zazen

Great write up. I commented in another thread and your points tie in well with what I wrote. I was writing about how morality is hijacked by circumstances, your writing about how identity is hijacked by morality itself, especially moral outrage driven wild in the digital age. We can have moral clarity ( as you said we can be spot on in analysis ) but problems arise when we make it our identity. Some people may have the same moral positions as each other but may arrive at them differently - one by being a NCP jumping on a trend to feel identified with something (many activists), another through critical thinking and having moral clarity on a issue. Our moral judgment of actors is how we wish the world to be (idealism - Jeffrey Sachs pov) , our understanding of why they act the way they do is how the world is (realism - John Mearsheimers pov). We can understand power as it is, without surrendering our principles about how it should be wielded. Principles are the souls universal morality - power is the worlds conditioned, contextual reality. I think that deep down we have a universal morality, a soul morality (fitrah in Islam, Dao or bhudda nature, telos in Christianity). Its pre-duality, pre-political, pre-cultural and conditional. But then the world of duality means we must contend with circumstances and conditions that distort, suppress or invert our access to that soul morality (which I generally map in the below comment). That's why religion and spirituality usually refers to revelation or a home coming - in the sense that we have good in us that we need returning to, or revealing of.

I agree - but this can easily become philosophical bypassing as @Inliytened1 said. It can paralyze us into in-action if we abstract completely away from the surface because we make things too broad to tackle. Taken to the extreme we could just say ''God did it as he started this whole thing'' - but it's not pragmatic or helpful. That's one issue with the spiritual non-dual community. The non-dual world may bring peace, but it doesn't bring us protection from the dual world we live in. Non-duality transcends good, bad and evil but doesn't negate them in our dual experience which we have to contend with. I was talking about power because you previously mentioned how war is war - meaning any use of power needed to ensure survival is justified. I was trying to explain that there's a line where survival logic (deterrent based) becomes empire logic (domination based) - and how that extends to politics. The right wing emphasizes power and accumulating more (capitalism) while the left wing emphasizes principles and morality through equality (socialism). We can't just succumb to our use of power without any principles (war is war, might makes right). That's been the core tension in human history: between power (to survive, dominate and accumulate) and principle (to thrive, dignify and guide power with meaning and morality). I wasn't giving a pass or justifying - only understanding. The same way Zionists want people to understand why Israel is acting the way it is - which I also outlined. That's why I said Nazism and ISIS are Evil - they completely invert morality. Evil is literally Live spelled backwards (inverted). Devil spelled backwards is lived - the opposite of that which lived. That's why in Satanism everything is about inversion. Moral distortion (due to survival pressures) or moral suppression-disengagement (due to cold calculations for domination and empire) can still do harm - but moral inversion literally calls that harm good or sacred, it makes domination righteous. Like you said, Israel has a tyrant like Bibi who is hell bent on domination - he suppresses morality for empire. But Israel also has fanatical and puritanical elements such as Ben Gvir or Smotrich who are much more ideological. The idea of Zionism started with survival based morality (we need a safe place to live) - it became distorted once they had to confront people living there already. Self-determination is moral clarity, self-determination at the expense of others is moral distortion - which requires the suppression of morality in order to dominate that reality into existence. This also had and still has elements of ideological fanatics who view domination as righteous - the kahanist and messianic Zionists. That's where morality gets inverted similar to Nazism and ISIS. Hence why Zionism isn’t a monolith and there are different interpretations and manifestations of it.

I’m based in UK and from a mixed background. I have critically thought about the situation, and have come to conclusions as to who’s the most de-stabilising force in the world that’s causing death and destruction. It’s not bias to point that out, just clarity - and I don’t have any cognitive dissonance doing so as I don’t identify with any nation, religion or people. Heres how I make sense of it all: If we lived at the time of the British Empire or during the Holocaust - would it be okay for people to just say “well that’s power isn’t it, that’s how the world and geopolitics works, it’s not about morals”. The point is we are humans, not robots. On some level we have a sense of right and wrong which stems from the soul. But then how do we explain why people do wrong yet don’t feel it to be wrong? I think what happens is that peoples moral compasses get hijacked due to external circumstance, but that doesn’t make it an internal condition which is a racist or essentialist claim. Context (circumstances) distort, suppress or invert our conscience (morality). Germans turning around from Nazism shows that context > innateness. Nazism was a perfect shit storm of contextual forces that hijacked human morality on a mass scale leading to the worst atrocities. Moral distortion is psychological-survival based, moral suppression is empire-domination based, moral inversion is ideological-puritanical based. Resistance groups belong to the first category (localised geopolitical struggle), Zionism is mainly a mix of the first two (started with geopolitical survival but became dominating), US nuking Japan and doing all they’ve done till today is mainly moral suppression (morality suspended for the cold calculus of empire), Nazism and ISIS are the last two (global domination to purify the world - apocalyptic politics not just geopolitics) in other words: evil. Distorted morality is survival logic (liberation), suppressed morality is empire logic (domination), inverted morality is purity logic (evil). Israel right now seems to be locked into a distorted feedback loop of (past) trauma justifying (present) domination. The context today is that they have power that is distorted by paranoia, rooted from a time in which they lacked any power to survive. Their moral compass is hijacked by a permanent sense of threat that has been heightened beyond what it really is due to past trauma. And despite being materially developed (powerful) they are morally compromised (in principles). This is the key tension that causes a lot of confusion (even politically between left and right). To defer to power (conserve to survive - quality and might make right) or to defer to principle (liberate to thrive - equality and fairness are rights). These need to be synthesised. The lefts blind spot is to deny the reality of survival and power dynamics because it counters their own idea of human goodness. The rights blindspot is to just succumb to raw power dynamics without principles to buffer and refine power itself. The realities of survival and power threatens the lefts moral framework because they haven’t synthesized the ideals of principles - with the realities of power and survival. They either deny those realities or have an incorrect relationship to it - viewing hierarchy and power as bad ie communism being the extreme political manifestation. The right succumb to power dynamics with little to no moral framework - only justifying power as principle itself, with facism being their extreme political manifestation on the other end of the spectrum. The bottom line is that the physical nature of power isn’t good by default - the concept of good doesn’t even exist in that plane. It’s just raw and neutral - and only becomes good when nurtured by principles from the non-physical plane of the soul. We are both ruled (down to earth) by power and pulled (up to heaven) by principles. Civilization is about buffering the reality of power with the conscience of principles - or them finally coming together.

By that logic, anyone who ‘’starts something’’ opens the door for any response, by any means necessary. Applied universally: the US overthrew Iran’s government in 1953, invaded Iraq, bombed Libya, occupied Afghanistan, backed coups and funded militants - does that mean any group that views itself as wronged now has license to do whatever it takes to end the threat? If so, that’s justifying Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and every suicide bombing framed as retaliation. If “whatever means necessary’’ is valid when you feel existentially threatened, then it’s valid for everyone. You can’t excuse away disproportionate violence like nukes on Japan for example “listen to yourself bro”. The US wasn’t even under any threat when they dropped them. It wasn’t for protection but to project power.

Hezbollah came out of reaction to Israel’s invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon in 1982. Hamas came out of reaction to Israeli occupation, dispossession and denial of Palestinians right to self-determination, October 7th was a brutal outburst in reaction to being under a brutal seige for 16 years. And you aren’t crying the same way you are about October 7th, for something done at such horrific scale on an already defeated people - simply because the US wanted to flex its muscle on the world stage? You think because someone starts something that gives you the right to end things however you want and just dismiss it as “it’s war bro, shit happens”. That’s just Darwinian might makes right logic which is the opposite of what makes people civilised and humane. The point is that if Japan drew the US into war, then by that same logic, Israel’s decades of dispossession, siege, and ethnic cleansing drew Hamas into launching a brutal attack. Doesn’t make it noble - but it makes it understandable in the same way.

So surprise attacks are bad now? Like what Israel just did? I guess it was just “preemptive” like what Israel just did. The difference is that Pearl Harbour was act of war (military target) whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki was act of horror (nuking civilians) which killed approximately 80’000 civilians in a instant on each day the bomb was dropped. Nice try, next.

Why? Do you know the history of the region? How did these proxies (Hezbollah and Hamas) come to exist and what is their purpose? Are Hezbollah and Hamas based upon geopolitical struggles (related to Israeli occupation and aggression) or are their aspirations global (rather than localized) in a bid to expand Islamic purity such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS? These are key distinctions not to be overlooked. Iran is reacting to imperialism, not being imperial itself.

Moral imperfection and shortcomings of state doesn’t give license for another state to act imperially against them. Especially when we know they don’t actually care about those issues to begin with but instead use them as moral cover for imperial interest. What is fact is that one country has nukes and is the only one to have ever used them (twice on Japanese civilian packed cities) - the other country is the only country with a official policy of nuclear ambiguity and is a ethno-apartheid state committing genocide.

What objectives have been achieved by Israel-US? Firstly what are the main objectives: deny (nuclear capability) and depose (current regime). They will rationalise away why this strike was a success and move the goalpost of course. “Our objective was to delay their ability to enrich” when we know it’s to deny Iranians any ability to begin with. - the facility hasn’t been fully destroyed, uranium material and parts have most likely been moved - no regime change in site You can’t bomb knowledge out of existence - the technical knowhow in the nuclear domain still exists. All this has done is reinforced the strategic logic of needing a nuclear deterrent. One positive that may come out of this depends on Irans last move of ritual escalation. All parties involved will have been provided an off ramp to save face and de-escalate back to the negotiating table (less likely imo) or status quo. Israel - US can signal their symbolic mountain hit as a win, Iran can signal whatever they hit next as a win. But it depends on if the other side responds back and continues up the escalation ladder.

It’s called “counter-intuitive”. Something that flies over the heads of Western arrogance. This isn’t the 20th century anymore where the West is the only player in town in a uni-polar world, demanding others dance on its pole. The multi-polar world is here - which explains the West acting in aggression towards it. Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan being their Trojan horses on each continent. Iran said they wouldn’t negotiate until Israel stops attacking, why would they negotiate now after the US itself has attacked - they even decapitated the key negotiator. This is the level of stupidity on display. “We bombed you during negotiations and killed your key negotiator, but please return to the negotiating table - the one you never left but we portray to the world as if you did in a bid to make you look like barbaric backwards Middle Easterners who are incapable of diplomacy”

The world is hip to the game. Anyone still making excuses or rationalising Western imperial action is ignorant at best, or a supremacist imperial bootlicker at its worst. “Deterrence for me but not for thee” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

@Inliytened1 They’re building to deter Western misadventure, not destroy. Why didn’t the US stick to the JCPOA? Trumps talking about peace now when it was already in place. Such gaslightery. Answer this: does Israel have nukes or not?

The world just observed how not to take the US or Israel at its word.

So Seymour Hersh was correct. Whether this escalates and spirals out of control or not - one thing is certain: trust in the US will be even lower, especially with Iran. They lulled them into complacency during negotiations when Israel struck them, and now again with the “two week delay” on a decision which seems was already decided upon and acted upon 2 days after dropping the 2 week notice. Another rug pull.

Like I shared, it’s rhetorical. They can’t and won’t wipe anyone off the map - they’re mainly against the policies. Perhaps US-Israel shouldn’t create the conditions for them to be hated by the world so much. This could be true. Things could de-escalate now as the US can save face with this strike - but Iran now needs to retaliate to the US in order to save face. If it’s contained and theatric, the US could decide enough is enough. But then the US also can’t be seen to be hit by Iran and not do nothing - even if it’s theatric with no lives lost. Remember how Iran retaliated against Israel with advanced warning and didn’t kill anyone? That’s a de-escalatory face saving strike. But this crosses a different threshold between Iran and the US. Each side needs to hit just hard enough to preserve credibility, but not hard enough to force the other to hit back harder. War has its own logic that can spiral out of control. It seems likely the facility isn’t fully destroyed so the question is will Israel stop striking and escalating? This may fulfil the US’s need to maintain its image of being a strong hegemon but it doesn’t meet Israels demand for denying Iran nuclear capability or bringing about regime change. Theatrics and symbolism only work when all players are playing by the same playbook.

Awesome read that made me think. I'll add some nuance in that I think resistance and martyrdom are more a functional tool rather than a foundational identity (same with the concept of jihad in wider Islam). Their identity is capable of resistance but not dependent on it in order to define it self in the negative. Their ethos is one of sovereignty and dignity - which as @PurpleTree pointed out above is also why they fit into the BRICS framework where sovereignty and multipolarism aren't treated as threats. Resistance and martyrdom aren't pathologies (essential) but paths (circumstantial) to being and remaining sovereign in the face of tyranny and domination. They don't resist enemies because they have a fetish for death or need an eternal enemy to affirm their identity - but because a enemy keeps arriving in the form of Western domination through coups, sanctions and encirclement. The trap is the Wests who remain baffled that a nation they tried to conquer refuses to become a client state by sacrificing their sovereignty like others did. The tragedy on the geopolitical stage is that the West insists others dance on their pole, when there are multiple poles that exist and would like to exist. Iran doesn't want to become like everyone else if everyone else means submission to Western hegemony. Thankfully, they have found a home in BRICS multi-polarity, which is carving out a parallel world that respects others distinct from themselves existing within. The tension is that Iran won't normalize to being a pawn, while the West can''t normalize being able to sit down at a table among equals - who instead insists on being at the head of the table.

It's understandable why Israel went for nukes out of survival logic - which was before it had US protection. It comes down to vulnerability which comes in many forms - being outnumbered or outmatched, poor geography, lack of partners or allies. The reason Japan doesn't go for nukes despite being outnumbered by China is because it has US backing. North Korea went for nukes because it was isolated. The gulf don't go for nukes because they have US protection including Pakistan. But its the same survival logic of vulnerability that is causing Iran to want to pursue nukes or keep the capability to do so - it's in a hostile neighborhood, outnumbered by a sunni population if a fight was to ever break out over religious dividing lines, and is surrounded by US bases - meaning outmatched by US military who have massive fire and air power. Iran's the last man standing against US - Israeli hegemony in the region - anyone in their shoes would want to get deterrence through ballistic missiles or any other means possible. Democratic restrains didn't stop the US from nuking Japan including all the other naughty stuff the US has been up to every year of its existence till today. In fact, democracy which allows for change every few years is vulnerable to an extremist or demagogue being voted into power. Trump was voted into power and left the JCPOA which was keeping Iran away from nukes - that's the reliability of democracy at work. This is the same democracy that enabled Libya to give up their WMD programme but that then resulted in Gaddafi being toppled and sodomized with a bayonet in utter humiliation. As Hillary Clinton said “we came, we saw, he died”. This is why the chant ''Death to America'' which is explained here for Khameni: Another clip: https://x.com/me_observer_/status/1936223604175450393?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out why the chant exists after watching what the US has done the past decades. Iran just says the quiet part out loud that most of the Global South and Muslim world feel. They have a culture of resistance and martyrdom to not fear the consequences as much. The West acts surprised that they are stood up to - they act as if no other people on the planet have pride in them to fight back or that they have civilizations (Persian, Indian, Chinese) with spirituality and depth more ancient than even theirs that are worth fighting for. It's dehumanizing at its worst and ignorant as its best. They see anyone's freedom anywhere - as a threat to their supremacy everywhere. ''How dare they resist''

Why do you think Iran is acting the way it does? Your answers found in point 1 you shared from Chat GPT: Proliferation domino effect. Who’s started the nuke race in the region? Who’s incentivised the need for some deterrence capacity to be established (via proxy, missiles etc) due to country after country around you getting intervened in and destabilised? If the conclusions make the US come across bad maybe that’s just fact, too bad it hurts your feelings. Don’t call to cancel me like you did purple tree.

Can’t demand a country get rid of its only deterrent alongside not allowing them to pursue the ultimate deterrent of a nuke. The logic here is that “because you can reach us with weapon X, you can’t have weapon X”. But then that means no country should have a airforce, navy or drones. US shouldn’t have carrier ships on the sea and Israel shouldn’t have F35’s as they’ve demonstrated in targeting Iran by air. They should get rid of them also then. In fact the current standoff is between Irans ballistic missiles and Israel’s airforce - both countries are getting hits and blows. Telling either to get rid of their strengths is asking them to walk naked. What the West (Israel and US) want is a monopoly on power so that they can dominate. The definition of audacity, hypocrisy and supremacy.

Anything could happen within the next two weeks. The US is demanding total surrender and zero enrichment which is a red line for Iran, who’s demanding minimal enrichment for civilian purposes with strict oversight by the IAEA. Donald is ambiguous and sending mixed signals as usual, keeping everyone guessing. Any possible “negotiations” can easily be de-railed by Israel through continuous attacks (which Iran demands should stop for negotiations to take place), going after Khomeini, maybe even a false flag. The ball is in Israel’s court in how they want this to play out in order to drag the US in. If they just keep provoking Iran and invite retaliatory strikes, it could pressure the US to step in and act within or towards the end of this small window.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-i-have-been-told-is-coming-in Isn’t Seymour Hersh a pretty networked guy with insider access? Apparently attacks going ahead this weekend. “This is a report on what is most likely to happen in Iran, as early as this weekend, according to Israeli insiders and American officials I’ve relied upon for decades. It will entail heavy American bombing. I have vetted this report with a longtime US official in Washington, who told me that all will be “under control” if Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “departs.” Just how that might happen, short of his assassination, is not known. There has been a great deal of talk about American firepower and targets inside Iran, but little practical thinking, as far I can tell, about how to remove a revered religious leader with an enormous following. I have reported from afar on the nuclear and foreign policy of Israel for decades. My 1991 book The Samson Option told the story of the making of the Israeli nuclear bomb and America’s willingness to keep the project secret. The most important unanswered question about the current situation will be the response of the world, including that of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president who has been an ally of Iran’s leaders. The United States remains Israel’s most important ally, although many here and around the world abhor Israel’s continuing murderous war in Gaza. The Trump administration is in full support of Israel’s current plan to rid Iran of any trace of a nuclear weapons program while hoping the ayatollah-led government in Tehran will be overthrown.”

Day after day atrocities at aid sites whilst attention goes to the Iran-Israel war. Fuck Israel and Western complicity. The next decades will look very different as power centres shift - justice will be served in the form of those who gain power in the East and those who lose it in the West, crumbling under their own injustices and moral failings the world has seen and that no amount of spiral dynamics gymnastics can explain away. 🍉 🕊️

Da deeeep state Jokes aside. In the US the president operates within a system built to platform elite interest and preserve elite continuity - rather than disrupt elite interests or check their excessess. That’s what people mean by the deep state - a system behind the system, made up of deeply entrenched power that outlives any presidential term. “They” are mainly the financial, corporate, and national security (intelligence agencies + MIC) elite - who influence the state through think tanks, lobbying, and the revolving door. That’s why socio-cultural policies shift from admin to admin, but policies tied to money and power rarely do - like whether we get sent to die in wars or whether we can afford groceries. In general: The US political system is a pay to play whorehouse of elite interests where capital controls the state. Its the only fans of empire where powers bought and where the house is fragmented amongst elite factions. In the Chinese political system you have to play well enough to be chosen to govern the house - where the state controls capital. Its the arranged marriage of empire where powers managed and the house remains in order.

@PurpleTree Dave Smith is pretty awesome. Debating Konstantin on Piers Morgan which will be interesting. Just uploaded: