zazen

From Chat GPT: ''China’s censorship laws are not random or ideologically driven—they are largely reactionary, developed in response to specific historical events and perceived threats, particularly from Western powers like the U.S. These laws reflect China’s belief in safeguarding its national security, political stability, and cultural integrity in the face of external interference. From the Tiananmen Square protests to the Hong Kong unrest, China has consistently tightened its grip on information following moments where foreign platforms or ideologies appeared to challenge its control. Understanding this context shows that China’s censorship is less about suppressing freedom for its own sake and more about protecting sovereignty in a world it views as hostile and destabilizing.'' The West loves to boast about its freedom to surf the net. When a Western super power uses the internet and permeability of democratic systems / NGO's as a tool to destabilize foreign nations, its no wonder other nations hesitate to open up. The US has a successful track record of doing this, and doesn't stop at any rate even till today. Imagine your a developing nation of over a billion people that requires stability in order to grow and provide a decent quality of life to your people - to lift as many of them out of poverty. You need to get rich enough before your country gets old enough - so that you may have the resources to support the elderly and avoid the pressure your nation will face from having inverted demographics. For nations like China or India, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Allow unfettered access, and they risk foreign actors exploiting their vulnerabilities, stoking unrest, and halting progress. For nations and regions already wealthy and food secure such as Europe, they may be able to be as free as they like and indulge in such freedoms - but for nations who have many of its people barely getting by, they can't afford to be sabotaged or slowed down by external interference. The issue is that if they tighten control, they're labeled "authoritarian" and accused of repressing freedoms - from Westerners who have been deepthroated this absolutist idea of freedom as a apex value, who are unable to understand that some freedoms are taken away to have access to the larger freedom of life and security. The two girls which went viral for 100 guys in a day, now do 1000 guys in 24 hours - she celebrates by doing a cum-walk. This is why China has a different version of Tik Tok domestically, no vulgarity, violence etc - purist libertarian and liberals will cry freedom of speech of course. Turkey denies this cultural export with some sharia energy. Would anyone family person with a son or daughter want their children seeing this kind of behavior be normalized or even ''accepted'' in your society?

Like Twentyfirst said above, there's plenty of incentive driven interest for the West to be doing what they're doing regardless of Zionists. I don't think its either or, but more so both working symbiotically together for their own ends. The relationships become so intertwined and the lines blurred that its hard to tell who's the dog wagging the tail and vica versa. A interesting take from Norman Finklestein below indicates that the US has the power to dictate to Israel. A parallel to this ceasefire is the one that occurred in 2009 right before Obama's inauguration on the 20th of January. Operation Cast Lead ended with a ceasefire on the 17th of January with a MOU signed between Israel and the US with the US providing Israel security related assurances. His reasoning is that they don't want a US ally like Israel who is a settler colonial occupying apartheid state committing war crimes - to taint the US image. Basically optics. Also: The greatest terrorist states the US and Isreal - will have their day.

Good listen:

@Breakingthewall Yeah the age is heavily disputed and debated among scholars, because in the past they didn't consider the importance of time keeping and dates as we do today. Of course there are religious people who will exploit this historical fact for their own perversion in the present day. The point is the messiness of human sexuality including its depravity occurs in all places and at all times, even today. People tied to a religious identity use religion as a retroactive justification to cover for their perversion. This isn't uniquely religious, but religion is used after the fact as justification. Child marriage still occurs in the West today - ''Close to 300,000 minors were married between 2000 and 2018 in the US, according to a study conducted by Unchained at Last; a small number of them were as young as 10.'' https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/09/child-marriage-laws Because Westerners don't have a visible religious identity it's harder for us to point to any ideological driver behind their behavior. But perhaps it isn't so much ideological as much as it is some weird biological perversion which uses any ideological justification if their happens to be one - in the case of Muslims, they cherry pick and twist Islam or the case of the prophet marriage to Aisha for their own interests. For example, incest is being discussed on this forum elsewhere in a context completely detached from religion - the point being that human sexuality and its manifestations still exist today and aren't driven by religion or Islam per se. I think a better way of viewing people, cultures etc is that they are behind vs they are backwards. Behind implies they just need to catch up and that they can, backwards has a more negative connotation and almost implies something is inherent rather than external factors. The problem isn't the religion but the development of the minds approaching the religion. The fact Islam was applied in a way that was less rigid before tells us this is possible - when they had a more developed and thriving civilization. There's this concept within Islamic jurisprudence called Urf (custom), which allows Muslims to reflect the ethical and practical norms of a given society and time. Islam was never meant to be a time capsule from the 7th century. There are essential principles like justice, compassion or human dignity etc that need to be applied across time in different contexts. Urf marries those eternal principles to contemporary times. It's easy for people to think Islam mandates certain practices like hijab or apostasy laws but these are historical interpretations that developed through Urf - the custom of their time and place. The death penalty talk around apostasy came from specific historical contexts where leaving the faith meant essentially committing treason against the entire social order - because at the time when they had warring tribes it meant allying with the adversary. It was treated as treason - similar to how the legal punishment for treason in the US is the death penalty. The Quran says for example "No compulsion in religion" - any warnings given are spiritual consequences, not social mandates that mortals are supposed to deal to people wanting to leave the faith or who lose faith in the religion. That's a shit interpretation that shitty minded Muslims have taken upon themselves. Even for the Hijab - it isn't explicitly said or mandated anywhere. All that is called for is modesty and even for men to ''lower their gaze''.

There may only be temporary breaks from conflict but there will never be a permanent ceasefire until the conditions (occupation and denial of sovereignty) cease to exist - which necessitate resistance to those conditions.

Max Blumenthal making Blinken blink in disbelief. Craig Mokhiber’s the guy who stepped down as director of the New York office for the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR) due to their failure to act.

Americans and Chinese interacting 😂

Gad Saad is heavily biased. I follow him on X and see his rhetoric which he loves to deliver with plenty of sarcasm. You’re correct to view his misconception as inaccurate. He’s conflating things at a kindergarten level. It’s like saying Judaism is inseparable from Ultra-Zionism or the KKK is inseparable from Christianity. When people say Islamism they’re referring to a militant extremist form of the religion which is a freakish fringe manifestation of Islam amongst 2 billions Muslims.

If Tate doesn’t become UK prime minister this may be his next grift. After all, he’s already got experience keyboard fronting as a cam girl scamming desperate men - the same men he proclaims to champion for. The last pic is inspo for the “operation money” angle

Les hope for the best! But what does this actually say about the Biden admin - why is a ceasefire coming now that Trump is coming in? Is it just coincidental timing or illustrative of weak leadership or will on Biden and co’s part.. Did Israel even achieve their proposed objective of degrading Hamas..according to Blinken Hamas are still active and replenished with new resistance fighters - because Israel’s actions call for nothing else but resistance. Ukraine, Israel - even US’s actions towards China is backfiring with their TikTok ban. Western hegemony is on the ropes and groggy, and their image utterly tarnished.

Elon must be fuming Arnaud: ”The TikTok thing is a good old shakedown (literally "agree to sell yourself to us or we ban you") because the US cannot bear the existence of a major tech company out there that they don't own, and because US tech companies lobby their government to kill a competitor they're losing lots of users to. Think of the precedent this would set: all the Chinese companies that become successful and internationalize would be forced into a fire sale to the US... Obviously unacceptable. Think also of the message this would send to other nations and companies. It essentially declares that success in the US market comes with a mandatory exit clause - either sell to American interests or be legislated out of existence. TikTok isn't just defending itself or Chinese interests here but broader principles which ironically used to be championed by the US themselves less than a decade ago: the notion that companies should be able to compete fairly in international markets without facing politically-motivated forced sales, that success shouldn't be punished simply because it comes from a foreign company, and that the rules of commerce shouldn't be rewritten whenever they become inconvenient for some country's interests. The sheer amount of gaslighting and propaganda on this topic is absolutely insane but at heart this is a fight for whether non-US companies are allowed to exist at the top of the global tech hierarchy. The US has shown its hand - its answer is an unequivocal no, 'free market principles' evaporate when they stop serving American interests. Anyone who actually care about fair competition, digital sovereignty, and preventing a new era of digital colonialism where the US annexes successful foreign tech companies should stand firmly behind TikTok in this fight.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/14/tech/rednote-china-popularity-us-tiktok-ban-intl-hnk World peace perhaps lol “The Tao never acts, yet nothing is left undone. If rulers could hold to this principle, all things would transform themselves.” - Lao Tzu

There’s no doubt the West is developed (though now declining) and has a lot going for it. But if we simply look at things rather than through them - we miss a whole lot. Many people know how this development has historically been achieved and how it's maintained today. The list of countries above is an indictment rather than an indication of “look how great we are”. 1. The abundance of small nations skews these rankings, plenty of which are in Europe, creating a false impression that Western style governance reigns supreme. Small, socially cohesive populations are far easier to govern than larger, more divided ones. That stability enables the chance for development. And stability is something many nations missing from these lists lack - something the West has been a culprit in undermining. But stability must also be seized by the people which is something Western nations have been great at. Size, stability, and seizing those conditions has good outcomes. That's a big part of why non-Western nations like Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, and Singapore make the list. ''And those non western countries have a very similiar political alignment to us anyway. '' - Singapore didn't rise due to the typical Western style democracy, but by the firm hand of Lee Kuan Yew who governed for over 30 years and was very restrictive on certain freedoms, for the greater freedom of development for his own people - he restricted political opposition, tightly controlled the media, and suppressed dissent. Speaking of smaller nations, the fact that UAE or Oman aren’t even on the list tells me that these rankings prioritize Western ideological metrics like being a liberal democracy, ignoring the fact it's possible to achieve a high quality of life without conforming to that system. Instead we get Brazil, with some of the highest in-equality and crime on the list. The only country in the Middle East on the list is Israel - who's quality of life has been enabled by literally disqualifying natives to their own sovereignty. They have been un-aliving and de-developing the region through their battering ram uncle Sam (US) - then have the audacity to claim to be the only developed democracy in the neighborhood. On Piers Morgan last week Jordan Peterson implied that the inability of many Muslim majority nations to embrace democracy reflects some inherent cultural deficiency or pre-disposition - completely ignoring the West’s history of intervention and regime change in the region that toppled democracies and propped up dictators. A modern day settler colonial apartheid state makes the list, but not UAE or Oman who are in the same region and arguably have a higher quality of life which is apparently high enough for people to be flocking to Dubai for. I’m supposed to believe that Mauritius, Romania, Hungary and Bosnia have a higher quality of life than UAE? 2. Another visible pattern is that the list is made up of either former colonial powers turned modern day imperial powers, or those who haven't been subjugated by those powers or intervened in after their independence (Brazil, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia). The UK, France, Spain, and their European cousins dominate these rankings. That wealth, infrastructure and quality of life wasn't built solely by genius or governance - it was fueled by centuries of global exploitation. The nations they colonized were extracted from and structured to serve imperial interests. Most of those nations don't make the list - beside recovering from colonialism, these nations and regions are still being destabilized and intervened in today. Centuries of colonialism were followed by post colonial meddling, coups, sanctions, and proxy wars. Entire regions have had their borders drawn up along sectarian lines causing plenty of internal instability and social tensions. Their absence from these lists doesn’t necessarily reflect their systems failures but does reflect the success of Western systems in sabotaging their development. How can nations rebuild when external powers continually pull the rug out from under them? This doesn't celebrate Western brilliance but indicts them in their brutality. 3. Even within these rankings, cracks are evident. In the more populous nations like UK, US and France there is wealth inequality, crumbling infrastructure, rising crime and populism. These aren’t paragons of development, they’re more like developing countries with rich cities attached. France has widespread discontent and protests like all the time ie yellow vests. The fact of populism raging across the West and that UK had Brexit years before Trump's cheeky ass rode down the golden elevator indicates that the people clearly don't think they have a decent quality of life. This is a large driver behind a lot of populism and it's discontents.

https://www.ft.com/content/f71a3570-020f-4c43-a0ab-7143f5f9fd98

A Jeffrey Sachs short on the book of Joshua calling for ethnic cleansing / genocide: https://youtube.com/shorts/IHp7NItQ-PQ?si=M6hSfC9531WTWLcy Youtube doesn’t allow the embedding of the above video. The Zionist Christian alliance is bizarre as they are theologically at odds with each other. Zionists reject Jesus Christ outright whilst Muslims revere him as a prophet and Christian’s as the very foundation of their faith. That probably tells us it isn’t shared spiritual values but shared social-political values at best, and a shared racialized imperial worldview at its worst. Ashkenazi Jews who form the backbone of Zionism are seen by the West as part of their own - Western, white, and “civilized” against the barbaric East. Can’t help notice the undercurrent of racial supremacy despite the rhetoric of “democracy” and “freedom” as what binds them. Just see what Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk are saying now days and it seems clearer that it’s more the former rather than the latter. Claiming there’s an ‘Islamic crime problem’ in the UK is as reductive as saying there’s a ‘Democratic imperialism problem’ because the US leads in imperialism, or a ‘White violence problem’ because only White nations have dropped atomic bombs. Idiotic takes from JP, Elon and Tate - and I’m one who sympathises with populist concerns - but it’s clear people can go about reasonable concerns in unreasonable ways.

I'm shocked to become aware of the Chinese EV market which is now rolling out more so in Europe with BYD. Besides whatever else Musk had in mind for political power - no doubt another incentive was to secure protectionist policies from daddy Trump who has said he would impose 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's. The same Elon Musk who shares Milton Friedman videos extolling the virtues of free market competition and capitalism - cries crocodile tears for government protection the moment Chinese EVs threaten Tesla's market dominance. The competition: MSNBC trying to spin it negatively and getting shredded in the comments lol The following video is insanely impressive (link doesn’t embed). Cars that float, skytrains, unmanned aerial taxis /deliveries, robots etc https://youtu.be/g9ch8yHthP4?si=RV3cV5Iy2WEqC7r2

Define: getting ratio’d https://x.com/iancarrollshow/status/1877522304906965445?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

Spiritual enlightenment is usually associated with withdrawl from worldly affairs and renunciation. Muhammad clearly didn't retreat from the complexity of life - that doesn't negate he had some spiritual awakening - although to what degree can be debated for sure. Him and his followers were being persecuted in Mecca by the dominant tribe (Quraysh) as they felt challenged by his message of monotheism which threatened the existing power structure. Muhammad and his followers fled to Medina where they faced battles and went to war in defence. He wanted to unify a pre-Isalmic Arabia that was fractured and lawless - and his actions were confined to the Arabian peninsula. His ''conquests'' were transformative rather than extractive in the classical use of that word which usually gets associated with imperialism. Unification happened mostly through peaceful means via diplomacy, treaties and alliance building.The expansion beyond the region happened after his death. ** Beside that - I will still end by saying that we can respect and value religions but still realise them for what they are, and from a higher consciousness. The paradigm shift when approaching all religions including Islam - is that they are not words being spoken from God, but words spoken on and about God - that their books aren't THE truth, but about the truth. And in Islam's case when they say that the Prophet Muhammed is the final messenger - yes, of the Quran and of Islam, but not of God. There have been many messengers on God even till today, Leo as just one example. And this is what can get annoying when dealing with literalist religious minded people - they close themselves to the possibilities of hearing anyone else speak on God - they miss out on Osho, Ram Dass, Khalil Gibran, Eckhart Tolle - and even Leo.

Another norm in the pre modern world that we judge from the vantage point of the modern world where we sit. To us it’s crazy for sure. When people judge the Islamic period of Prophet Muhammad for this they usually overlook the fact that similar practices were widespread across the world for centuries afterward, including in medieval Europe, which came several hundred years later. What we consider child marriage today was a universal societal norms tied to survival and practicality in premodern times. Concepts like childhood and adolescence, or the idea of delaying marriage didn’t even exist because life expectancy was so low. Things only changed with modern advancements in life expectancy, education, and economics. In the US for example, child marriage laws have only recently gotten serious about setting 18 as a hard minimum with no exceptions. 13 out of 50 states, roughly 25% - have instituted a full ban on under 18 marriage. These were only enacted from 2018, shockingly.The rest still allow exceptions based on parental or judicial approval. The ink is still drying on most of these regulations which is odd considering our norms have shifted well away from that reality. When looking at a norm 1’400 years ago under conditions we can barely relate to today, it helps to remember that our “modern” standards haven’t even codified yet into law what feels alien to us today - maybe that indicates how far and fast we’ve advanced - that’s great. A interesting video on this, although the guys being cheeky with his framing and usual digs at the West, but insightful nonetheless:

Again, Islam doesn’t promote cousin marriage. Just like other points - it’s easy to conflate cultural or social norms with religion. Religion may talk about things, but that’s different to promoting them or divinely mandating them. This happens with war and then Islam being conflated with violence. The same way the UN addressing modern day conflict at length - doesn’t make it violent - the Bhagavagita or the Quran addressing war in their own times and bringing ethical rules to something that seems inevitable to the human condition - doesn’t make them violent either. It isn’t always that religion dictates culture as much as culture borrows religion’s authority to justify itself. It wasn’t Islam itself that cloaked women, it was the pre-Islamic norms already in place and existing in much of the world that did -even in the West. In fact it was a status symbol from women in Persia and Byzantine (non Muslim) that influenced Arabian women in Mecca to adopt it. Islam did call for modesty though - and this of course can have different interpretation. Cousin marriage was another norm even in Roman times until it became a solely elite arrangement in Medieval Europe. These norms being acknowledged by scripture is different to being promoted or required by it. Muslim countries may be stagnant but this can’t simply be pinned on Islam itself (perhaps a rigid interpretation of it) - the Islamic golden age counters the view that it’s inherently stagnating. It’s more to do with other factors. We have to keep in mind that many Muslim countries have faced or are still facing intervention, wars, puppet dictators and sanctions. Those aren’t ideal conditions to develop well in - and building a colourful vibrant culture isn’t a priority until survival is handled. It’s not that Islam feels heavy, but that these places have been heavily bombarded and are more in survival mode before anything else. That’s the real trauma in the air. As for Muslim cities being dull and gray - just look at Morocco, Isfahan or Istanbul. Architecture usually matches the environment too, so earthy colours sync better in the Middle East. We wouldn’t expect Mexican or Indian level colour in Scotland for example.

The point about exaggerating the importance of family is key I think to understanding the difference between Islamic and Western civilization. That orientation manifests in the culture, community, family and economy. A somewhat simplistic or general overarching lens to view them from would be that Western Civilisation is oriented towards Kingship (elitist) - Islamic Civilisation is oriented towards Kinship (communal). It’s a broad distinction between Europe’s elitist mindset and the Middle East’s communal one, but explains quite a bit. Both have authority structures, but their underlying purposes and the way the people relate to them are different: Europe’s old feudalism aimed to consolidate power for the few while granting a almost divine status to them, while the Middle East’s kinship based system aimed to strengthen social cohesion for the many and reserved divinity only to the One. Basically: - Kinship in Islamic Society: Power and culture flowed horizontally, through familial, tribal, and communal bonds. Even authority structures like caliphates were embedded within a broader web of collective responsibility and accountability to the ummah (community). - Kingship in Western Society: Power and culture flowed vertically, concentrating in the hands of the elite. Kings ruled over their subjects, not with them, and cultural and economic systems reinforced this hierarchy, sidelining the majority. How it shows up in culture: The common thinking is that the creativity unleashed in the Enlightenment and Renaissance was due to progressivism, freedom and liberty. But it was mostly incubated under systems of exclusionary elitism. The great cathedrals, music, and literature of Europe was funded and controlled by aristocrats, monarchs, and patrons - created not for the masses, but for the elite. The majority of the population - peasants and laborers - had little to no access to this culture or its creation. Their role was to toil, fund, and support the elite who commissioned those works, while being excluded from its benefits. Renaissance art celebrated the elite patrons who funded it - who were vying for prestige - most notably the Medici’s funding Da Vinci. Classical music was performed in courts and salons, not in public spaces for the masses. Architectural marvels like castles and cathedrals symbolized the power of Kings and the Church. In the Islamic golden age - knowledge, art, and culture were not concentrated in the hands of an elite few but were accessible and beneficial to the broader society in the Islamic golden age. Scholars, poets, scientists, and architects often worked within communal networks, supported by patrons who saw their work as a service to the ummah (the community), not just the ruling class. Knowledge wasn’t hoarded but shared. Libraries like the House of Wisdom in Baghdad were open to scholars from diverse backgrounds whereas education was more of a noble pursuit gatekept in the written language of Latin which the common man didn’t speak in Medieval Europe. The arts, sciences, and architecture were created not as symbols of elite dominance, but as contributions to the collective good. Mosques with their stunning architecture were spaces for everyone, regardless of class. Poetry and literature, such as the works of Rumi or Hafez were shared through the tradition of oral recitation in bazaars and mosques. Advances in medicine, mathematics, and science were translated, shared, and taught widely through madrasas. A related video on culture: Cousin marriage was more common among Western elites and outlawed for commoners because it could potentially strengthen family alliances to the point they could amass enough power to challenge the feudal (elitist) system. In more communal oriented Islamic societies that fostered bonds in a tribal context, cousin marriage was for preserving wealth and alliances within extended family. “By curbing cousin marriage, the Church kept commoners dependent on its own structure, channeling loyalty and obedience upward rather than letting strong kin groups develop competing power bases.“ Elitist entrenchment of the power structure. Think of Europe’s old feudal model as a massive pyramid: nobles at the top, peasants at the bottom, a Church controlling the moral framework, and everyone’s loyalty flowing upward. Now contrast that with much of the Islamic world, where everyday allegiances were horizontal - rooted in family, tribe, or clan, all under the unifying belief that no human being could rightfully take the place of the Divine. Unlike the “divine right of kings” in medieval Europe, Islamic rulers were and still are seen as part of the community, not as figures semi-holy figures who have God on speed dial. That difference trickles down from the theological conviction that God is beyond any form, meaning no feudal throne can lay claim that sweet divinity. People might still recognize and respect rulers, but loyalty to them remains on a human level - it never elevates a monarch or leader to Godliness. In that sense, the everyday bonds people share with their families and local communities (kinship) take precedence over any supposed “higher” feudal hierarchy (kingship).

@Ero @Bobby_2021 Great listen - around the 17min mark he makes a great point on how it challenges their worldview of being supreme - beyond just the practical concern for domestic job security and bolstering your own work force which are valid. It’s the same old play book - soak up the benefits of globalization whilst denying the benefits or contributions of globalization, to maintain a supremacist world view. They want to claim the achievements of their civilization as if they built them in isolation - which confirms their supremacy. Just as the West benefited from Islamic advancements in science and technology during its Renaissance, it now benefits from immigrant labor and expertise - but they struggle to acknowledge this reliance or contribution. Immigrants are framed as a threat to Western greatness rather than the ones propping it up. What they are a threat to is their worldview.

Mexico’s president hits back at Trump - why don’t we call this Mexican America. What time line are we on here 😂 I never knew but Mexico ceded 55% of its historic territory to the US - 15% of US territory today used to be Mexicos. Everyone gonna be talking about historical claims now lol