zazen

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/11/britain-icc-funding-netanyahu-arrest-warrant Interestingly Francesca Albanese (UN special rapporteur) says she was sanctioned mainly after she started threatening the profits behind the Israel-Gaza conflict - and not simply for criticising Israel.

The Europe of today will be different in 20 years for sure. But depends what their talking about - power, cohesion of Euro nations, or ''ethnic aesthetic'' due to migration and low native birth rate - or all the above which can be tied together. By the end of the century its possible the natives could be a minority at a national level - and most definitely at a urban level in major cities. The catch 22 is low native birth rates needed to be compensated by migration - but migration is now becoming contested - yet is still required because the current math just doesn't math - you can't sustain a inverted demographic pyramid where you have more dependents (retired elderly) than those that provide the tax base for them (youthful workers). The other issue is assimilation vs parallel societies being created. Also, are these migrants or communities distinctly different to the host nation? For Europe much them can be due to majority of the migration from Africa/Middle East. Islam is also a very strong and distinct identity that doesn't dilute so easily - especially if the host country doesn't have a strong counter identity to assimilate them into their own ''norms''in the first place. Some people will assimilate but others won't - its everything in between. But this can eventually end up having a effect on the institutions of that country in the long run, including its core values being challenged. What happens when you eventually have haram police shaming only fans models or Bonnie Blue lol she just got away easy by being banned from Bali: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxe42w2j0lo instead of jailed. Just by the sheer scale and numbers - European or Westerners are a minority on the planet - and it's their region which is melding into a melting pot. The other regions will remain distinctly their own culturally / civilizationally because of lack of alternative cultures or people mixing into them to the same degree. Africa will remain Africa, China Chinese and India Indian. South America - South American - it's already very mixed itself - maybe that's Europe's future - EuroBrazil with Muslim characteristics instead of Brazillian but lifts and bikini culture. It would be a shame to lose a distinctive European culture and identity also - which isn't racist but just as a appreciation for having diversity in a true macro sense of another ''civilization'' to enjoy with its own distinctive culture. Other places are threatened by consumerism and globalized homogeneity but not in the same way. Like we can still go to Japan and sure we'll see Mcdonald's and glass buildings etc but the wider container is still very Japanese. Same with India or even UAE for example. There's still a very strong dominant culture. I think the West diluted away their identity (various reasons) and didn't bend the newcomers coming in to that core identity - not in a uniform way but just as a bare minimum to ''fit in''. Rome absorbed foreigners but glorified Rome. Ottomans integrated diversity but centered around Ottoman primacy. Americans integrated migrants while mythologising what it is to be American. I've noticed when asking American's where they're from they lead with nationality vs ancestry which is what ethnic Europeans or Brits usually lead with or include in defining themselves. They say ''I'm British Indian-Chinese-etc'' while Americans simply say ''I'm American'' then require a follow up asking about their ''background''. Europe seems to have lost it's center.

Seems it no? Just by looking at the incentives. I went to uni with a rich Kazakh guy (international students) - and how it often goes is that Western aligned elite factions from these countries act in ways to gain favour from the Western elites themselves - at the expense of national interests of their home country. Political corruption. This guy for example was telling me how political connections he knew of wanted to oust the current government (in Kazakh) who weren't as aligned to the West but were doing investment deals with China etc. And it's not even about whether they dislike China or not but more that their own connections and affiliations in the West means that they'll personally profit from it. That's how it works in much of the developing countries in Africa etc also. A full on war doesn't even have to break out where that Chinese infrastructure is damaged. It's just enough chaos to signal uncertainty and hit investor confidence to slow things down or derail certain projects. These elites are insulated from the wider economy weakening because the will profit from their patrons instead. Keeping in mind the above - Cambodia's new government that came in 2023 is led by Hun Manet succeeding his father. His son is more Western aligned as he's educated in the West and went to military academy at West point. Doesn't mean fully aligned and torching China relations but definitely playing a balancing act. Also - US Cambodia relations were quiet until Biden visitied in 2022. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/biden-pledges-u-s-will-work-with-southeast-asian-nations-at-summit-in-cambodia Also - https://2021-2025.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ICS_EAP_Cambodia_PUBLIC.pdf ''Mission Cambodia has necessarily adapted its Integrated Country Strategy to address significantly changed conditions, including a new Cambodian government that came to power in August 2023. Mission Cambodia is pursuing an affirmative engagement strategy with the new generation of Cambodia’s leaders, while utilizing all diplomatic, information, military, and economic tools in support of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.'' Also from Google AI - ''Ream Naval Base controversy centers on Western (primarily US) fears that Cambodia is granting China exclusive or permanent military access to the base in the Gulf of Thailand, which would expand China's military footprint in Southeast Asia. Cambodia vehemently denies these claims, maintaining the base is sovereign territory and open to all "friendly" navies on a rotational basis.'' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2k42n54kvo#:~:text=Soon the two corvettes were,dock at the new pier. Also - news just in of Thai army reporting "English-speaking foreigners" involved in controlling Ukraine-style FPV drones including fiber-optic controlled drones. https://x.com/BrianJBerletic/status/1999069762513711461 Seems to point one way simply by looking at the timing of events and incentives in place.

From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dz0g2ykpeo.amp “As well as the collection of social media information, the new document proposes the gathering of an applicant's telephone numbers and email addresses used over the last five and 10 years respectively, and more information about their family members.” Next year is the World Cup also. God Bless America and Israel - I guess 😂

New vid from the GOAT: “The expanding drone strikes on Russian energy infrastructure represent a long-term U.S. strategy aimed at weakening Russia and constraining China’s rise through an emerging, de facto energy blockade."

Good to see you mentioned Akala: Lowkey is also unreal:

From that old thread: Something must already exists in the first place to be opportunistically pulled on - a grievance or dispute. China is approaching its first land based supply chain that would make the Malacca chokepoint redundant. It doesn't align with China's incentives to want to de-stabilise or cause issues here - but it does for the US's overall containment strategy against China. Same guy shared this about the recent flare up and the new National Security Strategy: https://x.com/BrianJBerletic/status/1998661988164186204 The "New" US National Security Strategy, Same as the Old "so when we look at the rise of the Chinese military, what our goal in the joint force is to create multiple, simultaneous dilemmas for ALL of the adversaries around the world, so that they are very cautious and concerned about doing something that would bring any sense of threat to the American people [read: American interests abroad]." Here is the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitting that the US is pursuing an "Extending Russia" policy against ALL designated US adversaries, including Russia, China, and Iran. This strategy has served as the basis of US foreign policy for decades, and is the foundation neo-conservative driven US hegemony has been based on. Beyond deliberately misleading corporate media headlines, inside the halls of corporate funded think tanks, the truth is admitted openly in forums they know the general public and even many commentators will never hear or see. Listen from 10 min - 14 min (the quoted / emboldened part is at 10 min 30 sec). Interesting 4 minutes. Another quote: ''Are we in an AI arms race with China? I think I think there's the possibility that we end up in an AI arms race. I think we could end up in a variety of different things because technology is developing so fast. And what I'm trying to create with my other joint chiefs who are here is our ability to win from the seabed up to CIS lunar space and beyond and to create more dilemmas for other people than they create for us. And I think we can totally do that if we take the best of the military plus the best of the intelligence community plus the best of our allies and partners plus the best of the private sector coupled with Congress and others and private capital and public capital coming together. We can build the force that will allow us to maintain the dominant position that we have on the globe and deliver peace through overwhelming strength, which is what our people deserve.'' ''And that's going to require the best of the military, the best of the Congress, the best of the private sector, and the best of not just the defense industrial base, but the national industrial base.'' This is what we can see happening. It's also in line with Project 2025 - where they discuss burden sharing and ''division of labor'' among allies as Peter Hegseth has said many times.. The grand strategy is re-shore critical supply chains and bolster industrial bases to be self sufficient (which is a good thing) - but if the end intention is that this means they can then go to war (it becomes bad). Also - them wanting Europe to be strong (upping military spending etc), doesn't mean them wanting Europe to be sovereign. They want their partners and allies strong yet subservient to US strategic interests and strategy - that strength is tied to the US orbit (economically, militarily, geopolitically and technologically via a US dominated tech stack). This also is in line with the Monroe Doctrine 2.0 as discussed in the new national strategy and correlates with actions we are seeing with Venezuela, Greenland etc: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf ''we want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine'' The US deep state permanent class isn't just a single ''blob'' but multiple blobs (Tech, Finance, three letter agencies, MIC). That's why the West hasn't always had coherence or long termism - because of short political time horizons and divergent interests - the system is rigged for private trans-national interests rather than a national purpose (of national development and geopolitical strength from the ground up). Those interests are constants regardless of who's president, but they also are in constant negotiation and bargaining - interests can diverge or align. What seems to be happening now is that they are aligning much more coherently due to geopolitical pressure - towards this grand strategy seeks dominance across domains - and the key thing that is a multi-domain multiplier is AI. Which is why all are coming together on a sort of war footing and piling into AI like the Manhattan project. This is why they have they just recently announced the Genesis mission - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/launching-the-genesis-mission/ Why I emboldened private capital:

Lol bro i'm pro European too - pro world in fact. These labels can be way too limiting - we slap them on too easily and think they explain everything. Life is much more complex and ''liberal democracy'' whatever one thinks that is isn't the final form or universal model we are all ''developing towards''. There's all these assumptions which come along with these terms we use. One assumption of being a liberal democracy is that it's the only and best model to cut corruption. Singapore, UAE and China beg to differ. Another conflation that happens is between liberal progressiveness as a cultural phenomenon with liberal democracy as a system - we think that because the political system is a certain way - the culture will and should follow as a end point. Poland, Hungary etc are electoral democracies with rights frameworks (liberal democracies) - but socially and culturally more conservative. Singapore protects property rights and operates under constitutional rule but rejects social liberalism. Not everything has to be identical to the West to be legitimate. We should also interrogate our own democracies - is it just enough that we have the right to vote or is the impact of that vote equally important? Does the center of power exist at the presidential level the way we think it does or is there deeper layer of multiple interests groups ie the permanent bureaucracy or ''blob'' or ''deep state''. Are we really in democracies in the way we think and define them? I staunchly disagree with what liberalism has turned into or permitted today in the West: Maybe Zelensky should be sent 2-3 year Dagestan and forget haha On a serious note about how to Make Europe Great Again lol. If Europe wants to be militarily sovereign and have a unified military umbrella like NATO - the issue becomes who leads the command structure when you have 27 nations? The issue with NATO is that the command structure is American. You can have all the military might in terms of arms and men ready to fight or protect Europe - but they require the political will to do so collectively and the command structure that is able to coordinate them against any adversary. The world is getting much more complex - and in that kind of a world it will be the political systems that are the most nimble, flexible and adaptable that will deal better with that pace of change. The issue we have in the West and the EU is political paralysis and slowness of everything. This is a massive disadvantage in today's world and needs to be fixed.

I think it’s less ideological and more that the cost-benefit doesn’t add up in favour of continuing the war. Ukraine was instrumentalized in weakening / containing Russia indirectly - it was never meant to defeat Russia decisively. It’s now reaching it’s threshold of use. Any further support that can be given to decisively defeat Russia now risks direct war and involvement of NATO which isn’t desirable ie flirting with troops on the ground or tomahawks etc. Have a look also at the latest 33 page national security strategy that’s been released: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf The sentiment among Europeans is the Europe has been “dropped”. But realistically - what is the end game otherwise? Continue escalating to WW3.. Ukraine was an asset that now has become a liability - it’s not sentimental but strategic. Geopolitics is a cold game that should avoid being moralised. This is from back in February commenting on project 2025 - seems in line what what’s happening now: Europe needs to build its strength, power and sovereignty. The US wants “strong allies in Europe” but not sovereign. But Europe can only have sovereignty and do what’s in its best interest once it has the strength to do so - which right now it doesn’t. They outsourced the hardest pillar of sovereignty which is military - to the US. They are now energetically less sovereign and dependent on the US also. They should copy China’s strategy - lay low and bide your time. Build strategic self sufficiently and optionally (multiple energy sources) in the background so no one can dictate to them. But for all this they also need to compete and innovate economically especially in tech which they are behind China and the US in.

Agree with what Leo said also. Reading Zeihan's book years ago actually got me into geopolitics - found it all so interesting and devoured every podcast of his and other geopolitical analysts - but my understanding has matured since. He's overly confident and says things with too much certainty. He's good at pointing out vulnerabilities but then is too deterministic and overlooks the human factor. It's not just about the cards your dealt but how you play them. For example, his past work noted France and Argentina as being strong future powers due to their geography and demographics lol. We aren't only prisoners of geography but overcomers of it. Geography is the starting point not the end point. He assumes America re-treating from policing the world leads to chaos as inevitable - which becomes a issue for trade dependent countries that depend on that stability of trade (via sea lanes). American exceptionalism seeps into a lot of his views and the hidden assumption is that without ''us'' people can't get along or are incapable of co-existence and diplomacy. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, Belt and Road trade corridors and ASEAN neutrality doctrine oppose that view, as does history. Modern trade routes aren’t like 18th century pirate waters that need US defending them when we now have regional state actors doing so due to capability, cooperation and incentive to trade which they also depend on. On his China collapse rhetoric. He assumes China doesn't plan long term and are just frozen. More importantly, they have a political system that allows them to be consistent in their approach to their long terms plans yet simultaneous quick enough to pivot, mobilize and adapt. That's why in the past he alarmed about the housing bubble (Evergrand) leading to China's collapse, before demographics would do the job. But China control demolitioned that bubble and directed lending and liquidity into strategic industry. They expedited that at rapid pace because of Biden and Trumps posture towards containing them via tech and trade wars. So they had to cut their vulnerabilities. That's why all of a sudden we see a explosion in multiple verticals being dominated - EV's (BYD), Green tech (solar, wind turbines), batteries, local semi-conducter eco-system, industrial robots and automation. That brings me to his point about demographics. If a inverted demographic pyramid means collapse why hasn't Japan? One factor is they got rich enough before they got old enough - so that they could fund elderly care and pensions. They also have state capacity and cohesion to manage it. Ageing is managed and doesn't automatically mean collapse. Also, automation and robotics steps in to keep productivity high and replace labor. And China leads in robotics and industrial automation: The Chinese also have some of the highest domestic saving rates in the world which means less pressure on state funding. They also have cultural expectations of family care (like in much of Asia) - though that is strained because of urbanization and kids moving away from parents who remain rural. Europe is also old but unlike China it can't so easily reform pensions, raise retirement age or open doors to migration without backlash, and the norm of family care isn't what it used to be. The wealth they do have simply buys them time to manage the situation - but the math doesn't math and isn't sustainable without a decline in expectations and living standards (unless some AI breakthroughs?). US demographics are healthier which buys it more time, and they absorb immigration very well (which MAGA strains as a option) - they face the same trajectory, only delayed. Aging societies require shared sacrifice - so if the US is polarized and divided then they may mismanage it. Like you said - Those in North America will be best off, if we can cooperate together not isolate from one another. If Zeihan debated a few analysts that come to mind he would be shredded. One example:

@MightyMind I’d be interested to learn more. There’s been a resurgence on Twitter and other places of counter establishment views about the Austrian painter.

Above on why Jews were specifically hated. Half truths are a bitch. Hitler believing in Aryan purity is a joke: That said - he tapped into real anger caused by conditions of economic collapse, humiliation, and identity crisis. He critiqued elite exploitation but only those he defined as foreign or disloyal to the nation ie Jews and international globalists. But his own national elites exploiting the people because he needed them to rebuild Germany into a military machine. The only valid thing is that private or a-national interests can subvert national interests - as is also happening today. But he racialized the problem into a scapegoat and mixed grievance politics with purity politics. Then again - Hitler couldn’t have done what he did without the soil of anti-semitism already being there. He was a logical extreme end product of Western history - its nationalism, racial hierarchy theories, imperial logic, Christian antisemitism, industrial militarism, and belief in civilizational exceptionalism.

@Elliott Your responses makes sense as you shared Kinna and Graeber on the other thread and lean anarchist? You see the state as the only meaningful source of domination. But that lens creates blind spots - you treat private power as harmless individual action instead of something that can consolidate, organise with others and choose to impose violence on others living ''freely'' in a world of anarchy where no state exists to protect them. It’s ironic because both Kinna and Graeber critiqued corporate and financial power as forms of domination - not just the state. They included economic coercion and private capital as forms of violence. Yet you excuse oligarchs, minimize 2008 and shift all blame onto ‘individual consumer choice’' which is tone deaf just as Apparition Jack has called you above. You dick ride capitalists instead lol ''BaNkErS cOmItTeD nO HaRm BrO'' You’ve adopted anarchism’s suspicion of the state, but ignored its structural critique of private power. Graeber would’ve shredded the arguments you’ve been making.

@Apparition of Jack Elliot is unable to analyse at a systems level or entirely underestimates structural factors. His analysis hinges on the individual being the ultimate decider of his fate. The same blind spot shows up in conversation with yourself, Blueoak yesterday, and me in a previous conversation about the 2008 banking crisis where he didn't see how predatory and fraudelent banking practices harmed people - instead it was the consumers choice.