zazen

Nice comment to provide nuance. The key word you wrote earlier was that China is “strategically” protectionist. Blanket tariffs are blunt, not strategic. It’s just taxing your own supply chain (inputs) that your producers depend on and can’t obtain domestically - China still imports inputs with low to no tariffs. The US needs statecraft - a state competent at using a scalpel, whereas they are now using a hammer. But this is the fundamental issue at hand - instead of statecraft, which directs capital with a long time horizon in mind - we have a capital class seeking returns within a short time horizon. They don’t invest and build things as much as they do extract and trade things. Speculation is more profitable than investment and innovation, which requires longer time horizons. In the West, capital directs the state rather than the other way round. It’s ideologically forbidden for a state to steward because that’s just “communism” creeping in. Never mind that the “good old days” weren’t built by libertarian free markets. They were statecrafted - postwar America was shaped by active government stewardship, not deregulated capital libertarians love to point to. The problem today is that the solution should be state led, but it’s become state coerced - hoping that capital will do what only a sovereign nation can do: invest in its own future. But financialized capital operating in a casino economy, doesn’t usually think generationally, but quarterly.

Yeah, helped in understanding different sides, though I'm not claiming perfection. I don't care to defend China, but I can understand where they are coming from. I think having a distinction around the concept of freedom helps understanding eastern cultures: I think artful expression is great and important, but I can understand that when you have subversive elements who hijack artists to stoke internal instability - clampdowns are required. It’s a tough line to balance. Also, it’s easy to conflate centralized power structure as authoritarian - when it’s simply a different way of organizing a society. Right now, many Americans wished they had more state intervention to check the excesses of corporate and oligarchic power - yet when China does this it's deemed dystopian.

@PurpleTree Nah bro, European / Asian, UK born. Think that’s helped me not be identified with any one nation / region. Can understand East / West and Middle East too as one side is Muslim. Going to international school, having friends from everywhere and travelling has helped too.

It’s not “do nothing, win” it’s “do nothing stupid, win” - Zazen the great.

“Despite having a free trade agreement since 1985 that made 98% of U.S.-Israel trade duty-free—with only a few minor agricultural tariffs totaling about $11 million annually—Israel was still hit with a 17% U.S. tariff in 2025, even after eliminating all remaining tariffs on U.S. goods. This proves the new tariffs aren’t about reciprocity or fair treatment, but about punishing trade imbalances. The formula used targets countries based on how much more they sell to the U.S. than they buy, regardless of whether they tariff U.S. goods or not. Even America’s closest allies aren’t exempt—showing this is retribution, not reciprocity.”

A good video on Trump tariffs: A Balaji take from X: “DOLLAR INFLATION IS GLOBAL TAXATION There is just a fundamental misconception about what the USA actually is. It is the seat of a global financial empire (or was). It makes its money by printing it. For example, it printed $1.25T for just one purchase back in 2010. Do you know many Nikes you’d have to sell to make a trillion dollars?!? The reason the American Empire had the right to print a trillion dollars at its whim is because it was managing the global financial system for everyone. So it had the right to impose global taxation via dollar inflation. Every time it printed $1T, that was divided by the 6B+ direct and indirect dollar holders worldwide, not just the 330M Americans. In other words: the whole world paid the US to run the empire. And got diluted down (aka taxed) every time the US printed another dollar. That’s why Milton Friedman said inflation is taxation without legislation. Anyway — the USA could impose global taxation via dollar inflation because it was a stable jurisdiction for multinational business, due to Delaware. It issued visas for scientists and workers from all over the world. It didn’t have psychos bombing cars, shooting CEOs, or blocking roads. It advocated free trade, respected property rights, and only sanctioned rogue states. Now all that is gone. The US is no longer a neutral arbiter of the rules-based order that it once set up for its own benefit. And so it’s going to lose that money-printing power. But before it goes, you should understand what it’s losing. Because the money-printing business model was way, way, way more profitable than working for a living. Yes, it had long-term negative consequences, but in the short and medium-term (meaning: multiple decades) it had absolutely no peer. Exiting the money-printing business to return to the abandoned manufacturing business is likely not even possible because of the societal instability such a sharp decline in living standards will cause. Anyway, the people who ran American Empire could have spent this money more wisely. They could have taken far better care of their own citizens, and dropped fewer bombs on non-citizens. Then they wouldn’t be at this juncture. But *how* it spent the trillions is distinct from the indisputable fact that the US printed trillions in the first place. So the American Empire as an entity wasn’t being ripped off by the world, especially by countries like Vietnam. More the contrary.”

It isn't just Israeli deception, but Evangelical delusion:

I think the simplest way to explain the good and bad of Zionism is this: self-determination is just, but becomes unjust once it starts determining the life of others. No one objects the principle of liberation through self determination, or that people should have a home. The problem is when that liberation requires the subjugation of another. Self-determination is liberation, determining others is domination. Israel already has what it once sought - a sovereign state recognised by the UN. It’s achieved self-determination, but is determined not to extend this same right to the Palestinians. It uses its legitimately established state for illegitimate actions beyond it. Israel has become a launchpad to occupy Palestinian land on its periphery, and weaken the region via the US - who doesn’t just act of imperial self interest, but even when the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t add up. Evangelicals have a mythic allegiance to Israel that is about biblical prophecy, not merely power and profits.

https://x.com/ddgsarah/status/1906728482333458713?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “You will never de-Zionize the United States without confronting the religious ideology that underpins it. This country was not only founded on Protestantism, it was shaped by an evolving belief system that merged American exceptionalism with Biblical prophecy, culminating in dispensationalism, a theology that made support for Israel a sacred duty. Protestants make up about 40% of the U.S. population, and within that, Evangelicals are the largest and most politically active bloc. The most zealous form of Zionism in America isn’t Jewish—it’s Evangelical Protestant. Their worldview is dominated by a homegrown American theological export called dispensationalism, which originated in the 19th century with theologians like John Nelson Darby and was popularized in the U.S. through figures like Cyrus Scofield and later Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye (author of Left Behind series). Dispensationalists believe: •The return of Jews to the Holy Land is a divine prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ. •The modern state of Israel is God’s chosen nation, and its survival and expansion are necessary to fulfill Biblical prophecy. •Any attack on Israel is literally a battle between good and evil. This belief system is embedded in American foreign policy through decades of lobbying, political donations, and mass voting blocs. It transcends political parties, with both Republicans and many Democrats subscribing to or fearing the wrath of the Evangelical base. Every election cycle, candidates from both parties tout their pro-Israel credentials, not just to appease AIPAC, but to win over millions of Evangelical voters who see Israel as a divine project. Media, megachurches, Christian TV, and even homeschooling curricula in the U.S. indoctrinate children from a young age with pro-Israel prophecy.“

Comments on Iran from the above YouTuber: “My humble opinion on the Iran nuclear deal propaganda: Trump and the Zionists aren’t really too worried about Irans nuclear program. If they were, they wouldn’t have tore up Obama’s deal. Because the deal scaled back the program significantly. In the time since, Iran has enriched ten times as much uranium. If they were so afraid of an Irani nuke, then it would have made more sense to keep the deal in place while pressuring Iran to renegotiate it. The real reason they tore it up is because it offered sanctions relief that brought Iran more money. Money for the weapons they can actually use: The axis. You see the U.S. and Israel knows very well that even if Iran developed a nuke they would never actually use it. According to estimates, Iran has the ability to produce maybe 5 nukes over the course of 6 months to a year-and that’s if they start today. And none of these nukes would be larger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. That’s because there is a lot more than just “enriching uranium.” You have to then work it into a warhead and it’s just a whole process that takes time. If the U.S. or Israel got even a whiff of Iran near a completed nuke, they’d preemptively strike. And even if Iran did manage to make their nukes and deploy them, the United States has 5,000+ nukes, some of which 80 times more powerful than anything Iran could build. And Israel has 200 nukes with a million ways to deliver them. Whatever you think about Iran, they aren’t suicidal. So this maximum pressure campaign isn’t really about the nukes. It’s about the axis of resistance network that Iran has been funding, arming and training. The Houthis have ballistic missiles and drones because of Iran. They gave Saudi Arabia hell for years, wrecked two of their oil facilities, and closed down the Red Sea for an entire year. Iran made that possible. Israel, Saudi and the neocons are sick of it. So Trump wants Iran to not only agree to abandon their nuclear program entirely but also their ballistic missile program and the logistics support for AnsarAllah, Hezbollah and other groups. How Iran responds will define the identity of their nation moving forward. They either submit or stand up. If you read Ken klippensteins article the other day, then you know what Trump has in store for Iran and would understand why they would capitulate. I don’t know what Iran will eventually do however because capitulation could be just as destructive as standing up to the U.S. and Israel right now. Because if they are willing to abandon the nuclear program and the axis, why have they been subjecting their people to decades of sanctions just to back down in the end? This question has produced issues internally. It’s why Iran has appeared so rudderless over the last 6 months. Hezbollah is weakened. Syrias gone. The neocon Zionist Warhawk maniacs are in power and they smell blood in the water. They think this is the best time to break Iran. Whether or not they’re correct in their assessment doesn’t change the fact that they are going to try.” Grayzone and Sachs commentary. The buildup on Diego island could just be posturing to make Iran capitulate - a bargaining tactic Trump is using with everything and everyone. Or he could be serious about bombing them, who knows these days..

From Arnaud: ”This is actually an extraordinary admission to make for a US Vice President. Vance explains that "the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things." But he laments that it didn't quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn't want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure. Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn't to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production. This is basically all you need to know to explain 90% of U.S. foreign policy these past few years: colonial thinking is alive and well, and America's shift of strategy in recent years - away from the previous "Washington Consensus" of "free" markets towards a much more overt attempt to contain and restrict China's development - stems precisely from this mindset. From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, these policies aren't about 'national security' in any genuine sense - they're about trying to preserve a global economic order where, simply put, poorer nations know their assigned place and stay there. At the very core, that's the "China threat": a China that stepped out of the economic lane assigned to it by the West. It's deeply ironic when you think of it: a global game allegedly designed to "spread market principles" worldwide is being abandoned precisely because it worked too well. When China succeeded better than expected, the response wasn't to celebrate the validation of the game's effectiveness but to change its rules. Precisely because the real unspoken game - but now clearly stated by the U.S. Vice President - was to maintain global inequality, not eliminate it. All in all, in case they hadn't yet gotten the memo, this sends a very clear message to the developing world: economic development will require challenging a U.S.-dominated economic order that views their advancement as a threat rather than a success. Which incidentally is why Vance's words might actually help accelerate the very redistribution of global economic power he laments, pushing more nations to recognize that genuine development requires strategic independence from a system intended to keep them in their place.”

@Lila9 @Nivsch The problem isn’t that one side has more extremists than the other, it’s that’s one sides extremists (Israel) are enforcing a system of control and domination, in the form of occupation - while the other sides extremists (Hamas) emerge in reaction to that system, as a symptom. Israeli extremism exists within a domain of systemic domination, Palestinian extremism exists within a domain of symptomatic desperation. One side has the power asymmetry to end the cycle causing both extremisms, more than the other. What underpins that system of occupational domination is a dark interpretation and implementation of the ideology of Zionism. Returning to a historically rooted home to coexist with natives is fine, but dispossessing them because of an ethno-centric fever dream isn’t. A lot of the arguments stem around survival and national security. That’s something I’ve talked about regarding understanding Russias actions in reaction to Western containment that could threaten their national security at the border of Ukraine. The difference with Israel is that a besieged conclave of people with no tanks, navy, air or nuclear capability - aren’t a existential threat to a nuclear armed high tech power like Israel, backed by the collective West including a superpower like the US. It’s not the same level of national security concern the way it is for Russia. Not only are Israels actions as an occupier completely unjustified, its reactions to those it occupies, reacting to that occupation, are also completely unjustified - because those resisting pose no existential threat. Israel was simply asleep at the wheel which caused a breach of the border on a one off occasion. Some say it was allowed to happen but that’s beside the point. Even this notion of Israel being in a hostile neighbourhood surrounded by wolves is false. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties, Saudi Arabia has been in silent alignment via the US and normalizing more recently (paused for now due to Israel’s psychotic behaviour), Syria poses no threat and has its own issues. Hezbollah exists mainly as a defensive militia protecting Shias in South Lebanon, in reaction to Israels invasion in the past. The reason Israel breach Lebanese and Syrian air space / sovereignty is because of Iranian supply lines to Hezbollah, who came to exist because of Palestinian resistance in the first place. Most, if not all Israels regional conflicts can be traced back to the refusal to resolve the ongoing Palestinian issue. Israels surrounded by countries reacting to its own system of control over a dispossessed people - it’s not innate hostility towards Jews, but circumstantial towards a state behaving dominantly in the region.

Oh totally, we really don’t see why people dislike Israel - must be something about the whole having their boot on the neck of Palestinians thing. And every time those Palestinians gasp for air, resist or lash out in a savage manner due to being cornered - they’re instantly labeled terrorists, dehumanized, and told they were raised to be sociopaths by the same colonial forces that used to do this in black and white and now do it in HD. But yeah, no clue why anyone would have an issue with that.

I can acknowledge the possibility of that, including that Hamas can be savage. But can you acknowledge that it isn’t right to collectively punish Gazans then? If some people including your family, are held hostage in a house by crazy people, does that make it okay to switch off the heating to that house in winter so they can all freeze? Just because you want the crazy kidnappers to freeze also.. The hope is that at least some of the aid is getting to the people, including the hostages the whole of Israel protests over. How else would they be surviving all these months otherwise.. the look of Palestinian detainees is starkly different to the Israeli hostages - which means they are at least getting something. Also those hostages are a bargaining chip for Hamas, they have the incentive to keep them alive.

The bigger question is why did they start bombing Yemen again? Because they started blockading sea lanes. Why is Yemen doing that? Because Israel ended the ceasefire and is blockading and starving out Gazans - during Ramadan of all months, including killing over 400 in a single day last week.