zazen

Looks to be arriving in the coming day or two. https://x.com/MenchOsint/status/2012509278070837381 Tracker with lag: https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-Abraham-Lincoln-(CVN-72)/CURRENT-POSITION/1/369970406 Listen to a what a key economic advisor under Obama says at Davos 3min mark: Very likely something big to happen in the next few days - as carriers arrive and as heard from insiders ''indirectly'' he says. Great watch on the big picture: Anything possibly in the next two weeks. Could just be a aggressive posture to pressure Iran to concede - similar to Venezuela. But most likely Iran won't so US may go in for something or the other. Still don't see how Israel is prepared or not regarding air defense and interceptors but they've been saying they're willing to take the hit to go for Iran alongside the US. Perhaps they're out of domestic options considering the covert ground set they built up over years was cracked down on - Iran shut off the internet to find the starlink receivers and hunted them down.

From: https://x.com/benjaminnorton/status/2014003774751449228?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “It is perhaps understandable that most observers are focusing on Carney's response to Donald Trump's threats and his announcement that Canada will "fundamentally shift our strategic posture" and "diversify" away from the US. This is significant and historic. Nevertheless, an even more important part of the speech was when Canada's prime minister admitted that the so-called "rules-based international order" was always deeply hypocritical and biased, serving the interests of the imperialist West. He said, "We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim". "This fiction was useful" for Western imperialist countries, Carney added. Which is why, "We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality". However, "This bargain no longer works", he stressed. In other words, Carney was admitting that Western "middle powers" (like Canada or European countries) willingly went along with US hegemony and supported the US-led imperialist system -- which is predicated on the systematic subjugation and exploitation of Global South countries in the periphery -- because these Western middle powers also benefited from this pillage of the Global South. But now that the US empire has turned against these Western imperialist middle powers that it previously called its "allies", and now that they are getting just a glimpse of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of what they have been doing to the Global South for centuries, they are (ostensibly) turning against the exploitative system that they had helped to sustain for so long. They supported imperialism as long as it benefited them. Now that it doesn't, they pretend to be acting in a principled way, supposedly to uphold international law and defend sovereignty. But Canada's prime minister has publicly acknowledged that they never truly cared about that. It was just the public relations narrative.”

Not only wants but requires - control of platform is more essential than the product traded upon that platform - especially in a financialized empire where the exorbitant privilege is afforded to the reserve currency. The OS (system) is more important than what any single app is trending on a given day. New trade corridors emerging that bypass US controlled geography and institutions is a threat to the system - not so much to national security (although potential remains) but to an financialized empires platform. Eurasian Silk Road and Arctic pass are outside of US control - meaning no possibility of leverage by choking off adversaries. It also means if trade wanted to be conducted outside the dollar system the US wouldn’t be able to interdict that trade the way it would by sea. Meaning sanctions and SWIFT lose their veto power in controlling nations to fall into line with the empire interests. If your a Atlanticist empire what’s the best way to prevent Eurasian integration between the two largest markets in the world (China and Europe)? In geopolitics leverage is constantly being negotiated, maintained or denied to rivals - or in this case allies. Artic trade route opening up gives Europe optionality and leverage it didn’t have before. US wants total control over this to deny that leverage to what it views as subordinate junior partners within the Atlanticist US empires orbit Why do multiple countries have bases dotted along the Red Sea? Why is there an apparent rift between Saudi and UAE currently? UAE was creating dependant non-state actors (an axis of secessionists) to gain access to local nodes (ports) along the Red Sea. Non-state actors are more easily controlled and dealt with - especially by smaller states. The doctrine is divide and insure rather than divide and outright conquer. No one wants any one player to have veto power of a choke point. Saudi had to step in due to a red line being crossed South of its border in Yemen from UAE backed groups. ——————- Trump doesn’t have to understand any of this in detail - he just wants his face on Rushmore. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some strategic (even if flawed and counter productive) logic that exists. The Arctic has been relevant for decades and only increasingly valuable now - that’s a reality. There doesn’t need to be an imminent threat for a country to act and lock in a favourable geostrategic position before it’s too late. Iraq wasn’t a national security threat, yet the US waned a foothold and to dominate a valuable region of the world. Only a critical mass of elite consensus needs to exist to allow the state machinery to move in a certain direction and not get in the way - as long as the overall direction is in line with the imperial objective to maintain primacy. People will comment and roll eyes but tacitly approve of the end objective. In general there is usually a continuity of agenda, but a change in method and execution from president to president. This is why when Obama pivoted to China as a threat to start paying attention to - it was maintained through admins without much rollback.

Macron be like “we’re on the same page with bombing brown people in Middle East, but your picking on junior partners of the imperial core now? Common Donny” Europe morally grandstands and condems empire while living off it - which is nauseating to many outside the West and increasingly those within it. They outsourced the hard work of survival and security to be under a US military umbrella, vassalizing themselves whilst largely benefitting from the imperial arrangement as junior partners. They’ve been complicit in sanctions programmes and much US imperial adventurism - whilst acting as if their beyond power and survival dynamics living in some garden of Eden with sub 1% military spending because their so enlightened. Ironically France has the most strategic autonomy thanks to De Gaulle. The entire continent now has to pursue that together, stop virtue signalling and start capacity building. Carney was brilliant today: The leaders of Europe need to adopt much of his mindset - pragmatic not ideological. Know your strengths and weaknesses, plug your vulnerabilities through diversification, play powers off each other rather than hitching solely to one which can then dictate to you and whose head of state you call daddy like an utter retard. A reductive but helpful framing is Atlanticist vs continentalist. Europe is connected to the largest landmass on earth (Eurasia) with access to the most resources, markets, trade corridors (Mackinder world island). But the UK and then US tugged Europe into the Atlanticist orbit of both empires. Greenland trade corridors opening up with melting ice allows Europe-Asian trade and integration outside of US control, meaning Europe gains in strategic autonomy and leverage. Theres a reason many powers have bases all along the Red Sea. Trade corridors provide leverage and deny any one power monopoly over choke points. A trade corridor with solely Eurasian oversight (China, Russia, Europe) gives Europe optionality and leverage against a Atlanticist empire wanting keep Europe hitched to its orbit. Hence the capping of Europe strategic autonomy via military (NATO under US command) and energy (Nordstream anyone?). The US basically has a kill switch on European military similar to how China has a kill switch on US military via rare earths - hence the scramble and panic to lock down potential resources and trade corridors while they can, on the cheap. This is imperial geostrategic positioning in a desperate bid to maintain primacy under constraints and pressure in a changing world. Institutional inertia and ideology has locked in a Atlanticist logic that is now being tested by reality slapping Europe across the face. The way the US is brashly acting to maintain this status quo and the structural pressures upon Europe (economically, energetically, public humiliation and domestic discontent) should cause them to *painfully* adapt to the new world as Carney laid out.

In the connected comment to above I also said US would lose its economic tariff war against China. They also know they aren’t a clean match for any military adventure with China - Hegseth has said they lose to China in war game scenarios. This leads them to rhetorically downgrade China to a “economic competitor” rather than a “adversary” (more hostile language) in the national security strategy - despite project 2025 calling China the main threat. It’s still considered so (to empire) but they must adapt to reality. Make no mistake, this isn’t a strategic retreat - containing the rise of a rival superpower to maintain primacy is desired - but direct confrontation is too costly and high risk. Because they can no longer cheaply dominate everywhere due to imperial overstretch and rising powers competing - they must recalibrate and prioritise. Part of that is to tactically retreat to consolidate whatever they can ie low hanging fruit in Latin America (Venezuela) and from their own allies (Greenland) + ask their allies (vassals) to pay tribute and burden share (increase military spending and nod Japan to start barking via proxy at China). Hence the pivot to fortify with resilient supply chains and re-shoring industrial manufacturing for a possible (not necessarily a wanted) war case scenario. It’s necessary and smart to be self sustained to the degree that if a future confrontation were to happen it wouldn’t be as suicidal. It’s normal for every country to fortify what’s critical. The US has to deal with two uncomfortable facts: - It can’t decisively defeat a peer like China at acceptable cost. - It also can’t rule out confrontation entirely (even if highly unlikely or unwanted due to mutually assured destruction). So that forces a third path which is to reduce vulnerability. There’s obviously a more ethical way of doing this via influence and win-win partnerships - but empire is choosing to conduct itself imperially instead. China is actually more vulnerable than the US (imports food and energy on sea lanes its rival superpower navally polices). This same power has think tank pieces gaming naval blockade scenarios. This same power is starting to play pirates of the Carribean and more recently the Arctic. How did China plug these vulnerabilities? Trade, belt and road initiative, development projects and good relations with countries that can provide what it needs. As a diplomat said “when the West comes to Africa we get a lecture, when China comes we get a bridge”

Came upon this while chatting with GPT: ”There are two layers of resistance operating at once, and most analysis fails because it collapses them into one. At the micro level, there is resistance to a repressive, centralized state. That repression is real, harmful, and experienced directly by ordinary people. It expresses itself in protests, social unrest, and demands for reform. At the macro level, there is resistance by the state itself against external subjugation — sanctions, economic warfare, covert destabilization, and regime-change pressure by a dominant imperial system seeking to discipline a geostrategically important country that refuses submission. The critical insight is that the macro layer precedes and conditions the micro layer. A state under sustained siege cannot afford openness without exposing vulnerabilities that external powers are actively trying to exploit. As a result, it centralizes, securitizes dissent, and represses — not because repression is ideologically preferred, but because uncertainty under siege is existentially dangerous. This produces a self-reinforcing loop: economic pressure (largely sanctions-driven) creates hardship → hardship produces protest → protests are escalated or infiltrated → the state uses force to restore order → that force is framed externally as proof of inherent tyranny → further pressure and sanctions are imposed → hardship deepens. The population becomes both the subject of sympathy and the instrument of leverage. The irony is that the external power claiming to care about the people’s suffering is structurally responsible for sustaining the conditions that make that suffering unavoidable. The true regime in need of change is not simply the targeted state, but the global order that arrogates to itself the right to decide which governments are allowed to evolve organically and which must be coerced into collapse. Real reform requires breathing room, not suffocation. The macro solution, therefore, is not forced liberalization under threat, but a geopolitical order that tolerates plural paths, respects red lines, and allows medium and regional powers sufficient sovereignty to evolve without being turned into proxy battlegrounds. Without that shift, micro-level reform will remain sluggish or non existent — not by culture or ideology, but by structural forces.“ A great geopolitics vid from a Birds Eye view: Interesting how the left/right wing approach Iran vs Palestine. The above two vids shed light on it.

lol perfect quote. That’s true also - he is impulsive and performative but doesn’t mean there isn’t a larger strategy at play by those around him or within the state apparatus. He’s actually the perfect conduit for a late stage empire that doesn’t want to or have the time / resources to conduct policy politely. He’s absorbs reputational damage on behalf of the system - so much for MAGA boasting about him being against the deep state. Him having a “hulk smash” we look strong logic doesn’t mean he isn’t useful at a time like the one we’re in. It also doesn’t mean these actions will be good for the US empire long term - but instead will be self defeating as they alienate allies or force their own allies to hedge against the US. But late stage empires act brash and overextend themselves out of desperation just as USSR did. Greenlands always been on the radar: https://www.csis.org/analysis/america-arctic Even since the Cold War days where they needed it for early warning systems against Soviet ICBM’s that fly over the shortest distance that is the arctic. There actually is a plausible security angle to all this. Hence perhaps also the increase in military’s spending to €1.5t with mention of the golden dome: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260117-does-trump-need-own-greenland-to-build-his-golden-dome-missile-shield But instead of including allies in this arrangement and working along side them - they want to deny any future leverage to those same allies in a bid to maintain primacy. They don’t just want to be at the table but at the head.

Not sure this cleanly fits the groyper divide but interesting debate on the wider MAGA divide: Could say there’s three factions - libertarian non-interventionist MAGA who are anti-imperial by principle (Dave Smith) - neocon nationalist / interventionist MAGA who white wash imperialism under the banner of patriotic self-interest (D’Souza) - ethno-religous nationalist who only want intervention to serve their identified in-group or create a fortress around Western “civilization” ie Monroe doctrine. They also want internalised imperialism to enforce their version of America.

@Jodistrict Yeah he’s great overall which is why I listen to every vid of his. The OFCFG or simply the global elite have factions with different but usually overlapping interests - in constant negotiation. He recognises these factions but within the capital faction assumes a clean coordination. He also overlooks imperial empire logic (which seeks primacy) and overweights capital logic (which seeks profits). That distinctions helps make sense of things. For example theres a entire national security / deep state faction of elites who care more for geostrategic position and primacy than simply for profits - even though they are usually linked and can make a profit (MIC) from enforcing the US’s primacy. In this recent vid he acknowledges factions but then goes on to say that the capital elites want to “actively see the system devour itself” against the wishes of the neocon (imperial empire) faction who want to maintain the system through desperate acts that only expedite its fall. But these capital elites who seek profits literally depend on the system that enforces its primacy ie US dollar system, Western laws and financial markets. Just because they invest in emerging markets (BRICS / gulf) doesn’t mean their “engineering” the collapse of the West so they can rise with the east. Parasites don’t intentionally kill the host they depend on but extract till they do so anyway - but the intention isn’t there in some grand plan. It’s simply just hedging and de-risking or looking for new frontiers to make profit which is normal profit seeking behaviour. They wouldn’t saw the branch on which they sit which is the Western platform on which they make money and park money safely. These “transnational” elites invest beyond their home nation but still depend on it. Wherever else they wanna go with their money they will be and are subject to dealing with sovereigns (gulf and BRICS) who will discipline their capital predation unlike in the West in which they are backstopped by the state. Blatant imperial empire behaviour is initially used to establish the primacy of its platform, that their capitalists can then make profits on from a position of privilege. Blatant imperialism then becomes subdued imperialism as long as that platform isn’t challenged - it’s just managed. Once challengers to the system emerge (China, BRICS etc) that threaten the primacy of that platform - blatant imperialism awakens again to enforce it - which is what we see now. The product (oil) is less important than the platform (US/Western financial system) those products are bought and sold on. Amazon cares less about what product ranks 1st than the fact that their platform is the dominant one.

I wasn’t aiming for technical precision. I was generalizing to make a broader point that’s directionally correct as you nicely laid out in your own words “It's an ongoing battle orchestrated and paid for by Saudi and other actors.” That’s what I meant but could’ve worded better by Muslim Brotherhood offshoots ie it itself isn’t Wahhabi but that adjacent groups / offshoots adopted a salafist literalist lens that Wahhabism globalised via funding. That strand (Wahhabism) and orientation (salafist literalist) of Islam was imposed - that was pushed back on (because of the differences you correctly point out). And even its original sponsors are trying to unwind and de-radicalize it.

How Europe feels sending 50 soldiers to Greenland: Trumps just announced tarrifs on NATO allies over Greenland: I think the US empire is trying to lock in Greenland because of its increasing strategic importance. It’s already within the US orbit but under Euro sovereignty that still requires cooperation and permission they’d rather not ask for. Imperialism wants total control - especially over possible riches and leverage via trade corridors and choke points. What could give Europe more importance and geo-strategic value is being snatched away before it becomes relevant. Europe needs to start carving out its own autonomy and hedging pragmatically rather than being sucked into bloc thinking. Canada boosting ties with China in the “new world order” for example.

Like Raze said - Western governments back and uphold Israel to do what it does (meaning you can protest your own governments actions) where as they don't uphold Iran's. I saw someone say ''pro-Palestine protests are calling to stop bombs (on a besieged stateless people), pro-Iran protests are calling for dropping bombs (on a regime they want changed)''. One thing we can see is that marginalization leads to more radicalization. That happens in Western countries with ghettoized migrant populations who in fact take on more hard line strands of Islam than even Muslims in Muslim countries ie Dawah bros of UK / Muslim brotherhood offshoots who are more Wahabi / Salafi compared to a Middle East who are over that and trying to tackle it themselves - despite their own states funding much of that historically. Soviet era atheism forced top down brought a resurgence in Orthodox Christianity after USSR falling. We see right Wing Christian nationalism rising also. If religion and tradition are marginalized too fast, or all together erased (soviet) they go underground and come back later hardened. Ironically - the status quo will look to remain until Iran's given some breathing room to evolve slowly and organically over time which is a boring and ''un-revolutionary''. A lot of their hardening is due to self preservation of elites / mullahs + external pressure from being attempted to be contained by the imperial hegemon of the day (US and Western allies). Makes them dig their feet in and centralize the state because any ''liberalising'' or opening up provides surface area and vectors from which to subvert and bring down that same regime. Usually most states don't get repressive because they get boners for it but a lot due to external pressures which are applied to some and not others depending on how geopolitically relevant that country is (resources, chokepoints, population etc) and whether it is aligned ie subjugated or not to imperial interests. If sanctions were lifted and it could get wealthier + integrate and feel accommodated in the region / world + have a strong middle class of educated people travelling and interacting with the world = that is the best bet at bottom up change and reform happening. Even Kirk commented on intervention:

Great breakdown of events. Everyone seems to be bracing for something to happen but who knows when - most of the US assets (ships etc) are around Venezuela in the Caribbean so maybe they need to move more into the region before doing anything as Elliot says. Also 25% of interceptors being depleted in the last 12 day war against Israel is worrying - these are expensive and take time to procure. The only way the US would do something is if it can guarantee a short shock and awe campaign - get in and get out sort of thing. They aren't prepared for prolonged war as Israel would be without any air defense within 30 days. The only reason Venezuela was done was because they obviously had military insiders bought off allowing for heli's to fly in low without even any attempt at shooting them down which a simple RPG could do let alone other means. Short engagement is what their after rather than entanglement like a Vietnam / Afghanistan. Saying that - deception and trickery is a hallmark of the current admin like we've seen. So Iran is still on high alert - if those assets are moving in like Elliot says then anything is possible over the weekend. It could be that the protests got cracked down on very quickly shortening the time horizon for them to act upon a distracted state - starlink was shut down (prob via Chinese or Russian tech). I'd be very surprised if anything were to happen though. This guy breaks down the Iranian situation well:

@Elliott

The best video to understand Iran from a Iranian American: https://x.com/sharghzadeh/status/2010790722027618359?s=20 Also the below two for the geopolitics: 14min onwards for the following: Imagine the West claiming it wants to bring democracy to Iran when in 1953 the same West overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh for nationalizing oil - then backed the dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi who crushed democracy through secret police, torture, and repression to protect Western oil interests. If the current regime change were to work - there would still be secular authoritarianism needed just to maintain order against a ideological segment of the population who are loyal to the cause, just like the monarchists of past. But also - when you are targeted by the world hegemon due to being geopolitically defiant against being folded into the imperial blob - that invites containment and coercion which then requires a level of centralization and repression to stabilize against it. That then becomes a feed back loop of justification ''see, they're repressive which is why we must bring the evil regime down''. It's a bind of sorts. No country or state would allow agents of chaos torching buildings and targeting government officials / police to roam free without any crack down. That's the whole point - to provoke a reaction then point the finger to the regime that needs ''democratic shock therapy'' and intervention. It provides a casus belli for by the hegemon not wanting defiance and challengers to the system they dominate in. Big Uncle Sam crying at its fading primacy and trying to fold any last holdouts of defiance into its imperial blobby bitch tits. ''We're still men'' is metaphor for ''we're still great aren't we?'' Zionists must be crying now because the regime change seems to have calmed down or flopped. Islamaphobe's boners must have also gone limp because ''evil Islam'' hasn't crashed and burned to be replaced by liberal utopia. Passport bro's also pissed cos they can't go after Persian baddies.