zazen

Conservative states still have to function within a broader legal framework that’s been shaped by decades of liberal legal values. If psychopathy is a mental disability courts wouldn’t hold them fully responsible and without insanity defenses. They calculate and kill in cold blood, then attempt to evade consequences.

Welcome to yet another example to illustrate the control and capture of the state by money. This is the perverse dynamic at play in the US - that money controls the state rather than the other way round. Why does it cost so much? Because liberal values are weaponized, and justice is commodified and milked by a extensive legal procedure enriching lawyers, courts, and the prison/legal-industrial complex. Their are notorious cases where there is no moral ambiguity as to what the fate of the criminal should be. Serial killers, mass shooters etc. The entire point of the death penalty is to remove the irredeemable - those who have committed acts so heinous that there is zero moral ambiguity about their fate. And yet, the modern legal system creates artificial complexity where there should be none. Ted Bundy dragged his case for a decade with countless legal moves. Legal moves that are in place due to liberal values - the hyper-focus on due process, endless appeals, and excessive legal protections that prioritize the criminal over the victim. This is the ideological obstruction of justice despite ample evidence of guilt, fed upon by capitalist greed. Liberal legal values can create inefficiencies that turn clear cut cases into million dollar spectacles.

Selling weapons isn't the issue. Creating and sustaining a global war economy, using think tanks and policy manipulation to ensure constant war, and systematically destabilizing entire regions for strategic control - is the issue. Meeting demand is business, creating demand is a racket. That's a helpful distinction between commerce and a imperial empire. A store selling cigarettes is business. Tobacco companies spending billions convincing people they need to smoke, manipulating science, buying politicians, and addicting generations is a racket. The US doesn't just sell weapons, it sells the need for them. They run a global protection racket so sophisticated it makes the mob look like amateurs. Western imperialism is not a series of isolated mistakes, or a occasional lapse into brutality - it's a continuous, characteristic, and catastrophic system of domination that no other nation or civilization has ever matched or could even hope to replicate. Other countries commit wrongs, but their wrongs are events that happen in response to crises, conflicts, or shifts in power. Western wrongs are not events - they're just the backdrop against which the modern world operates. And a false equivalence is attempted to be made between the West's wrongs and other countries' wrongs, and then there are complaints of why the West is so talked about and critiqued in comparison to others. Because in comparison to others there is no equivalence, and that is the bottom line. Just to illustrate this point, what is the equivalent of another nation dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on a country that is already defeated (Japan), just to showcase a point of strength to the Soviets? The wrongs of China, Russia, or other powers are events bound to specific historical contexts. The wrongs of the West are structural in that this is the civilizational modus operandi. The historic scarcity of Western Europe baked a imperial DNA into the culture which necessitated expansion, conquest, domination and extraction - in order to survive.

Same, this is a clear pivot in foreign policy to rehabilitate the US-Russia relationship. Some are saying this is for the purpose of saving attention and resources in order to counter China which is a much greater rival to US hegemony. This aligns with much of project 2025. Ukraine is just secondary to this goal, and something that needs to be dealt with to free up those resources and energy. From the 2025 Mandate - https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf ''In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counter terrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our freeworld efforts together.'' On Ukraine specifically, note how they mention China again (also note that Russia is metioned 108 times vs China's 483 times) : ''Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives.'' Another view I've seen is that China needs to be countered sooner rather than later when it becomes too big to be able to counter, hence the speed of the shift we are seeing. The thing about being a vassal state is that you don’t always get the memo when the empire changes course. Europe is suffering from inertia. The war machine needed Europe to be hysterical about Russia, and now that it’s wound up, it’s running on autopilot. The real irony is that Europe should be the one pushing for peace as they can’t escape geography, but US's geography allows it to play imperial games with little consequence.

The liberal minded view it as if people take glee in punishing criminals, when its in fact the criminal that takes glee in punishing others. The death penalty isn't punishment but banishment - no one exists to suffer punishment. Possibly why its even called death penalty, not death punishment - because it is a final solution to eradicate the irredeemable. This is where your cancer cell metaphor perfectly captures the distinction. Cancer cells are already dead. Likewise, the irredeemable are already dead inside with no soul left to be invigorated or ''rehabilitated''. Society isn't some rehab therapy circle jerk. Resources spent on attempting futile rehabilitation are being diverted away from root causes of criminality itself. The death penalty is a form of social chemotherapy targeting the most malignant irredeemable threats to society. It's doesn't deter those already far gone, because they don't fear death to even be deterred, but it removes the net drain of having to house them in prison which isn't free either. It can still deter those who have some sense of self preservation and wish to live.

You say I'm one sided while block listing everyone who disagrees with you and makes you challenge your own worldview bro. I literally said China aren't economically as good as they say they are, but not as bad as the West say they are - how is that one sided? Enjoy echo chambering yourself into a bubble and being detached from reality. I commented in the Ukraine thread to explain why it comes across like people are anti-Western, even if they aren't. Simply because there is more to criticise.

Perhaps because it isn't primarily about material gain but about security. We keep swapping the primary cause of this war for the secondary incidental gains that may come from it in material, resources etc. I mentioned this on the previous page. Look at it another way: Putin laid it all out in his 2007 Munich speech at the security conference - the same one that just passed and is held annually. He wasn’t vague but explicit in warning that NATO expansion up to Ukraine was a red line, and that encroaching on Russia’s sphere of security would have serious consequences. What was the Western response? To not take it seriously. The West treats other nations existential security concerns like a child's crayon drawing they can just wipe away. Only their concerns matter. Western arrogance is why we’re here. Its not a lack of information that's the problem, but a lack of humility. Arrogance doesn’t process reality. It doesn’t allow facts to form a coherent, reality based perspective. Instead, arrogance bends reality around itself, forcing everything into a self-serving narrative. In this case, the narrative is the fantasy that the West is the sole arbiter of global order, that only Western nations have agency, and that countries like Russia are just obstacles to be managed, not equals with their own security concerns. The empire's arrogance is so complete in its self-delusion, that it literally cannot process information that contradicts its divine right to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants. Geographic buffer zones and historical vulnerabilities are very real things that have shaped nations for millennia. But in Western imperial thinking, they're just inconvenient obstacles to be brushed aside on the march toward total dominance. The biggest scam isn’t just that trickle down economics never worked but that trickle down imperialism did. The same elitist, exploitative, and supremacist mindset that drives Western imperialism at the top has trickled down into the general population, shaping how even ordinary citizens like us view the world. This is why imperial talking points get parroted so effortlessly and we're baffled at the actions of non-Western actors.

Uh, don't forget what Saudi's done to Yemen or Turkeys treatment of Kurds while your at it. The point isn't that non-Western actors are angels and Western actors are uniquely bad - it's that their typically bad. Read the first part of the comment you quote posted: '' at a scale incomparable to others''. It's not that others don't do critizable things at all. It's that the West and in particular the US, does more criticizable things. The scale, scope, and systemic nature of Western crimes are unmatched by anything else on the planet. No other power has violated entire continents the way the West has and continues to do. We can critique authoritarians violating human rights in their countries, meanwhile the West authorizes entire regions to be destabilized and decimated. It authorizes a entire system of violence, exploitation and subjugation to exist - there is no equivalence. You bring up Iraq, Syria, China, Russia, as if these examples exist in a vacuum, but every single one of your talking points is dripping with Western fingerprints - which only further proves the point that the West is the primary engine of global violence, destabilization, and imperialism. - Saddam Hussein was armed, funded and propped up by the West for years while he did what he did, just as Saudi is doing what its doing in Yemen now. The West manufactures its villains, only to destroy them later when it’s politically convenient. Lets not even get into WMD and the aftermath of the Iraq war which pales in comparison to what Saddam did. This isn't to say abuse, atrocity or violations don't exist separate from the West, they just don't exist at a scale and scope comparably committed by the West. - The US actively weaponized the Uyghur Issue to attack China. They have zero evidence of genocide whilst backing a plausible one in Gaza. The East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) is a Uyghur separatist terrorist group who carried out deadly attacks in China for years. Even the UN officially designated it as a terrorist organization - until the US conveniently delisted it in 2020 as part of its anti-China strategy. There are no mass graves, no refugee crises, no evidence that even remotely compares to actual genocides. China pursued counterterrorism policies after a wave of violent Islamist separatist attacks, which even Western media reported on before this issue was turned into an anti-China talking point. Is it morally ideal? No. But how did the US handle terrorism? They bombed entire nations, tortured people in black sites, and slaughtered civilians with drones. This was all done beyond their borders to places and in places that are no existential threat to the state itself. The difference is that China and Russia had violent separatist groups who were domestic and did threaten the national security and territorial integrity of the state. If the KKK become violent and large enough to separate Texas do you think the US would sit by and let it happen? No nation naturally cedes territory to separatist groups because it sets off a domino effect of other groups who think they can do the same. If China deserves outrage for re-education centers, what does the US deserve for Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay? - Russia dealt with their own separatists (Chechnya) but much more brutally. Again, that was nearly 30 years ago and was more about internal consolidation and state control after the fall of the Soviet Union. A bloody internal battle. It wasn’t Russia marching into Latin America, Africa, or the Middle East to overthrow governments for resource extraction. Similarly, China’s policies in Xinjiang, as harsh as they may be, are not imperial the way Western actions are - they are domestic counterinsurgency measures, responding to terror attacks and separatists that the West love to show they care about but frankly just weaponize in a bid to weaken China and Russia through balkanization. - The idea that Assad just woke up one day and decided to kill his own people is absurd. The Syrian war was not a simple “government vs. peaceful protesters” conflict - it was a complex, multi-sided insurgency fueled by foreign intervention. They included al-Qaeda affiliates, ISIS, and other extremist factions. Of course Assad went beyond in order to maintain control, and committed atrocities in the process. Western propaganda ignores that every government responds to armed insurgencies with force. The US itself would never tolerate an armed rebellion within its borders. Assad is condemned for using force against foreign funded jihadists trying to overthrow his country, while the US gets a pass for destroying entire nations in the name of "counterterrorism"? Both are wrong (Assad for cracking down on innocents) but the US's violence goes to regions which pose no actual threat to state security, and if they do, they're dealt with disproportionately the same way Israel has dealt with Hamas and Gaza. It's trying to blow out a candle with a fire extinguisher. ——————————————— While other nations have committed atrocities in specific moments of history, Western imperialism is a relentless, ongoing, never ending machine of destruction. It is not a phase, or a event, or a response to internal threats - it's the defining characteristic of Western power itself. There hasn't been a a single year in modern history where the US or its allies are not actively engaged in war, coups, proxy conflicts, sanctions, or regime change operations. Not one. And they continue to do so today. Chechnya was an event. Xinjiang was a policy. Western imperialism? That's a operating system, a way of being - the West doesn’t just occasionally commit crimes - it exists through them. When something is so constant and omnipresent, it stops being perceived as an aberration and instead becomes the default state of the world. It just blends into the background. Something abnormal has become so normative we barely flinch at it, especially when living in the imperial core from which its orchestrated. It's why a one time brutal crackdown in another country gets more attention than the systemic, relentless destruction Western imperialism carries out on a daily basis. We are just numbed by the scale of it and seduced away from the devastation of it through a sophisticated media apparatus that seems to have done its job well - going by how even actualized members still toe the official empire narrative.

This is how empires have gone - they grow by being protectionist (Britain did the same). Once big enough they become laissez-fair and push for liberal free trade because the know they will dominate the market and can push all the production they have grown into, onto other markets. Asleep at the wheel, indulgent and decadent, other competitors start gaining power - once the current hegemon wakes up to this it’s already too late to reverse the trend. They start initiating protectionist / mercantilist policies as a last resort to hold onto what they can, which usually doesn’t reverse what’s already in motion. This isn’t about Trump alone. This is the logical next step for an empire that has overextended itself globally and is now in damage control mode. Whether it’s Trump’s executive overreach or the surveillance state expanding under both parties, the pattern is the same: when an empire loses external control, it turns inward and cannibalizes itself. Trump is only brash enough and unashamed enough to speed run a process that is inevitable. On the bright side, the US has too many strong fundamentals to collapse like a failed country - many analysts think doom and gloom as if the US empire is going to collapse. The shift from global domination to internal consolidation doesn’t mean collapse, but contraction. It's basically the empire on a diet, cutting down to size to be within its sphere of influence it still has sway in rather than dominate the entire sphere of planet earth. They were on the carnivore diet bulking and gained too much weight gorging on fatty cuts of wagyu, now their cutting on lean steak. They fed on the meat of the global South up to the point they no longer can so easily, and now turn inwards to feed on themselves and their allies - to the bone. This is the empire feeding off whatever flesh is still left on the carcass of its former global supremacy because it can't feast on the world anymore.

@Lyubov I responded to you earlier in the thread that you may have missed but it’s related to your response to Raze. There’s a fetishization of freedom and autonomy in the West that can be trapping and a hindrance to diplomatic existence between nations.

@PurpleTree @Scholar @Lyubov You guys view comments from myself, Raze or Hatfort above and conclude we are anti-West for the sake of it. I think this is mistaking focus for bias, and clarity for having some anti-West agenda. Maybe the reason the West gets critiqued more is because it does more criticizable things? At a scale incomparable to others. The Western centric view wants people outraged about headscarves in Iran while the countries surrounding Iran are reduced to moonscapes by the West. They want you crying about artistic suppression in China - which, in reality is China refusing to let foreign backed protest movements destabilize its governance - while they turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Theres a reason why the threads on this forum regarding the Ukraine/Russia war or Israel get the most engagement - because in the grand hierarchy of global destabilisation, death and destruction - these pose the most risk and are the most vile. The reason for frequent comments criticizing the West and in particular the US, is because of the frequency of violations and the fact that the US is behind the worst of them. You yourselves are now bemoaning how the US is now treating Europe. As Kissinger said ''“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Westerners, especially Europeans, are being force fed a civilisational and geopolitical red pill through the red blood of their own people in Ukraine. The war has laid bare the reality of their existence: that they aren't independent nations, but vassals propping up US hegemony. Anyone pointing out the empire's tendency to feed its "allies" into the wood chipper gets dismissed as an "America hater" or "Russian bot." Now we're watching european economies implode while Washington whistles all the way to the bank. Apparently, focusing on the empire that has 800+ military bases, turns nations into failed states and treats sanctions like party favours means you're "obsessed." Some of us can't help noticing that one player is responsible for more global chaos than all others combined. And now Europe's getting that "special friend" treatment previously reserved for the Global South. Their leaders are learning what leaders in the Middle East and Latin America have known for decades: the empire doesn't have allies, only useful idiots. This challenges our worldview about our own ''Western civilisation” and the lofty sounding rhetoric we were made to believe about it. The Cold war with Russia is ending, but the awakening from the splash of cold water waking us up from our propagandized existence has just begun.

It actually proves the opposite. If Russia truly didn’t care about its demographic decline, it wouldn’t be fighting this war with such urgency. The fact they're willing to take on the immense cost and risks of this conflict suggests that they saw it as a now or never situation - meaning this wasn’t some whimsical imperial adventure but a strategic necessity before they lost the capability to act. Rather than proving that Russia is recklessly expansionist, it suggests they calculated it was better to secure their strategic position while they still had the manpower to do so, rather than risk NATO creeping further in and waiting until they were weaker and unable to respond. If Russia were truly in an aggressive, imperialistic phase, it would be engaging in expansionist wars more consistently across multiple fronts, not reacting to a direct geopolitical threat at its border. The essential concern isn’t that Ukraine might become a wealthy, thriving democracy - it’s that Ukraine was being turned into a military proxy, potentially housing NATO forces right on Russia’s doorstep. The timing of Russia’s action aligns perfectly with NATO’s increased involvement in Ukraine, not with any sudden surge in Ukrainian prosperity. Before the war began Ukraine's GDP per capita was half that of Russia's, it wasn't some beacon of prosperity threatening Russia. Think about it - why would Russia, a country with the largest landmass on Earth, the most resources, deep integration with the rising multipolar world - throw all of that into chaos over envy? Why would a nation positioned to thrive in a post-Western world order, plugged into the economic future of BRICS and China, jeopardize itself over a country that was already one of Europe’s poorest and most corrupt before the war even started? Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of becoming some economic powerhouse that would shame Russia into democratic reform. Even if we entertain that idea (that Russia can't bear a successful neighbour) then we have to ask: does that justify going to war and risking nuclear war with NATO? War is not some minor policy adjustment. It’s the most extreme move a nation can make, that carries existential risks in this case. Why would a country deliberately destabilize itself, endure years of economic warfare, burn through its manpower, and risk nuclear escalation just because it's pride is stung by a successful neighbour? Nations don’t throw themselves into the fire over a bruised ego. If anything, it’ the West that can’t tolerate independent systems that reject its neoliberal model and may work better. The US has spent decades toppling governments, imposing sanctions, and waging wars against nations that dared to take a different path. Russia or China isn’t the one trying to force its way of life on the world. The mythical successful neighbour theory is at best a secondary cause of the war, not a primary one which is about security concerns and the geographic red line that Ukraine represents as a buffer zone - which is the essence of the war, in reality.

@Lyubov That's definitely a fear we need to watch out for - that this is just a temporary freezing of the conflict to be re ignited at a later date. But the fear is more from the West wanting to re-ignite it than the East. What use does the largest country with the most resources on the planet have for expanding, especially with an aging and declining demographic. Most, if not all expansionist imperial action has taken place when powers have had a bounty of young men to partake in such actions - not when your demographic pyramid is upside down, and especially not when you already sit on the most resources on the planet and are integrated with a rising super power and Global South (BRICS) you can sell those resources to. Absolutely no incentive to destabilise yourself and get bogged down in a war with the West - but absolutely every incentive for the West / US to destabilize and bog Russia down in it as it threatens their unipolar position. Whats changed now is the strategy in countering this new multi-polar reality. Trumps admin acknowledge this reality - even the Munich Conference was titled: Multipolarization. Reality has set in, this reality will either be fought, or a strong position within it will be sought - which is what Trump is attempting to do. In fact Trump has said that he wants to try to dis-unite Russia and China by working with Russia. Not only are they talking peace but joint projects together: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-us-saudi-arctic-energy-rdif-ukraine-russia-capital/ And this is where you are correct in that these peace talks are disingenuous or serve another agenda. Beside Trump demanding half of Ukrainian mineral profits to be for the US which is just mafia behavior - they seem to be seeking peace with Russia so they may have them on side to go to war with China - the real rival that has been mentioned many times as the actual threat. This is bipartisan and a strong US stance now. China isn't a threat to US existence, it’s a threat to the US ego and supremacy. I don't think Trump is stupid enough to go to war with China, though he's surrounded by China hawks. But they will attempt to counter China however they can economically, technologically and geopolitically - in this case by warming relations with Russia so they can wrestle Russia away from China. Russia obviously isn't naive enough to fall for this. We can't pick our neighbors. Just as Ukraine and Europe can't choose not to neighbor Russia, Russia can't choose not to neighbor China - so its only rational and wise to have good relations with those you can't magically separate from. And totally unwise to paint them as the devil and not want to engage in talks with them, especially considering the existence of nuclear capability. To your post above from the previous page and to add to what @Raze says above - isn't it actually because of Russia being treated un-fairly that this whole shit show has unfolded? Fairness is the foundation of stability. The entire Ukraine crisis is a direct result of treating Russia unfairly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia was willing to play nice. It disbanded the USSR, accepted its diminished role, even floated the idea of joining NATO. And what did it get in return? A West that kept moving the goalposts, absorbing one ex-Soviet state after another into NATO, encircling Russia while pretending this was all just about “defensive alliances”. The West is even arrogant enough to openly declare their intent through think tank documents strategizing how to encircle and weaken Russia. Russia isn't being imperialistic per se, it’s reacting to imperialism itself. It's reacted in the most blatant way now (by invading Ukraine) when NATO is on its doorstep threatening its core interests from within its historic buffer zone of Ukraine. Until we can terraform geography to have perfect buffer zones, or we enlighten ourselves into blissful Bhuddas that can co-exist - geographic red line buffer zones must be taken seriously rather than encroached upon. Every nations security concerns should be dealt with fairly rather than unfairly. The reason for this mess is Western supremacy, imperialistic encirclement and a vassalized Europe that have licked the boot of US foreign policy, and marched in it's shadows, without any thought for a independent foreign policy that may serve it better. This whole US - EU split may help wake them up a little and develop some independence for once.

Nice summary. How can anyone be mad about US and Russia diplomatically coming to the table to stop the war and killing, and more widely mend their relations and defrost this Cold War atmosphere that’s lingering for no good reason. The Biden admin didn’t communicate with Russia for 3 years since the war began, yet Trump has done so in 3 weeks. It’s good Trump is in talks with Russia, it’s bad he’s in talks without the key players involved whose security architecture is affected - Ukraine and the EU more widely. How can Person A and B decide the fate of person C? Perhaps Ukraine and Europe had their chance but showed no sign of being open to engage in talks…Zelenskyy literally signed a decree banning negotiations with Putin. Further to your point about China - it’s positive for war to stop, but not if it’s solely to stop one in order to get ready for the next one. Rubio even mentioned that we are in a era of multipolarity, that doesn’t mean many will happily sit by and do nothing about that changing reality. Wild times with what Trump and Elon (sharing Jeffrey Sachs) are posting:

@PurpleTree You have many people on ignore and love to boast about it lol. It’s just a different opinion or set of facts that maybe counters your narrative. The world’s changing fast, best to keep open minded. You opened a thread saying anyone can post negative neutral or positive info on China. On the previous page I literally said on the China economy point - that’s it’s probably not as good as China says but not as bad as the West says it is. Check out Sirius report or Arnaud Bertrand on X. Good sources on China. Speaking of the devil, a new vid on China advancing in submarine military tech just dropped: News: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/12/china-mystery-nuclear-battery-submarine-taiwan-war-us-navy/ https://asiatimes.com/2025/02/chinas-magnetic-tech-can-detect-us-stealth-subs-study/# “China, have unveiled a novel detection method capable of identifying even the stealthiest submarines by tracking their magnetic wakes.” Just as US is dislodging from Europe / Russia so they can focus their attention on the Pacific against China.

Odd how even the Swedish school shooting was barely covered by the usual right wing pundits and X accounts. Had these incidents been by a brown man they’d be raving about immigration.

Way to seem strong in the face of humiliation. Crying at “rules based order” being eroded as if NATO solely existed as a defensive alliance which played by the rules, as if the EU didn’t toe the US narrative and support them on their imperial adventures, as if they follow democratic rules such as when the EU referendum in 2005 was voted against by France and Netherlands - to which they rebranded it as the Lisbon treaty and shoved it through anyway lol. A strong Europe would be a great counter balance to the US and a bridge to the East, along with a strong but healthy USA. Vaselined and vassalized for too long, but this may be the needed kick up the ass.

It's a general truth, that truth is antithetical to power, but not a total or absolute truth. Truth is antithetical to the unethical gain and use of power - which few people are able to do. Truth seekers become trapped in a kind of moral paralysis when they either reject power altogether, retreating into self-righteous purity, or they fall into confusion, unsure how to wield truth and power together without corrupting themselves in the process. Power isn't anti-truth, in fact the truth is empowering. It's usually the case that the ones we view as having power actually don't have it - power has them! Truth simply collapses the options on the playing field of power and wealth. Instead of having a buffet of good and bad ways to obtain them, you are only left with the good. Power isn't inherently bad, just like the hands aren't. The hands just grab and accumulate - in this case power and wealth. It's the vision of the man, the clarity to see what is the right and wrong way to go about using his hands that makes the difference. Why should having better vision paralyze the use of the hands? This becomes a cynical view of power that dis-engages those from power and is a disservice to the world if anything. Because it leaves those who are blind to pursue and wield power with no counter to their corrupting effects.

The irony of calling on others to spend less on military when you spend as much as the next 9 countries combined lol. The fair thing would be to cap spending as a percentage of GDP, not simply cut spending in half. Because if everyone cut spending in half, the US is still spending 9 times as much. Trump is now threatening BRICS nations with 100% tariffs if they stop using the dollar in trade: https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/brics-is-dead-says-trump-as-he-threatens-member-nations-with-100-tariff-125021400094_1.html ''US President Donald Trump has said that Brics was created for a bad purpose and most people don't want it. He said that Brics is dead and reiterated his threat to Brics nations, saying he would impose a 100 per cent tariff on the bloc if they try to replace the US dollar with any other currency.'' If most people don't want BRICS then why is it such a threat to replacing the US dollar as the reserve currency? What a retarded take. This is essentially how the West has played the game - put others down so you can get up and remain there. Like the following: Westerners will say I’m being anti- West, but I’m trying to be as objective as possible - I’m western myself! And when I see the pattern of history including what’s occurring today, it’s obvious who is playing what part in the world as an agent of stabilisation vs destabilisation. I also think we trip up over ourselves with spiral dynamics jargon and have a halo effect over the West - implying other cultures / nations are by default worse off because of being less developed. Let’s not even get into what being developed means. But we spiral dynamics apartheid ourselves against other nations, spiritually circle jerk and give ourselves a self congratulatory pat on the back from a high horse built on foreign skulls. “Progress bro” “We is developed bro”. Lol

@Nivsch I think Bibi gets scapegoated so a larger segment of Israeli society don’t get blamed. I may even add that Bibi is scapegoated so a segment of the US elites don’t get blamed. Bibi is a symptom of the problem: occupation - which requires the dehumanizing of Palestinian people. That dehumanization stems from a superiority complex which is behind a lot of imperial / colonial behaviour. There are many Israelis who think just like Bibi - meaning that this is a societal issue not just a Bibi one. Obviously not all Israelis, but it’s a sizeable portion. If we even just go by the many polls - it’s usually at least half voting in favour of pretty nasty things. There is a smaller portion of Westerners who think Israel’s actions are just. They suffer from the same sickness as Bibi himself.

@PurpleTree Regarding economy - probably not as good as China says, but not as bad as the West says. A good discussion debunking some misconceptions about China (social credit score etc) https://youtu.be/SVicS79Y93Q?si=7LfUl_EnHVmXVazf

Shahid Bolsens analysis in the video above was correct then: Wants his son in law, Kushners fund called Affinity partners to develop Gaza - of which Saudi has invested heavily. This means gulf states will have a say in the deal. But they have made their stance clear regarding the need for a Palestinian state before any normalization and being against displacement. The audacity to speak on Gaza in such a way - as if it’s an investment.

@Ishanga True, shouldn’t be war mongering to that degree either. For most people they want to maintain their distinct identity as a form of belonging. I think another part is that most people don’t really want to be associated with what America stands for vs what it says it does. I was curious to hear JP’s thoughts on this, he just posted : Gonna check it later.

It’s more a reflection of Western hegemony in decline. Some empires fall backwards and inwards, others forward and outwards in a last attempt - US is falling forward. I’m seeing some seemingly intelligent people on Twitter declare how the US is “so back” lol. All these imperial bootlickers including Musk commenting FAFO (fuck around and find out) to Trump supposedly putting many nations (allies included) and institutions on “notice”. Everyone’s like “omg who’s Uncle Sam gonna come after next and put in place” meanwhile it’s the US who has lost its place as the centre of the world. They’re reframing posturing as strength and a L as a W. This empires lashing out because it’s dying out.