zazen

@sholomar Brilliantly said

Good breakdown man - the times are uncertain as to how AI will have a cascading effect on many industries and “knowledge work” with now even creative work being disrupted. There could be a return to the “real world” where authentic reality becomes more valued - perhaps including “human made” work. Imagine instead of “Made in Italy” we have “Made by Human” as a marker of value. Almost like a vintage antique parallel world where human made becomes premium even if not as “perfect” as AI/robotic made products/production. Unreal how good seed dance 2.0 is that came out this week: I just watched Marty Supreme last night - nothing will beat that real gritty rawness of real world movie making imo.

Of course no denying any that. The hypocrisy doesn’t prove ideals didn't exist - every system establishes ideals we fail to live up to consistently - just like the ideals of today when the West backs Israels ethnic cleansing and all the other things it does whilst talking of human rights and promoting democracy. Same with Muslims who do everything under the sun then decline eating pork at the restaurant lol For sure: Not saying abuses didn't exist amongst Muslims, just like everywhere in the world especially in the past, and still today unfortunately. Islam actually gave women provisions and protections (legal personhood status, inheritance, rights etc) over a thousand years ago - the same standard we celebrate in the West today as recent ''developments''. No wonder Western women had to revolt. Coverture laws in English common law literally erased a woman's legal existence upon marriage - her property, earnings or ability enter contracts all became her husband's. The things Western modernity actually introduced that are genuinely new like mass political structures (nation states), industrial economies etc aren't so much moral achievements but material developments. With that also came better state capacity, institutions and enforcement mechanisms of laws and ''moral principles'' - such as treating women better by acknowledging their worth. But Islam had already introduced those moral principles millenia ago - despite material development lacking. Many cases of women winning in court over various affairs, inheritance etc in the Ottoman records etc - the ability to challenge men in court or be recognized legally wasn't even available in the West until recently. Even if we go by voting rights not existing for women in Islam - voting based democracies didn't exist anywhere so there's no way it could have. And even by that metric - large Muslim nations allow women to vote and have had women presidents whilst the beacon of freedom and liberty still hasn't (US). People still cherry pick Tali bro's as evidence of the exception when majority of Muslims and Muslim nations don't agree with their approach: The later videos of the women critiquing Saudi Arabia and or Iran if it comes up (haven't seen them) are right to do so. Those are frankenstein interpretations of Islam that are now thankfully changing. There's wide variation among Muslim's implementing Islam with a few core pillars remaining intact. Even with the punishment aspect - there's plenty of context behind applying them (including the entirety of the sharia). They were rarely applied (chopping hands for stealing) and mostly worked as a deterrent at a time when they didn't have prisons etc. That girl brought up the very reasonable point about the needy and starving being punished for stealing. A quick google AI search: ''Suspension During Famine: Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, famously suspended the hadd (cut-off) punishment for stealing during a year of famine. Need as Doubt (Shubhah): Islamic jurisprudence holds that necessity, such as stealing to survive, creates a "doubt" (shubhah) that invalidates the application of the maximum punishment. Ruling by Scholars: Renowned jurists, including Ahmad ibn Hanbal, confirmed that the hand is not cut for theft when the act is driven by necessity during times of hardship.'' Developments in the West have definitely helped loosen the rigidity of gender roles and norms - but it's not like women in Islam were barred from economic roles either. The economies back then were just not developed to the same degree. In fact many women including the prophets wives ran successful businesses / were merchants and scholars that were revered and taught in positions of authority. His first marriage was monogamous and lasted 25 years till his wifes death (he was 25, she was 40). If his primary driver was sexual desire or accumulation of women that makes no sense. People try to imply things to him for the fact he had multiple wives - such as his lust or greed or desire for young pure women. From AI: ''They were widowed, vulnerable members of a war-torn society. Marriage was the welfare system. There were no pensions, no social services, no safety nets. Marriage was protection, status, and survival. In tribal Arabia, marriage was the primary way to form alliances. For example: Marriage to Juwayriya bint al-Harith led to: Her entire tribe being freed from captivity, hundreds of people gaining freedom, her tribe becoming allies instead of enemies Marriage to Safiyya bint Huyayy helped reconcile former Jewish tribal enemies and integrate them peacefully. Marriage to Aisha bint Abi Bakr strengthened the bond with Abu Bakr, his closest companion and future leader. These marriages stabilized a fragile society. They were state-building marriages.'' Guess even enlightened homeboy couldn't spin that many plates and had to cap it at 4 in the end. Ignore her proselytising at the end. So cringe and stupid when Muslims do that: Cool link. I would go by the definition of biological reality, not psychological reality where people identity as women or experience themselves as women.

Men and women are different, and naturally disparities show up. Progressives mistake is in thinking all disparity is unjust, trad cons mistake is thinking those disparities and differences are ''just the way things should be'' and that no deviation should be tolerated ie women/men belong only to their specific roles. Sexism is assigning moral superiority or inferiority based on those sexual differences - but its neither. It's just a matter of function downstream from biology, that produces generalities. Those generalities shouldn't be fixed prisons for either sex, but neither should they be ignored or attempt to be abolished ''women can do anything a man can do, and better'' rhetoric. There are real material constraints on both sexes that come in the way of either sex doing what each is able to do, to the level the other sex can do it more effortlessly. On the survival video for example - women tend to favor non-confrontation and consensus (which takes time) rather than clear hierarchy that is contested or seen as unfair - so in a survival scenario where time is of the essence men self-organise into a hierarchy quicker and are okay with a clear leader to follow and get on with things (in general). Also there's a clear bias towards physicality and strength in that environment which would favor them winning. None of us including you or Raze are even advocating for some past abusive system of ''patriarchy'' they think we are lol It's simply that external constraints have been removed through development (pill, internet, education) and now internal constraints on behaviour have more importance in maintaining certain norms that stabilise society - which is the domain of culture. Oppressive norms have been dismantled, but healthy norms haven't replaced them to the same degree. The same culture that rightly brought about equality of dignity, law, and opportunity is spilling over into equality of outcome and identical sameness. Cultural shifts aren't just celebrating removal of constraints but are encouraging / tolerating reckless behaviour in absence of those constraint - simply because its exercising newly won ''freedoms''. People can understand how a unregulated free market leads to a winner take all effect, but don't apply it the sexual market place (ooo i'm objectifying now - just get the point lol). Libertines are economic socialists but sexual capitalists. Obviously these things shouldn't be coerced either (enforced monogamy like Jordan Peterson once spoke about) but the wider cultural conversation should just lean towards long term planning, stability, and modesty (not prudeness) - for both men AND women. Both sexes should together discourage certain kinds of media being so prevalent. There's a difference between being free to do something, and being told by a wider discourse that you will find freedom in and through doing that act. Technically we'r allowed to sleep around with as many people - doesn't mean fulfillment or stability will be a consequence of it.

Existence of past hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate current observations. No one here is even saying they agree with past or current abuses or that we should go back. It’s soy to construct extreme assumptions no one ever made so that they can easily be ranted against heroically with white knight energy. Much like we have mixed economies instead of binary “capitalism vs socialism” we have a hybrid of patriarchy / matriarchy today - it’s more domain specific. In hard power (finance, military/security) and apex / top positions men still dominate, in soft power (education, HR, healthcare) and social roles women do. Men have command power while women increasingly have influence power that used to be limited to the household and is now scaled to institutions. Men are the head (command), women the neck that can some what turn that head (influence). Apex men broke norms and benefited the most (Hugh Hefner, Rock stars etc) whilst women largely normalised those same norms being broke through a feminist / liberatory lens. The biggest slut shamers used to be other women - today the biggest enforcers of “don’t slut shame” are also women. Talking about past or current patriarchy collapses men into one bucket that hides the inequality among men themselves. Men are both the rulers and the expendable class while women are underrepresented at both extremes and inhabit the middle “protected” class. Most men never had or could have mistresses or swap their wives for a younger one. Patriarchy was itself an unequal hierarchy amongst men. Just like today, the more visible predatory behaviour of some deplorable chads gets projected to most men.

@Elliott There's variation among conservatives too. Their some massive hypocrites and / or the overton window has shifted so far that they're operating within liberal norms, whilst thinking they're being conservative. If we compare to non-Western cons or more traditional minded migrants in the West even there's quite a difference. The trad cons and right wingers miss the stability of traditional systems, but still want the freedom of the modern system, especially the red bill bros. They talk of societal decline whilst spouting ''spin plates bro'' accelerating the decline. The chad types indulge and game the disparity created by the same freedoms they finger wag, whilst grifting incels to do the same. The Wests moral authority became the individual. Elevation of individual autonomy became the highest moral good - with feminism becoming one of the expressions, and spilling into other domains later. The earlier phase of feminism around legal rights etc is different to what later became license to ''do as thou wilt'' or not being ''judged'' for doing so especially around sexuality - framing any sort of constraint as repressive. Technology and development (contraception, washing machine, internet, education / urbanization) removed a lot of external constraints - but the culture/shift in consciousness removed the internal constraints on behaviour too. Structural changes shift incentives, cultural changes influence how we interact with those new incentives / environments. For example in the West there are many religious muslim's from conservative backgrounds still largely behaving traditional - despite being in a environment where no more constraints are there and if anything the influence to behave more degenerate are all around shown in music, movies etc. As the structural incentives change it becomes much harder to ''self-police'' or constrain ourselves - continuous conscious uphill battle. Which is why many conservatives try to change their environment to not be tempted - ie don't buy the cookies and ice cream and bring them into the house if on a diet, rather than burning willpower to not open the naught by snack cupboard in the kitchen. When a society lose a meta transcendent identity they self-sort into all kinds of sub groups / identities to feel rooted. Psychological apartheid energy.

Same - real protests hijacked by provocateurs as boasted about by Mike Pompeo etc. Very interesting take from Turkeys admiral:

If egalitarianism is a value or principle, socialist principles are just a method of achieving it. I think it depends how everyone is defining socialism and capitalism ie is socialism erasure of property rights/ownership or simply disciplining the market for social benefit. Today we largely have mixed economies but there are leanings where one side dominates. Blueoak is correct to critique the market as the only means to produce or provide something: @Elliott Markets naturally have short time horizons and lean to profit maximization. Some fundamentals / public goods need long time horizons / heavy upfront investment or are too critical to allow monopolistic control over leading to monopoly pricing. Norway has complete ownership or large stakes in many critical industries / public goods compared to UK for example where things have been privatized and prices have increased a lot. Norway also has a sovereign wealth fund - the key word there being sovereign. The main issue in the West and particularly UK/US more so is that they allowed capital to become too sovereign / autonomous and didn't maintain a hierarchy where the state is the apex authority / power center. Capital should be sub-ordinate to the state and national interest / development. The glamorised ''rugged individuals'' who built America - industrialist capitalists - had to be broken up due to becoming to powerful. Capitalists / libertarians attribute the golden era of of the US to them to justify capitalism but in reality the golden era came after them laying the foundation (literally tracks and rail roads). Even that was only enabled by massive land grants by the state so it wasn't just some lone individualist capitalists building the US. It's the equivalent of being given land by the state today - anything you build and the value you add is captured without the major upfront cost of acquiring the land eating into your profits. ''The golden era (roughly 1945–1970) only emerged after the state intervened to rebalance power. The state did three critical things: Broke monopolies (antitrust) Regulated finance tightly (Glass-Steagall, capital controls) Invested massively in infrastructure, education, and industrial capacity This subordinated capital to national development. Capital became productive and constrained.'' That was a anomaly. Things reverted back to extractive, speculative rentier oligarchy. Feudalism just became financialized and hollowed out the nation. The solution obviously isn't to go full socialist either because it messes incentives / pricing etc. Going by your reply to Blueoak I don't think he'd want to have the value of his labor re-distributed to you lol. Families in-fight over inheritance, friends get pissed for not splitting the bill fairly if they ate an extra chip - let alone scaling this to an entire nation. ''Toil for me comrade'' - doesn't work brother. The ego is undefeated and bhuddahood doesn't scale - not even in our era of internet access to gurus or Leo's body of work. Maybe we need state directed enforcement of airlines needing to only show high conscious material like Leo's youtube - but then libs will scream authoritarian for taking away their ''fReEdOM''. ''I wanna watch homeland and Kardashians yaaaas''

In-directly applying pressure to such a degree that once a threshold is crossed and people revolt we see crackdowns by the same regime that’s hardened by the same sanctions - causing them to act brutal to survive. We saw the culmination of that this year. Death counts anywhere from 5-30k+ - not sure what to believe but whatever the number its insane in such a short amount of days. Russia is far more resilient to the sanctions because it’s ''too big too fail'' in a sense. It wasn't sanctioned until much later because EU depends on their energy - sanctioning them hurts themselves. Even when it was, it wasn't fully isolated the same way as Iran was. Iran's been under sanctions far longer and far harsher so the pressures been built over time. They also don't have any exits / options for the people to migrate to as the regions either war torn or impossible borders to cross unlike Venezuela which releaved a lot of the pressure - millions migrating into neighboring countries. NK is a dystopia with fully locked down under a bunker mentality made for isolation. The people are tragically under total surveillance state control. No one can coordinate revolt. If a person steps out of line their entire bloodline gets affected and punished. Wiki, Yeonjwa: ''three to eight generations of a political offender's family can be summarily imprisoned or executed. Relatives are not told why they fell under suspicion and the punishment extends to children born in prison.'' What a shit hole - if there's one case of a country that deserves the entire world to rescue its people it would be NK but the fuckers have nukes.

The most basic stand on Iran is that the government needs to change (reform, not necessarily regime change) and that external actors shouldn’t intervene in counterintuitive un-ethical ways (sanctions or war) that only leads to hardening of the regimes posture under seige conditions and hardship / bloodbath for locals. Confessions of a economic hitman: Lesson learnt for 85% of the globe: participate in BRICS to hedge against this financialized imperialism that the US and West have monopoly over. OG Middle East expert: Liberalising requires surplus, which require stability, which requires at least some coercive capacity to begin with. The West went through internal repression, elite consolidation and coercive state building - externalized much violence through empire, then domestically liberalized. They had slack to do so - which no longer exists for late developers in a post-colonial world. Countries start to deal with human rights and liberal values once they have the conditions for it after securing the human right of survival and stability. The West's very own actions get in the way, sabotaging that sequence. Intervention by empire used to be justified by the “white mans burden” and is now laundered through “democracy promotion”. The same countries being “helped” get judged by countries that themselves went through and are at the end of that developmental sequence.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 9/EFTA00090314.pdf “(U) Captioned Confidential Human Source (CHS) was asked by the handling agent about information he/she may be aware of related to improper domestic or foreign influence over the electoral process in the U.S. CHS already provided some of this information documented in previous reports, but he/she expanded on several matters, as described below: (U Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (Dershowitz). CHS learned that Dershowitz influenced many students from wealthy families. For example. Josh Kushner (Josh) and Jared Kushner (Jared) were both his students. Dershowitz told CHS that if he were young again, he would be holding a stun gun as an Israeli Intelligence (Mossad) agent. CHS believed Dershowitz was co-opted by Mossad and subscribed to their mission. CHS still continues to communicate occasionally for Dershowitz [See previous reporting]. (U) Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) was represented by Dershowitz. CHS remembered Dershowitz tell Alex Ocasta (U.S. Attorney of Southern District of Florida at the time) that Epstein belonged to both U.S. and allied intelligence services. CHS shared phone calls between Dershowitz and Epstein during which he/she took notes. After these calls, Mossad would then call Dershowitz to debrief. Epstein was close to the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak (Barak) and trained as a spy under him. Barak believed Netanyahu was a criminal. Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are allied against Qatar, Turkey, Iran and Syria. One of CHS' (who presumably worke asked CHS a lot of questions about Epstein. CHS became convinced t t pstein was a co-opted Mossad Agent (see previous reporting).”

Clickbaity title and thumbnail but interesting related vid.

True - if I get it then egalitarianism is a value (reducing unfair disparities), socialism is a property and power arrangement (eliminating ownership to reduce inequalities and classes all together?

Related. MEGA.

This. “The question is whether “True Communism” much like “True Capitalism” can ever be implemented in their purest forms by a human nature that isn’t 100% pure. Communism demands we not be greedy for the sake of community and assumes others will fend for us - capitalism demands we be greedy enough to fend for ourselves and assumes doing so will have a trickle down effect on those less able to compete with us.” Utopianism doesn’t scale - bhudaahood doesn’t scale to where people can and will be egoless enough to work and not see the fruits of their labour - but see those fruits distributed to the community within which some people don’t work as hard or well. Fucks up the incentives. Life is complex and wiggly - any ism trying to force life into straight lines will fail (got that from Alan Watts).