperate late stage empire into a quagmire - who are now locked into a war of attrition. Iran may want to take this chance to impose costs and strengthen their bargaining position in any future settlement - rather than stop early and have to face a stronger coalition later. That's the same calculus US/Israel had - contain Iran now before having to face a stronger Iran in the future. They are shattering the US's halo of invincibility and straining its own relations with its vassal gulf states who are moaning about the US protecting Israel more than them. I just saw a video of 10 itnerceptors in Israel failing to take down a single Iranian missile which dribbled through to it's target like Messi. The Epstein Regime gambled and are now in FAFO territory. Trump winning and attacking Iran was his claim to fame. His prediction is that Iran wants to lure the US into a ground invasion which they know will be deadly for them and end of the empire. Erik Prince from Blackwater has warned against this - the wider military establishment / Pentagon also warned Trump of engaging Iran which is why the delay and hesitation the past month. Good thing about Jiang is he always says ''this is just my speculation'' but he sounds way too confident in his assumptions. In this scenario for example I wouldn't say its Iran's intention to lure US into invasion - but if it happens they are prepared. Some geopolitical anlysts overweight intent and grand design / control and underweight miscalculation. War is never that neat. @Nivsch Stay safe man

Imagine this: - US/Israel assassinating a spiritually revered supreme leader (Khameini) during the holy month of Ramadan - which is like killing the pope during lent, who also had a literal fatwa against nuclear arms (the very issue bibi’s bitched about for eons) - in a surprise attack DURING negotiations, in which Iran conceeded on the biggest vector being nuclear (again, that the West’s been bitching about) confirmed by the Omani FM - this was conducted by a recently exposed Western Epstein elite who fuck little girls, who also killed nearly a hundred little girls in a strike on the first day of the same surprise attack - whose bottom of the barrel credibility is already nuked over Gaza amongst other actions, who also rug pulled you last year during negotiations resulting in the June war - who also unilaterally left the JCPOA nuclear agreement you signed up to, who then go on to call you theocratic irrational barbarians incapable of diplomacy in some god tiered level of gaslightery “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” because “we iZ a DeMoCrAcY hurddy durrr” The assumption from all this being that Iranians en mass including the already ideaologically committed will rollover and bend the knee to Western imperial powers who proclaim the moral high ground and promise a life similar to Dubai across the Persian gulf. All this conduct does is cement the idea and worthiness of defiance against this class of classless demonic elites who want capitulation not negotiation - who literally come at you with ultimatums and gun boat diplomacy mafioso style Maybe the idea of resistance would have died with the boomer mullahs, but recent and continued actions fan the flame of the younger cohort of “resisters”. The Wests own production studios make blockbuster movies where art imitates reality: From AI: “Dune feels like an uncanny Middle East parallel because it captures the same structural dynamics: an externally powerful empire dependent on a resource it cannot directly control (spice/oil), desert societies shaped by harsh ecology developing resilience and religious identity as survival systems, great powers manipulating local factions while fearing insurgent fanaticism, and resistance movements that merge nationalism, faith, and anti-imperial struggle into forces far stronger than conventional armies; Herbert essentially showed how attempts by technologically superior outsiders to dominate strategically vital but culturally cohesive regions inevitably produce messianic resistance, economic vulnerability through chokepoints, and cycles where empire believes it is managing events while slowly becoming trapped by the very forces it tried to exploit.” The assassination could be used as an off ramp by Trump (cheap cosmetic victory) “we Iz strong, we Iz the best, we Iz the children of light” MAGA BS. But will Iran allow for it..or continue up the escalation ladder pulling in an already desperate late stage empire into a quagmire. Will Israel push for maximalist demands of a total regime change - which is hard to change due to its very own set up being one with lines of succession and a decentralised command structure at a local level - meaning war operations can continue despite “de-capitations”.

Thedoorsareopen: “The bottom line is the Middle East was about as peaceful as it’s been in my 40 year life, and then Hamas shot up a music festival.” Zazen: “There's literally been a war on terror, that turned into a war OF terror - the past decades in the Middle East. Bottom line is to read the entire page (context) and not just the bottom.“ Thedoorsareopen: “I don't give a fuck about Israel OR Palestine! I'm offended about October 7th as a music fan and music festival goer! Your righteous cause shades fear on every music celebration worldwide, and music is basically the best thing about being human.” It would be best - to not live under occupation and actually give a fuck enough to understand what led to such an atrocity in the first place. Two things can be true at the same time - that Oct 7 was atrocity and that the conditions that gave rise to it should be remedied. Your making it all about me me me. MY 40 years of life, MY music hobby, MY vibes have been ruined - equating that to 40+ years of occupation and domination of Palestinians who have their ears and heads blown off.

MENA Unleashed ”It seems the focus is on the American Radars in their bases in gulf countries. Iran wants to blind the US first. They started this process last time with the strike on Al Udeid. This is why Iran hit gulf countries first and more heavily. The strikes were on satellite and comms installations. Once this is severely disrupted, Iran can strike Israel more easily and effectively. This is a lesson learned from the 12 days war.” For example this is a direct hit to a radar for comms in Bahrain:

Nukes and chill

There's literally been a war on terror, that turned into a war OF terror - the past decades in the Middle East. Bottom line is to read the entire page (context) and not just the bottom. Israel / US seems to feel the need to dominate the region. US more so for imperialistic reasons, Israel more so for security reasons but that are maximalist in their demands and only end up making them more insecure as a consequence. That hawksih security doctrine wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the impunity they enjoy under the US superpowers umbrella.

US-Israel (big devil / lil devil) just struck Iran so we’re about to find out. We shouldn’t underestimate either side - US couldn’t neutralise slipper wearing Houthis over many months / years alongside Saudi but somehow the IRGC are “weak”. US/Israel may just overwhelm Iran early but if things continue past two weeks into a prolonged war of attrition it becomes more dangerous for them - especially Israel who can run out or low on interceptors that allows missiles to leak through. US may just opt for a limited war by finding any sort of a win it can and call it a day to save face - hence no clear objectives were ever laid out to begin with that the world would hold them to achieving to maintain their “prestige”.

Food for thought Difference between rights and norms. Men and women have the right to dress as they wish - but should it be normalised for men to walk around with tight grey sweatpants and have semi hard ons?

Agree about the differences, but we come to different conclusions about the different outcomes they naturally lead to. I think the confusion comes from seeing asymmetries / differences and assuming they are a evil plot to subjugate women. A lot of the way society is set up and has been for millennia is downstream from biology - both sexes made a certain bargain (of their roles) in order to survive as a species. So the structure is very much downstream from biology - which is why we see a similar arrangement of men and women's roles across the world in different regions independent from each other. That doesn't mean that the structure can't be shifted, the limits within them overcome (with advancements and development), or humanised (made just and less exploitative). So there's two levels to view it from - the structure and the culture. The structural arrangement only recently started to change because of modern advancements and developments (industrialization, urbanisation, contraception) - but biology still hasn't changed and we need to contend with it. Cultures role could have only ever been to humanise that structure in the past, not eliminate it or shift it rapidly - which only recent developments have done. Islam already did this over 1'000 years ago - by introducing rights and protections to make the social arrangement less explotative and more just. But the point is that the social arrangement couldn't be eliminated or changed simply due to survival and that arrangement being the only way for both sexes to co-operate to survive life - culture only optimised and made it more ethical. The West hadn't which is why ''the way things were'' were seen through a negative lens - and so a structure and social arrangement that was largley world wide and had been around for thousands of years was named ''patriarchy'' with a negative connotation. People who have riskier, more dangerous or high leverage / demand jobs earn more. Women carers for example make a lot of money - night care even more because its more demanding. Men who risk their lives in some physical jobs are compensated likewise. Tech and finance are high leverage domains linked to economic output and value , especially tech in which advancements literally change the world and how we live. It's highly scalable which is why people get into online businesses, including women. It's not solely due to discrimination. Childless women earn the same as men. The wage gap is largely a choice gap and motherhood gap due to biological reality, not discrimination. Being a mother is invaluable, but to monetise that value means upfront compensation our economic system isn't designed for. Maybe we could do that in the future - but there are hard limits. State subsidies and pension systems are already strained as it is. We need unbeleivable amounts of abundance or surplus to be able to fund it. The point is it isn't ''malicious patriarchal discrimination'' but structural constrains humans are doing their best to deal with. Connected to what I wrote above. Feminism very nicely adjusted the structure and social arrangement between men and women to humanise it and make it just. It's later evolution shifted to other areas particular around culture and norms where there was still work to be done. But that is also the time when there started to be different camps or differences of opinion ie sex positive movement. Difference within feminism that emerged. Radical or progressive feminism very much doesn't want to adjust to reality - the reality of biological limits and even economic limits. It wants to override what are structural issues, through culture alone. It's asking for too much. Feminists started to differ with each other about certain subjects: sex work is work, intersectionality, gender neutral bathrooms or trans in womens sport etc, equal outcomes despite equal opportunity already being acheived. Rejection of the male gaze whilst being so positive and autonomus as to act and dress in ways that invite the same male gaze. Islam says to men to ''lower your gaze'' - checking the worst of men AND women's instincts and holding both accountable - as it should be. Capitalism would naturally co-opt and profit from that liberation. Everyone was rightly up in arms against Epstein's grooming of girls yet the wider culture is literally mass grooming certain behaviors. We can't just tolerate anything in culture because it's ''freedom'' - life has limits and consequenves to those freedom's being misused. There should be mass boycotts against hollywood and any media that promotes Cardi B - that should be fringe but is mainstream. Porn too. The entire political elite should be boycotted after epstein, mass protests - but nothing. Two good videos by Sam Vaknin on Feminism (ignore the clickbaity title). The nuance is that we're all using the term feminism but there are different strands that people don't agree with - mostly everyone agree's on the core aims feminism initially laid out and won - including Sam here:

@Karmadhi What @Schahin wrote is great and just like he said - its one factor. The question arises - why Islam in particular iif the follow up contradiction to this is that Russia is also targeted despite them being white and not the muslim ''other''? What do China, Iran and the others have in common for them to be targets? They don't bend the knee to Western imperialism and are powerful / geo-strategically significant enough to be targets. Civilizational states and identities (cohesive, motivated, sovereignty minded) are harder to subjugate than divided tribal identities or smaller states, hence the classic divide and rule. Explains why Pan-Arabism was subverted, as with Pan-African gold backed currency proposed by Libya's Gaddafi. Understanding the mechanism behind imperial power helps understand why certain regions / countries / peoples are ''villains'' and why others are ''allies'' and protected ie Israel. Wrote the following on the Russia/Ukraine thread: ''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. The ongoing struggle since WW2 has really been about preventing any independent power center / pole outside Atlantic control - including of Europe itself being one. 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.'' I'll add that there is the civilizational myth (the civil part is the myth lol) around Zionism being part of Western civilization. That pre-dates Israel and is institutional - despite many Westerners themselves now opposing Israel's action -it's protected by the halls of power. The reason its considered part of Western civilization despite being in the Middle East: 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 colonial rhetoric could no longer be explicitly spoken. ** Basically boils down to identity, cultural-civilizational myth making and imperial interests converging. Call it ''Atlanticist Zionism'' for short. The Atlanticist part explains the imperial logic behind preventing continental integration, the Zionism part explains the narrative layer that justifies those moves in post-colonial era where you can't be blatant about it. We are seeing them revert back to the civilizational talk now - Rubio's recent speech to which Eurocons gave a standing ovation.

Again - read the comment your responding to where I said ''Movements outlive their initial intent - and once their core goals are achieved they need to find new paths to go down to survive. Feminism later grew offshoots that are deemed as unhelpful or unnecessary.'' There's variation among feminists (classical, liberal / progressive) and conservatives who've both deviated from their origins. Right wing red pill bro's aren't the same as traditional conservatives. It's like saying Muslims promote terrorism when its nutter offshoots like ISIS. The sex positive strand of feminism doesn't advocate to be "pumped and dumped" but removing the stigma and breaking norms around sex unleashed dynamics that produce exactly that. It delivered apex male utopia while thinking it was liberating women, chad-enomics. This is all of us using the same blanket term feminism talking past each other: Hooks up increasing isn't the same as it being a hook up culture. A behavior existing or increasing in the past isn't the same as that behavior being culturally mandated or normalised. Just like my comment said - structural changes happen that change behavior via new incentives ( in this case cars and theaters ). Culture adapts to that new environment after the fact - signalling what new norms are accepted or not. In that time the wider culture still had certain norms to restrain behaviour. A drive in date in a culture that expects courtship leading to marriage isn't equivalent to tinder hookups in a culture that celebrates no shame around body counts and has songs like WAP go mainstream. My boomer parents actually had their first chaperoned date at the theater and are still together today. In the past men didn't and couldn't just go around bedding the whole town easily. There was still cultural stigma and the expectation that hookup and sex means your now ''serious'' and on the way to Church to do vows. Today it's netflix and chill, and hope you aren't ghosted. Your done having your strawmen arguments blown over. I've said there's a middle way of balance we need to culturally come to, to manage a modern environment we aren't evolutionary adapted to. We evolved for one environment and are living in another. ''Modern society expanded freedoms faster than new stabilizing norms could emerge to exercise those freedoms responsibly.'' The path is narrow. Sensible people saying we need to constrain our behaviour and erect at least some walls gets conflated with we need to erect the same old walls that were overly repressive - which is is itself a lack of critical thinking and rationality.

There was no antibiotics then and it could spread through a small number of highly promiscuous people. But it doesn't mean it was normalised in society at a cultural level - more so tolerated at the margins hence brothels. The bible describing something is different to it prescribing it or endorsing it. Material advancements (pill, industrialization, internet, social media / dating apps) removed limits and changed incentives around chastity. But culture largely either embraces the removal of those limits and approves / disapproves of what behaviour is then normalized in that new environment. Modern society expanded freedoms faster than new stabilizing norms could emerge to exercise those freedoms responsibly. When men are asked to point to structural issues they get stumped largely because its not so much structural but cultural. There's no collection of visible law we can point to. It's the same way how post-civil rights racial discrimination still exists - people can be structurally free (by law) yet the culture can remain hostile or not healthy - which that takes time to evolve. In the same way - the general cultural discourse around and about men isn't healthy, and now even discourse about women isn't healthy with red pills emergence. We're in a toxic feedback loop. Movements outlive their initial intent - and once their core goals are achieved they need to find new paths to go down to survive. Feminism later grew offshoots that are deemed as unhelpful or unnecessary. The need for equal outcomes (rather than opportunity) or challenging norms around sexual behaviour - by removing any norms around it instead of having healthy norms take their place. It matters what is normalized rather than what is merely tolerated at the margins of society. For example - adults going to a cabaret show or burlesque behind closed doors where camera's usually aren't allowed - is different to Nikki Manaj twerking at a superbowl with the whole nation watching, including children. Edward Bernayes marketed cigarettes to women as a identity of liberation ''torches of freedom''. Today slutification is marketed as freedom and empowerment. Men can't objectify women but they can objectify themselves because its liberating when they do it - despite objectification still occurring. A good test is to imagine being father to a daughter then ask - what kind of society would we want her growing up in? What would we want to be seen as normal by the wider culture. We actually need some haram police - some shame is a healthy tool for stabilizing society. It's either the hard way by force (actual haram police like in Iran or Saudi Arabia), or the soft way by cultural and social conditioning that approves or disapproves of certain behaviors. Western society removed the harsh way but also doesn't want the soft way because it ''hurts feelings''. Accept everything, pluralism until hitler gets voted, don't be so JuDgMeNtAl - no, its called discernment.