zazen

@Joshe True. Check out this released interview: His knowledge base seems just about wide enough (with depth in a few domains like finance) to where he can get on with a variety of people. Also seems quite chilled or laid back as you mentioned - but doesn't seem anything remarkable either intellect wise. Powerful men who want to indulge in vice can't do so easily with ''regular'' escorts because of the risk - they can buy sex but not safety. So they need controllable environments and women (in this or some cases young girls) - and control invariably leads to the exploitation and the dark underworld of trafficking. He provided illicit pleasure in a insulated space where they could let their guard down and be just as depraved as he was. Scum of the earth. Most people who networked with him or that he associated with probably didn't get involved in that filth - but simply being associated puts them on the chopping block and under suspicion until full disclosure. He was a intermediary between overlapping elite interests and provided access / leverage or dangled the potential of it like carrots to pull strings others couldn't.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01660651.pdf Wonder how much this plays into an attack happening. I’ve seen it commented around as a argument / factor. The US wanted Iran to concede around three things - nuclear, ballistic missiles, proxy support. The US left the JCPOA and last time during “discussions” they rug pulled Iran and Israel launched an attack. Don’t see why Iran or any country would trust the US. Even if they come to some sort of agreement on nuclear - it’s very unlikely they will give up on ballistic missiles as that’s their only real deterrance left. Trump and the US now need some sort of safe facing off ramp as they’ve gone all out with posturing up in the Middle East and can’t be seen as doing nothing and leaving. Iran says they’ll react to any action without restraint this time round compared to last time which is de-escalatory theatrics.

This hits different in 1.5x speed. A 7 month old vid as relevant today. Imagine this guy speaking at Davos Sermon on da tube type shee

Tunnels make sense then lol It's mainly Western empire not Jews - before the West it was other empires and even during the Wests reign other imperial powers existed but got squashed (Japan). The West has just dominated the imperial space the past centuries from colonialism till today where it is now being challenged into retreat by BRICS. Israel and Zionism is a very influential and powerful node within that wide architecture as I commented on on the previous page. Russia also had its own imperialism during the USSR simultaneously along side the West which is what the Cold War was about. But at the same time - Islamic, Chinese, Russian and increasingly Indian civilizations are large enough with enough binding glue of identity they want to fight for and not bend the knee to Western powers. Any power (Iran, Russia, China) or even non-power (Venezuela) that doesn't bend the knee to the uni-polar order gets targeted. Islamic civilization is potent but divided - and was divided. Today they are coming closer together un-evenly and haphazardly trying to extricate themselves and hedge against the West - each to varying degrees depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Gulf countries with oil money, Turkey and Pakistan with some muscle as deterrence and in Pakistan's case having the coming (already arrived?) superpower China on its side as its ''iron-brother''.

At its most basic it's Jews returning to their historic homeland. The term Zionism is new but the idea existed among Western Christians (protestants, calvinists, evangelicals) from before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism A big reason for it being well received and acted upon was because the powers of the time were already primed for it. That's aside from the material conditions - fall of Ottoman empire giving way to the British empire governing Palestine + mass industrial scale atrocities in Europe (culminating in the holocaust) = need for a moral and strategically aligned solution / project to replace a declining British empire that needed to leave that region without losing strategic influence. It's been Western aligned ever since and now tied to US interests as the baton got passed to the US as the world power. From the wiki link above: “The crumbling of the Ottoman Empire threatened the British route to India via the Suez Canal as well as sundry French, German and American economic interests. In 1831 the Ottomans were driven from the region of Syria (including Palestine) by an expansionist Egypt, in the First Turko-Egyptian War. Although Britain forced Muhammad Ali to withdraw to Egypt, the Levantwas left for a brief time without a government. The ongoing weakness of the Ottoman Empire made some in the west consider the potential of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. A number of important figures within the British government advocated such a plan, including Charles Henry Churchill.[40][41] Again during the lead-up to the Crimean War (1854), there was an opportunity for political rearrangements in the Near East. In July 1853, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, who was President of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, wrote to Prime Minister Aberdeen urging Jewish restoration as a means of stabilizing the region.[8][42][43]” The starting point is the same (return to homeland) but the reason for return and what its meant to achieve is different for different groups which is where the confusion comes. Multiple reasons converged together - a divine promiseland, security from persecution, imperial strategy for empire. Herzel plugged into a existing worldview of the powers at the time who could make that vision come true. The major problem everyone has had and still has now is the implementation of that vision and that native Palestinians already existed there who are trying to be sidelined / cleansed.

I've communicated with humans plenty on this exact topic - me and some OG posters here ran the Israel/Palestine thread into page 100's. I also comment longer than I should so once in a while if I transparently share something AI aided me in articulating gimme a break lol Of course they influence - but that's different to run and control of the US. A state that depends on another for weapons, aid and diplomatic cover doesn't control the one that can cut those off. Lobbying exists precisely because it doesn't have total command and control. There's no need for a secretive conspiratorial cabal of Jews when you have aligned interests. Lobbying helps maintain that alignment. Israel is a a semi-dependent, highly influential node inside a much larger imperial system. A imperfect but close enough analogy is a husband-wife relationship. Say the husband (US) is the breadwinner of the house while the wife (Israel) freelances here and there. They both align on a shared destiny of family and having a baby - parallel to this is the US and Israel both wanting regional domination of the Middle East. The wife (Israel) can influence the husband (US) on how she wants family life to look, what holidays they go on, shopping, and even when to have kids ie on her timeline vs the husbands. Parallel to this is the US not wanting to go all out against Iran but Israel pressuring them that its now or never - similar to a wife pressuring the husband ''I don't care if you feel financially stable enough, my baby fever is sky high''. When the wife nags (Israel lecturing US it needs to go harder on Iran) or looks into the husbands phone suspecting him of cheating (Israel spying) - this causes friction but not divorce. This is tolerated because its a special relationship held by both being indispensable to each others goals and through the glue of by emotion / narrative ie love / zionism. Just like how empire and imperialism hijacked Christianity as a justification layer for itself - so it did with Zionism. Christian Zionism predates Jewish Zionism by centuries - its a vessel for Western exceptionalism and imperialism, manifest destiny and evangelicalism - all that just so happens to converge on Israel. Zionism became the perfect moral language to launder those interests through especially in a post-colonial era where the norms of outright conquest and colonialism no longer existed. When Westerners critique Zionism they aren't just critiquing another foreign state but are implicitly challenging the story that legitimises their own empire - which is why its politically toxic and culturally sidelined wherever possible - until it becomes too glaringly obvious that it can no longer be. Israel is a frontier state in a valuable region for the empire (Mackinder world island) - they have much leverage because of this and are tolerated to a high degree, including their own interests being accommodated. Even if we give in to the idea that US actions in the Middle East are all or mostly for Israel - how then would we explain US actions in Latin/South America, Europe/NATO and Asia. The US empire is massive in scale and is the clear patron in this otherwise mutually beneficial relationship. American's complain about how it doesn't benefit America or American's - but it was never meant to. It benefits the empire state not the nation state. As if the US would be on the side of national interest and not private capital interests if Israel didn't exist.

Brilliant - that deserves its own thread. I’d add this related vid: The issue is anger is being polarized across cultural-identity politics lines which usually doesn’t bring a revolution but instead civil war. People need to coalition build and unite across class lines and challenge the power structure itself not simply “Trump” the scapegoat. Protests only work when they’re disruptive to elite interest / the power structure. Ghandi made the status quo to costly through massive mobilized disobedience and disruption. Likewise with Mandela and ending of apartheid including with BDS movement - which is why it’s penalised or banned. Frances’s Albanese got sanctioned and silenced the moment she started revealing the corporate profiteering off of the Gaza ethnic cleansing campaign, not before - despite her open critique of Israel. She said this on a interview with Chris Hedges. Injustice needs to be made un-profitable, because profits hurt elite interests - who don’t care for change unless the cost of not changing crosses a certain threshold. This can all be done peacefully but requires unity and patience - both of short supply.

Commented just last week and on the previous page how China is tactically downgraded as a threat, to strategically maintain primacy and consolidate power and leverage wherever possible. Yesterday Pentagon released its new defense strategy : https://news.sky.com/story/china-no-longer-americas-top-defence-priority-pentagon-says-13498252 “The main focus on the homeland includes a section about the US no longer ceding key terrain in the Western Hemisphere and how the Pentagon will provide Mr Trump with "credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal." These are material structural shifts in the world order. The US had imperial dominion over the whole earth which it considered as its sphere - it had universality. That era has upended and is now challenged with the rise of other powers specifically China - Thucydides trap in effect. They know they can’t challenge or contain this rival directly without paying enormous cost. So this Thucydides trap will be managed and not catastrophic or world ending. What has usually ended up in war between the rising power vs the unipolar power seeking to maintain the status quo - is not applicable today due to mutually assured destruction. What will be replaced by universality is exclusivity and locking in of a imperial US orbit and core. Alignment and loyalty to a US-centric system used to be assumed but now has to be coerced and enforced. This is why the US now views it “allies” not as junior partners but as assets to extract from, maintain and cement US primacy. They ironically call for “stronger allies” and a “stronger Europe” whilst expecting them to be strategically kneecapped and tied to US interests. Strong but not sovereign. Europe has structural reasons as to why it will struggle to be a geopolitical pole - its not a rival to the US in any threatening way. But it can be seen as a threat to empire in the sense of it drifting East to where it naturally connects geographically - which is also outside of US control. Eurasian continental integration is a hedge against the Atlanticist monopoly of Europe which seeks to keep it tied to the US orbit. Venezuela is likewise a disciplinary move to enforce this US-centric economic / systems level iron curtain. Ditto with Trump threatening 100% tariffs on Canada for flirting with trade dealing with China. A neighbor like Canada whose part of NATO and a G7 nation, exercising its autonomy in this way is seen as defiance within the imperial core - an unacceptable example that emboldens others to diversify, defect and hedge: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4qww3w72lo.amp Keir Starmer will be in China soon to boost ties: https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-finance-trade-chiefs-to-join-keir-starmers-china-trip/ EU looking to have a trade deal with India: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgyz1ejw9no.amp US vassals already attempting to hedge with BRICS nations - the same nations they lectured about funding and aiding Russia. Reality re-asserts itself against delusions of ideology. US uni-polarity is ending, its hegemony in relative decline is inevitable - only expedited by its own desperate actions. Don’t mistake this as just a Trump phenomena - it’s institutional not just personal. There is a deep state apparatus behind him looking to maintain if not manage this imperial decline by coercively carving out its position in a multi-polar world - as the Pentagon itself confirms.

Don’t have the time atm to cleanly write what I currently understand on this topic but voice noted chat gpt and told it to tidy up my thoughts: “It is false to say that Israel “runs” or “controls” the United States government. Power does not flow from a smaller state into the core of a global empire. The US security state, military primacy, financial system, and global reach are not subordinated to Israel or to any ethnic group. The existence of AIPAC actually demonstrates this: lobbying exists to manage and maintain alignment, not to command the system. If Israel truly ran US policy, a highly visible, resource-intensive lobby would be unnecessary. What people are misidentifying as “control” is narrative dominance and ideological utility. Zionism does not drive US imperial strategy, but it has become one of the most effective justification layers within it—especially in the Middle East. US imperial logic (power projection, corridor control, pre-emption, primacy) predates Zionism and would exist without it. But explicit imperial language—Manifest Destiny, civilizational conquest, open domination—has become politically toxic in the post-colonial era. Zionism solves that problem by laundering older Western imperial logics through a morally sympathetic frame rooted in Jewish historical trauma and survival. It reframes domination as defense, exceptionalism as necessity, and violence as moral duty. This is why Zionism persists far beyond religion or ethnicity. There are more Zionists in the US than in Israel, many of them secular, including elites in tech, finance, and security. For them, Zionism is not theological; it is functional. It models a hard-state doctrine that prioritizes security, pre-emption, hierarchy, and technological supremacy, while remaining morally legible to Western audiences. It provides domestic consent, elite coherence, and plausible deniability. Washington points to Israel’s “security needs,” Israel points to US backing, politicians point to voters or donors, and responsibility is diffused across the system rather than owned by the imperial core. So the accurate formulation is this: Israel does not run the US state. Zionism operates as a powerful ideological interface inside US imperial architecture. Israel is a protected, symbiotic, junior node—indispensable in one region, but not sovereign over the system itself. Claims about “Jewish control” collapse because they confuse an effective narrative mechanism with the underlying structure of empire. The engine is imperial power; Zionism is one of the stories that keeps it socially and politically survivable.” Also - these two videos:

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”