zazen

Thought he did it just once in the heat of the moment, but then he whipped out another salute.

@PurpleTree I get you. What a nasty thing - glad the Brits lit the fire that put an end to such a thing. Can’t believe it was just some default setting for humans to do shit like slavery until only recently. Thank God, Allah it’s over (except Libya) Trump should make it mandatory for airlines to only put on Leo content. Then people can do the rawdog challenge on Leo’s videos and get enlightened. Mandatory satori.

@Twentyfirst Being in the West myself, but heavily exposed to other regions - it is one heck of a mission to unlearn misconceptions about not only the outside world, but the Western world which is a world in and of it self. For example, just put the following two facts to any American: the US has the 5th highest incarceration rate in the world yet still has the highest homicide rate among developed nations. If their so developed and embody high values - why would their still be such high homicide rates even after they have locked up and imprisoned so many of their criminals? This is a clear sign of systemic rot. They don’t even have the excuse of war, destabilisation or extreme poverty - like the other nations they criticise do - and that they feel superior to lol

If your referring to Libya where slavery is happening in the traditional sense ie being sold literally - that’s not Islamically sanctioned, that’s criminal activity due to a breakdown of governance - after a power vacuum was left when the West overthrew Gaddafi. It’s inaccurate to conflate things with Islam bro. It’s like me saying mass school shootings happen in America so there must be a problem with Christians or Democracy. Conflating the norms and practices of the past, such as conquest and slavery which were widely practiced across civilizations and now regarded as repugnant - with the teachings of religions as though those religions actively promoted them is inaccurate. It’s not about who practiced such and such norm we find regressive from today’s stand point, it’s about how they engaged in those norms and practices relative to others at their time. Often, Muslims engaged with more ethics than their counterparts. You even term it Arab Islamic slave trade - that’s like me saying remember the Trans Atlantic Christian slave trade. If that sounds off it’s cos it is lol.

Interesting conversation you guys are having. I commented in another thread regarding some of these themes - Islam, stagnation and conflation. Ya’ll may find it interesting.

The Wests higher values on display. Us Westerners love to conflate development with higher values, and wealth with worth. Never mind how we developed or obtained that wealth - which was through the lower values of exploitation, domination, accumulation and materialism. We then use the material gains of this as evidence of embodying higher values. We claim to uphold high values, but approach them through lower values. Freedom comes through dominating others, democracy comes through the deception of elitists playing musical chairs. Its plutocracy wearing the costume of democracy - Halloween ended just under three months ago. The more we trumpet these higher values, the more we sink lower in practicing them, and the more the hypocrisy becomes glaring. Even if we do practice these values domestically (lol) they very much disappear when we deal with other nations. We don’t have partners but vassals. We think we found these values, never mind that they are universally aspirational and that other cultures may even approach them in more multi dimensional and mature way. That lesser freedoms are given up for larger ones, or that dignity is in modesty rather than the freedom of vulgarity. That freedom is not absolute but relational, or that human rights must balance individual and collective well being. We conflate that because we are democratic - that this confers some higher paradigm or supremacy. The plutocratic reality of the West is not an aberration but a continuation of the West’s feudalistic roots, where power was concentrated in the hands of the few. If governance reflects values, then the West’s plutocratic system reveals its true priorities: wealth, power, and control, not the higher ideals of equality, justice, and freedom it claims to champion. By this logic, Western governance reflects lower values, not higher ones. Perhaps, countries can approach development and higher values differently - and the Wests approach to these higher values isn’t the only valid one.

That’s like telling someone in a headlock to focus on their breathing lol

@Raze Iran challenges US global hegemony just as Russia and China do. A superpower like the US doesn’t have existential threats - they have examples of defiance that are a threat to their global dominance. Israel is definitely a factor that intensifies the animosity. But regardless, any nation that is important enough and independent enough to not subordinate its sovereignty to the West - comes in their cross hairs. * Another nuance is that it isn’t always about what a nation can do for another - because those making the moves aren’t always concerned with the nations they make those moves from. They are trans national elites operating from nations, but with no care for the interest of those nations, except their own.

Clown show continues the night before inauguration

From Chat GPT: ''China’s censorship laws are not random or ideologically driven—they are largely reactionary, developed in response to specific historical events and perceived threats, particularly from Western powers like the U.S. These laws reflect China’s belief in safeguarding its national security, political stability, and cultural integrity in the face of external interference. From the Tiananmen Square protests to the Hong Kong unrest, China has consistently tightened its grip on information following moments where foreign platforms or ideologies appeared to challenge its control. Understanding this context shows that China’s censorship is less about suppressing freedom for its own sake and more about protecting sovereignty in a world it views as hostile and destabilizing.'' The West loves to boast about its freedom to surf the net. When a Western super power uses the internet and permeability of democratic systems / NGO's as a tool to destabilize foreign nations, its no wonder other nations hesitate to open up. The US has a successful track record of doing this, and doesn't stop at any rate even till today. Imagine your a developing nation of over a billion people that requires stability in order to grow and provide a decent quality of life to your people - to lift as many of them out of poverty. You need to get rich enough before your country gets old enough - so that you may have the resources to support the elderly and avoid the pressure your nation will face from having inverted demographics. For nations like China or India, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Allow unfettered access, and they risk foreign actors exploiting their vulnerabilities, stoking unrest, and halting progress. For nations and regions already wealthy and food secure such as Europe, they may be able to be as free as they like and indulge in such freedoms - but for nations who have many of its people barely getting by, they can't afford to be sabotaged or slowed down by external interference. The issue is that if they tighten control, they're labeled "authoritarian" and accused of repressing freedoms - from Westerners who have been deepthroated this absolutist idea of freedom as a apex value, who are unable to understand that some freedoms are taken away to have access to the larger freedom of life and security. The two girls which went viral for 100 guys in a day, now do 1000 guys in 24 hours - she celebrates by doing a cum-walk. This is why China has a different version of Tik Tok domestically, no vulgarity, violence etc - purist libertarian and liberals will cry freedom of speech of course. Turkey denies this cultural export with some sharia energy. Would anyone family person with a son or daughter want their children seeing this kind of behavior be normalized or even ''accepted'' in your society?

Like Twentyfirst said above, there's plenty of incentive driven interest for the West to be doing what they're doing regardless of Zionists. I don't think its either or, but more so both working symbiotically together for their own ends. The relationships become so intertwined and the lines blurred that its hard to tell who's the dog wagging the tail and vica versa. A interesting take from Norman Finklestein below indicates that the US has the power to dictate to Israel. A parallel to this ceasefire is the one that occurred in 2009 right before Obama's inauguration on the 20th of January. Operation Cast Lead ended with a ceasefire on the 17th of January with a MOU signed between Israel and the US with the US providing Israel security related assurances. His reasoning is that they don't want a US ally like Israel who is a settler colonial occupying apartheid state committing war crimes - to taint the US image. Basically optics. Also: The greatest terrorist states the US and Isreal - will have their day.

Good listen:

@Breakingthewall Yeah the age is heavily disputed and debated among scholars, because in the past they didn't consider the importance of time keeping and dates as we do today. Of course there are religious people who will exploit this historical fact for their own perversion in the present day. The point is the messiness of human sexuality including its depravity occurs in all places and at all times, even today. People tied to a religious identity use religion as a retroactive justification to cover for their perversion. This isn't uniquely religious, but religion is used after the fact as justification. Child marriage still occurs in the West today - ''Close to 300,000 minors were married between 2000 and 2018 in the US, according to a study conducted by Unchained at Last; a small number of them were as young as 10.'' https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/09/child-marriage-laws Because Westerners don't have a visible religious identity it's harder for us to point to any ideological driver behind their behavior. But perhaps it isn't so much ideological as much as it is some weird biological perversion which uses any ideological justification if their happens to be one - in the case of Muslims, they cherry pick and twist Islam or the case of the prophet marriage to Aisha for their own interests. For example, incest is being discussed on this forum elsewhere in a context completely detached from religion - the point being that human sexuality and its manifestations still exist today and aren't driven by religion or Islam per se. I think a better way of viewing people, cultures etc is that they are behind vs they are backwards. Behind implies they just need to catch up and that they can, backwards has a more negative connotation and almost implies something is inherent rather than external factors. The problem isn't the religion but the development of the minds approaching the religion. The fact Islam was applied in a way that was less rigid before tells us this is possible - when they had a more developed and thriving civilization. There's this concept within Islamic jurisprudence called Urf (custom), which allows Muslims to reflect the ethical and practical norms of a given society and time. Islam was never meant to be a time capsule from the 7th century. There are essential principles like justice, compassion or human dignity etc that need to be applied across time in different contexts. Urf marries those eternal principles to contemporary times. It's easy for people to think Islam mandates certain practices like hijab or apostasy laws but these are historical interpretations that developed through Urf - the custom of their time and place. The death penalty talk around apostasy came from specific historical contexts where leaving the faith meant essentially committing treason against the entire social order - because at the time when they had warring tribes it meant allying with the adversary. It was treated as treason - similar to how the legal punishment for treason in the US is the death penalty. The Quran says for example "No compulsion in religion" - any warnings given are spiritual consequences, not social mandates that mortals are supposed to deal to people wanting to leave the faith or who lose faith in the religion. That's a shit interpretation that shitty minded Muslims have taken upon themselves. Even for the Hijab - it isn't explicitly said or mandated anywhere. All that is called for is modesty and even for men to ''lower their gaze''.

There may only be temporary breaks from conflict but there will never be a permanent ceasefire until the conditions (occupation and denial of sovereignty) cease to exist - which necessitate resistance to those conditions.

Max Blumenthal making Blinken blink in disbelief. Craig Mokhiber’s the guy who stepped down as director of the New York office for the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR) due to their failure to act.