zazen

So occupation is now called restriction? Yes, violence from both sides is fuelling a cycle of retaliation that you call the chicken and the egg problem. But it misses the wider point if you zoom out enough to see the occupation of a people by another as the fundamental driver of the violence. This is more like a wolf sheep problem where the wolf (Israel) is a wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing to look innocent. Since when did defense mean going towards the aggressor? If someone throws a punch at you, you raise your arms in defense - you don’t move deeper towards the aggressor. Israel just uses this ‘defense’ label to justify taking more control and land.

From Caitlin Johnstone: “It's obviously false to say the US seeks peace in the middle east, but it's not really accurate to say it seeks war either. To me that's like saying water seeks wetness or fire seeks heat; war is just what the US empire is made of. It's the thing that it is. Everything about the US-centralized power structure is pointed at continuous military expansionism and mass military violence. Once you've decided that it's your job to try to bring the entire population of your whole planet under the rule of a single power umbrella at any cost, you've accepted that you will be using violent force in perpetuity, because that's the only way to subdue populations who have no interest in such an arrangement. You might tell yourself that you want peace, and at times you might even actively try to avoid war, but everything about the way you've arranged your operation makes war inevitable. This is the kind of environment that western empire managers spend their careers being groomed into accepting as normal. So they might actually believe they are telling the truth when they say their government wants peace, but this is the same as a fire saying it's doing everything it can to cool down the firewood. It is the fire's nature to burn, and it is the US empire's nature to make war. War is interwoven into every fiber of its existence. It's written into every part of its code. As soon as the mass-scale use of violence ends, the globe-spanning power structure that's loosely centralized around Washington will end. War is the glue that holds that power structure together. Both the mainstream "progressivism" of Bernie Sanders and the right wing "populism" of Donald Trump try in their own ways to argue for a kinder, gentler empire which avoids unnecessary conflicts and abuses, but these arguments are deceptions in and of themselves, because the empire is made of conflict and abuse. The less war, militarism, economic strangulation and proxy interventionism there is, the less US empire there is. The empire can't roll back its violence any more than a shark can swim backwards. The only way to end the forward movement of a shark is to end its life. The wars will not end until the US empire itself ends. This doesn't mean ending the US as a country, it means ending the globe-spanning power structure comprised of allies, assets and subjects that's held together by endless violence. Every foreign policy official in Washington, London, Paris and Canberra has been groomed to view this as the worst possible outcome and to avoid it at all cost, and to spend their careers fiendishly dedicated to the project of ensuring that the fire keeps burning and the shark keeps moving forward. Only ordinary members of the public with normal healthy human values will ever be able to see this. The problem isn't that western officials keep making bad individual decisions at each individual juncture in foreign conflicts of interest, the problem is that the existence of the western empire guarantees foreign conflicts of interest, and ensures that violent force will be used to control their outcomes. Those who support the US empire will occasionally look back on history and acknowledge that in hindsight there were some bad individual decisions made with regard to Vietnam or Iraq or wherever, but they'll never admit there is an innately murderous structure in place that guarantees Vietnams and Iraqs will continue to happen in the future. But that is the reality, and you'll never hear it acknowledged in the state propaganda services known as the mainstream western press. Our rulers are too far absorbed into the imperial machine to recognize this as true, so you will reliably hear them babbling about seeking peace and avoiding civilian suffering — even as they take steps ensuring that peace will not happen and civilians continue to suffer. These are the only moves they can see on the chessboard. The options that would lead to real peace are not even recognized as legal moves in the game. So they keep moving the pieces around in accordance with the rules of empire, and saying "Oh how sad" when families are incinerated and children are ripped to shreds, but saying that it was the only move available on the board. Our world is on fire, and the US-centralized empire is the flame. We ordinary people must find some way to extinguish it, before it torches us all.”

@Raze OP specifically mentioned they’re taught to hate Jews as a whole and not just Israeli’s - so they’d rebuttal your links with that. @Revolutionary Think It’s not about excusing extremism on either side but understanding the conditions that give birth to it. If black South Africans had developed deep-seated resentment or even racism toward white people during apartheid, would we be asking why they felt that way, or would we be focusing on the structural violence and oppression that made such feelings inevitable? The point isn’t to turn a blind eye to any form of hatred, but to interrogate the conditions that cause it. Extremism doesn’t arise in a vacuum - it’s the predictable outcome of generations of oppression, dehumanization, and violence. The situation in Israel and Palestine is also asymmetrical which will result in asymmetrical bias if looked at with clarity. Yes, extremism exists on both sides, but the power dynamics are not the same. The Palestinians are an occupied people, living under a military regime that controls every aspect of their lives. To act like it’s just about two sides with equal power hating each other is to ignore the brutal reality of that occupation. It’s like pointing to black South Africans during apartheid and saying, “Well, they’re being taught to hate white people,” while completely overlooking the racist state apparatus crushing them daily. People call for balanced takes on situations when the reality on the ground isn’t balanced - it’s the slow-motion destruction of a people under occupation, while the world watches and debates “both sides.” It’s about recognizing who’s carrying the heaviest burden in this conflict, and asking what we can do to unburden them - not just in coverage but in terms of the systems that are actively driving extremism on both sides. Just like in apartheid South Africa, the goal isn’t to justify the hatred, but to dismantle the system of violence that fuels it. We can graduate from tribalism to diplomatic, balanced, both sideism - but I've seen, including in myself that this can become a easy out and a way to pretend to be nuanced (because we see both sides) when we aren't nuaned enough to conclude what side is more wronged. Seeing both sides is the first step, but then its concluding which side is the more aggrieved in a situation that needs to happen - which takes more work. Just because we don't devolve into tribalistic bashing of one side, doesn't mean we have clarity on asymmetries when they actually exist and can see them.

A video on shifting blame onto the Jews for every conceivable problem:

Interesting video: A lot of Americans like to hail the constitution as an inked embodiment of their progress - they assume a purity of purpose that never existed in the founding of that document. The initial Constitution didn’t extend voting rights to non-whites, women or non-landowners - it was for white male landowners (the wealthy elite). As voting rights expanded, the value of voting contracted as elites consolidated and entrenched themselves in the state apparatus, what often gets called ‘the establishment’ or ‘deep state’. That’s why critics of democracy including Westerners themselves feel disillusioned and often say democracy is more an illusion than a reality - because special interests (elites) still control things just as before. As Leo said, ideals take time to materialise. I’ll add that vested interested also use those ideals as a cloak of rhetoric to cover up underlying power dynamics, where that power actually lies and who it serves. Similarly, the idea or ideal of a chosen people gave moral cover to European settlers in the new Americas and set the tone for justifying their “manifest density” - that they are divinely ordained to expand and claim land. This is where Israel and America are similar, except that America has fulfilled its manifestation (domestically) and Israel hasn’t - though this same attitude still causes America to seek and maintain global hegemony which is why critics claim America or ‘the West’ hasn’t evolved from its colonial days. Early European settlers were heavily influenced by the Bible as it was the most widely read book at that time. This is why in America places have Biblically referenced names like Salem, Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Zion. Thomas Jefferson who is considered a man of Enlightenment said the following: “The acquisition of the country from the Indians is to be carried on by the extension of our settlements..by driving them back within narrower limits.” Sounds similar to what’s coming out of Israel today.

I’m sure this guy is wrong on some aspects, but interesting listen nonetheless.

A big issue in conflicts is when both groups judge their own side by their best, while being ignorant of their worst. It’s one thing to ignore the worst parts of your society, it’s another to acknowledge them. But it’s a whole other to actually justify, defend and protest the most depraved aspects of your society - even if those who do so are few in number. The fact that they feel emboldened enough to be able to do so indicates the Overton shift towards radicalism. The table of world opinion has turned so swiftly that we have influencers heads in America (Israel’s greatest ally) discussing their support for Israel and the history of their relationship. Who would’ve thought:

Alice Weidel has called for Ukraine to compensate Germany for the damage caused to its economy as a result of the attack: “The economic damage to our country caused by the demolition of Nord Stream presumably ordered by Zelensky - and not Putin as we were led to believe - should be "billed" to Ukraine.”

A similar phenomena is happening on youtube where every next podcast title is filled with 'doomsday, civil war, collapse' rhetoric and a shocked face as a thumbnail - nauseatingly cheesy. Perverse incentives. You see the same podcasts and guests being recycled between each others shows discussing the same plight of the West and the world. Not that what they are saying isn't valid, or partially so - just that the circle jerking over it to profit of off clicks and ads is so boring and played out. It's like, why not have a convention where all these guys come together to discuss and brain storm solutions. But obviously that wouldn't result in the numerous videos, clicks and pay outs each youtuber would receive.

The same reaction from women to men happens when they see the discourse among red pill Youtubers and respond with 'not all women' to add nuance to the discussion. Saying not all women or not all men is simply a plea for individuality - that neither side should be judged as a collective but more as individuals. Both sides will see this as deflection, rather than a correction. Both sides will go about legitimate grievances in illegitimate ways. Both sides will universalise their experience of the bad apples amongst the other gender. The accusation that this phrase (or not all women) derails, is itself a derailment. It suggests that any defense or clarification is an attack on the conversation's integrity. I think it can become a derailment when the grievances aren't being listened to, and anything that hurts the ego of the opposite gender gets responded to with such a phrase. It's like, Okay, we know not all men or women, but we're discussing the men and women who do act out badly. The phrase 'believe all women' while well-intentioned, has morphed into a presumption of guilt for men, where they are presumed guilty until proven innocent - often without any evidence to back up the claims being made. This is where men speak out against the incentives in place to use false accusations.

@BlueOak Good summary. Their size is definitely their achilles heel, its one thing to have a large land mass with a large population to defend it - its another to have a large land mass and extensive border with a small and dwindling population that will struggle to defend it. Definitely a embarrassment for Putin and Russia, something Western media are revelling in though the glory may only be lived in the short term. The economic incentives are heavily in favour of US industry. It seems they want to throw Zelensky under the bus now that they see no real way out of this mess. They want it to come to a end whilst saving face, hence Germany cutting aid in half just last month. US has its own domestic issues to deal with and wants to re-orient to China as the next boogeyman.

Might be a move out of desperation. What makes Ukraine think they can successfully take the fight to Russia by invading Russia itself with the same lack of military personnel, resources and hardware / munitions that have failed them in their own country where they have the home advantage. Might also be a distraction from the recent news of Ukraine being behind the Nord stream sabotage. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report Not going to poke the holes in the story, but if Ukraine have acted independently of Western/US approval - it only makes it all the more embarrassing that so much money is getting funnelled from the West to Ukraine, only to have them commit a act of economic terrorism affecting their very own donors and supporters and escalate tensions with Russia. Same goes for this Kursk incursion which many are saying has only been able to occur thanks to advanced NATO equipment / Western intelligence. Kursk of all places, where one of the most pivotal battles of World War 2 took place. A quote from Heinz Guderian who was a prominent German general - ''It's impossible to move forward, and when we move backward, the road is filled with the corpses of our comrades. When you start an offensive, you don't just stop because it's getting difficult, but once you've gone in, you never get out again.''

Just because something is a construct, doesn't mean its useless. The concept of the noble lie was that some things may not be objectively true, but are created to exist in order to serve a utilitarian purpose or smooth running of society. If we de-construct all constructs, we'll end up eroding many psychological pillars that hold our world together, including our selves. Money itself is a construct, a shared myth to facilitate our global economy. Organised religion is a noble lie to foster cohesion and ''positive'' behaviour - heaven is the carrot, hell is the stick. Subjective beliefs have objective consequences. Subjectivity in a sense literally matters, because it can matter-ialise in reality. What purpose does seeing everything as a construct serve? Beside feeling special for a moment as if we've stumbled upon a secret exposing the matrix - to loosen our grip on labels, concepts and identity and allow for more plurality?

Yeah, I think extremism is something any human is capable of tapping into but that the majority don't. Religion and certain beliefs can definitely nurture extremism as can extreme situations. Extremism can also be non religious and motivated by ideology, politics or nationalism - but those are treated religiously. Communist extremists come to mind, or Kamikaze fighters in Japan who would commit strategic suicide based on the cultural code of Bushido which emphasised honour, sacrifice and loyalty to the Emperor. With Islam in particular, the idea of martyrdom is predisposed to extremism as it can be too easily distorted away from a defensive interpretation to a offensive interpretation. The situation doesn't help that the world recognises Palestinians to be occupied as this gives the extreme factions among them justification, they can simply say - ''Look, we aren't going to them (proactively, offensively), they have already come to us and we are occupied, so any action we take is defence (reactive) thus justified.'' This is where even if all our beliefs are constructs and subjective, subjectivity still has objective real world affects. Subjectivity in a sense literally matters because it can matter-ialise in reality. Racism is biological extremism, fanaticism is psychological extremism, totalitarianism is political extremism, fundamentalism is religious extremism.

Definitely negative incentive structure in place to continue the blood shed. On the macro, the occupation and periodic operations provide further incentive for bloodshed, as does this 10 month campaign of unleashed hell. Emotional fatigue has set in over Gaza despite atrocities occurring weekly but just this week two stories sparked outrage again. Four day old twins killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza while their father went to register their birth - on returning he found his twins, wife, and their grandmother dead. Another was a school bombing killing circa 100, whilst they were doing their morning prayers. The UK felt the need to comment: When atrocities or the defense of them occur (ie protests shown above) we are told these are just the bad apples of Israeli society. When atrocities are committed by Palestinians we are told this is inherent in Arab society - the extremism and 'low development.' Westerners exceptionalize their crimes (its a minority who commit them and not their society that gave birth to them), but generalize others crimes (its something inherent to 'their' culture.)

Building settlements on what could be their state literally erodes the trust and peace - that is the low bar set for Israel, to simply stop taking more land. But from the world of realpolitik, I see where your coming from - which is why I've sadly concluded before that there doesn't seem to be a solution, except one that is imposed from outside, which there is very little will to do (US just approved 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to Israel). Israel will only act out of pragmatism, not principle - and only when there is enough pressure politically, economically, and physically (survival) might they concede to some sort of settlement mediated by outside forces, not directly with Hamas of course. Often I write, as I think others do too, from the lens of international politics and justice. Because thats the cultural marinade of liberalism we're all swimming in. It's the liberal world order we're trying to (and told to) build. It defers to justice for peace, but often we default to the natural order of power where peace before justice prevails. That peace is usually attained through the existence of or imposition of power - even if it delays justice and prolongs current injustice. Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum - If You Want Peace, Prepare For War. The existence of power acts as a deterrence, which brings about peace so long as that power isn't abused. Justice for peace is how we hope the world could work, grounded in law and principles. The existence of or imposition of peace before justice, is grounded in power dynamics and pragmatism. The world works between the two. Laws and institutions were created to make right, what might often would (through blood) but that left the door open for revenge and retaliation only to perpetuate conflicts. That is the basis of us calling ourselves civilised, but we aren't - we're on our way to it. It's the hypocrisy (of calling oneself civilised whilst the other barbaric) that rubs a lot of the Global South the wrong way, including Westerners themselves against their own political class. The hypocrite stands on a pedestal of their own making, pontificating about virtues they fail to embody and casting others as evil, for sins they themselves commit and attempt to conceal through propaganda and linguistic gymnastics. This lack of integrity, and gap between actions and words is what erodes the trust you rightly pointed to that needs to be built. This is why the world is bifurcating between the East and West, and parallel systems (BRICS) are being built which the West now bemoans. The next decades will be heavily predicated along these lines.

Not to say Elon Musk is a saint, or that any deceptions listed here aren’t true - the question is what are the users implying from listing his flaws? If the conclusion is to box him into category bad, this overlooks what is at times required in the game of business and power. It’s easy to misread someone’s intent as bad, when it’s misguided. The more you delve into the realm of cunning and power, the more it stains you. Knowledge of power is intoxicating, and once you grasp it, it seduces you to use it. No doubt Elon has wielded power to achieve his goals. He may not be a paragon of transparency but you don’t win in the game of business and power by telegraphing every move. He may neither be a genius in innovation and likes to play up his image of a real life Tony Stark for branding - but he has enough technical knowledge and leadership skills to steward geniuses under one roof towards a vision.

Conflating gender identity with biological sex muddies the waters and the discussion unnecessarily. We can acknowledge the reality of biological sex while recognising the validity and complexity of gender identity. Nature loves exceptions. Acknowledging these exceptions doesn't negate the broader reality of biological sex dimorphism. The reason hominids or we even exist is thanks to dimorphism. It's not an either/or situation. Just acknowledge that sex is typically binary while also accepting that there are individuals who don't fit neatly into those categories and are their own. Respecting these exceptions isn't about denying biology. Dimorphism runs deep. It's not just about genitals or secondary sex characteristics. It's in our bones, muscles and brains, right down to the cellular level. These differences aren't trivial - they've been crucial to our survival and evolution as a species. Yes, psychology plays a significant role in our sense of identity, no argument there. But to dismiss the role of biology is to willfully ignore the very foundation of what makes us human. You can't reduce "being a woman" to just what's in your head any more than you can reduce it to just what's between your legs. Both matter, interact and are inseparable parts of the whole. The extreme hypothetical of transplanting a female head on a male body isn’t currently even possible. Even then, that brain developed in a body, a body shaped by chromosomes, hormones, and even reproductive organs. To act like these biological realities are somehow secondary or optional is to engage in a kind of magical thinking that ignores how deeply interconnected our minds and bodies truly are.

If we’re talking social roles then that can be more malleable - such as what is woman hood or man hood. But if we’re talking biology then it’s clear. We can’t identify our way out of biological reality any more than we can identify our way out of the laws of gravity. If I identify as a balloon, will I defy gravity and start floating? Sounds nice, but it’ll never happen. This stems from a ideology not based in reality, but attempting to impose itself upon reality. There’s a difference between the quicksand of subjective reality and the solidity of object reality.

Agreed. There is a deep irony in how the very tools and systems created by Stage Orange - associated with rationality, capitalism, and scientific progress - have led to the resurgence of tribalistic behaviours and identities more characteristic of earlier stages like Stage Red (egocentric, power-oriented) and Stage Blue (authoritarian, rule-based) in Spiral Dynamics. Silicon Valley titans who are stage Orange poster children have given us social media platforms that are essentially digital campfires that bring out our inner stage red tribalism to dance around in echo chambers, beating our chests and throwing virtual spears at the 'other.' We’re still religious without religions - and behave dogmatically handing down commandments of groupthink we think is “right” while the “other” is wrong. Social justice warriors and stage green guardians of the galaxy are using Orange stage tech to religiously enforce their values like stage Blue dogmatists, all while claiming to be the vanguards of evolution. Humans are complex enough to encapsulate stage Red rage, stage Blue righteousness, stage Orange technology, and stage Green idealism. There's a dangerous trap in developmental theories that risk creating a new hierarchy that can be used to justify oppression the same way colonial powers once used concepts of "civilization" to justify their domination of "primitive" peoples. Those who use Spiral Dynamics in this way are often exhibiting the very traits they claim to have transcended. They're engaging in tribal thinking (Red), us-vs-them mentality (Blue), and rationalization of power structures (Orange), all while claiming to operate from a more "evolved" perspective. The truth is, human societies and individuals are far more complex than any single developmental model can capture. Palestinians, Israelis, or any other group aren't monoliths that can be neatly categorized into a single stage. They contain multitudes, with individuals and subgroups spanning various levels of development according to different metrics. Moreover, what constitutes "development" is itself a culturally loaded concept. The Green stage values of Western liberals might look like moral decay to those prioritizing traditional values, just as capitalist notions of progress might seem destructive to indigenous cultures prioritizing harmony with nature. Who gets to decide? When the excesses of "Stage Green" are criticised such as when the pronoun brigade broadly accept identifying themselves however they wish ( we literally got pregnant man emojis 🫃🏻) These constructs are often defended as just an overreach of a more advanced developmental stage green. But what if it's not an advanced stage at all, and instead just a delusion fueled by an ideology that isn't grounded in truth or reality? Why is this delusion considered better than the delusion of a religious fundamentalist who believes in martyrdom?

While it's clear that both Israelis and Palestinians have made choices that have influenced their current situations, it's crucial to understand that Palestinians are living under conditions defined by occupation. This is not just a matter of opinion but a legal principle recognised globally. The argument that Palestinians should prioritise peace and state building to gain statehood overlooks the fundamental fact that their rights as an occupied people are non-negotiable and not contingent upon proving their "worthiness" for statehood. The West, and the international community have established legal norms precisely to protect those under occupation and to prevent this kind of conditional justice. The hypotheticals being debated of Hamas wanting to genocide are contentious simply for being hypothetical and the fact that peoples objectives change when conditions change - that said, its wiser to listen to threats than not. And Hamas leaders have threatened not genocide out right but to get rid of Israel as a state - doing so would effectively result in the killing of countless civilians. During the era of Jim Crow laws in the American South - hypothetical cases were also made for fear of retribution and genocide. Events like Nat Turner rebellion (parallel to todays October 7th) fed into those fears. This rhetoric helped maintain such a unjust system of dehumanisation and lack of sovereignty. Many Palestinians seek justice, freedom, and a state of their own which are simply aspirations that are enshrined in international law. If international law hadn't stated these are their rights maybe they would manage their expectations and not fight for those rights. But to have those rights be their in black and white then gas light them for fighting for them and framing them as barbaric terrorists is vile and ironically un-civilised. Civilisation isn't just about skyscrapers, gadgets and gizmos you have at home, its about how you interact with other societies beyond your borders - and often we see that Western nations interact with the global south in a win-lose extractive dynamic through a capitalist system they pioneered. Blaming Palestinians for not having achieved peace while under occupation is akin to blaming a person for not thriving while being held captive. Their first and foremost priority, as it would be for any group in their position, is to achieve their fundamental rights, including the end of occupation. Only when these rights are secured can we realistically expect the conditions necessary for long-term peace and prosperity to take root. It's simply not up to Israel or the West to decide when Palestinians are "ready" for statehood. The international legal framework already recognises their rights - it's up to the global community to ensure those rights are respected and fulfilled.

US, Qatar and co were mediating for a potential ceasefire deal just yesterday. Odd that these atrocities occur at such times - possibly to nuke the deal and derail it.

@DocWatts Agree with your post above. We need to not be so optimistic we’re blind to current and future dangers, yet not be so pessimistic we’re paralysed into nihilism and non action. The progress narrative often suggests the path is rocky but in the right direction. In reality, the steps we take forward can generate such severe externalities and unforeseen consequences that the single step back becomes catastrophic, not only undoing the progress we thought we made but sometimes dragging us to the abyss. Also, some of those steps forward may be forward in the wrong direction - we need to differentiate between change and progress and not conflate change with progress - change is cosmetic, superficial and quantitative whilst progress is deeper, substantive and qualitative. Put another way, the three steps forward, one step back analogy assumes the steps forward and back are of equal weight. But the back step can be so profound and far reaching in its impact, that it completely negates, and even exceeds, any forward momentum. We need to redefine progress to be more holistic as it’s often easier to quantify the material, and harder to quantify the immaterial aspects of life that are much more meaningful. Focusing on materialist metrics over meaningful ones and simplistically saying the world’s better is too simplistic. We should ask - at what expense have scientific and technological advancements occurred? And have these translated into social and spiritual well being, or are they destabilising. Economic growth has occurred unequally and is now eroding buying power through inflation to the point of a whole “hustle culture” and gig economy needing to spawn. The pace of change and disruption requires people to reinvent themselves every few years or decades causing psychological distress and job insecurity that didn’t exist before. To illustrate, in the past people’s surnames often reflected their occupations ie Smith for blacksmiths, Baker for bakers, Miller for grain mill workers. We can develop all the tools we want (through science and technology ie progress and advancement) but what good is the tool if the user of the tool isn’t well enough to use them. Another way to put it is this: we are developing lifestyles but don't have life quality. A parallel to this is that we have extended lifespans but not necessarily health spans.