zazen

Empathy and sympathy usually get conflated. If I’m not mistaken - empathy is simply putting yourself in another’s shoes to understand them - the purpose of which in this context is to figure out causes to the heinous act and prevent it. Sympathy is an extension - feeling for the person only because you’re able to empathise (put yourself in their shoes). So empathy is about clarity (analytical) and sympathy about warmth (emotional). Sympathy in this case would only be extended conditionally to those that genuinely suffer against the urge which is there for whatever reason and they had little control over. Like battling an addiction - it’s more of a condition rather than a situational thing as commented on the previous page. But there is zero sympathy for the act itself or towards those that don’t restraint themselves from this urge, or even those that don’t have an burning urge for it yet still engage in it due to the situation/opportunity arising. See here - empathy extended into sympathy: See here - some things are straight up just Haram Bruv: Because many people conflate empathy with sympathy - the message that gets taken is minimising or normalising of something that shouldn’t be. Having intellectual clarity of a situation doesn’t mean not having moral clarity on a situation being haram. You can understand fuckery whilst seeing it as fuckery - not creating false equivalence’s to minimise things or float into some spiritual blob of relativity and oneness. OP - “And to those of you who think being a pedophile and raping children is the worst thing imaginable, you truly have a low level of consciousness.”

Understanding something doesn’t erase moral judgement of that thing being wrong. To empathise requires moral clarity - otherwise what are we empathising around? The complexity is around understanding the mechanisms behind the act - and the solution for addressing it. There’s little complexity around certain acts itself being morally wrong. The disgust response most people have is a signal and shouldn’t be dismissed as “low conciousness”. A child is harmed with cascading effects across society - that’s the foundational moral wrong. The perpetrator suffers their urge for this act - but that suffering is only meaningful enough to empathise with because of the first fact - that it is wrong. Societies drawn a red line to protect the child - which gives weight to perpetrators actions. The flaw is treating the middle level (perpetrators act) in isolation, as if it floats free of the other two (child’s harm - societies norms) - but it doesn’t. The struggle (against the urge) only exists in relation to the harm it causes and norms around minimising that harm and violation. Removing the moral clarity around the act minimises and normalises something that shouldn’t be. It’s just spiritual bypassing to seem holier than thou. Higher conciousness doesn’t mean suspending moral judgement - if anything judgements have more clarity - upon which understanding (mechanisms and solutions) are layered.

Giving me “give em hell” Jordan Peterson vibes lol after which he went silent when Israel committed war crimes en mass. Same way diaspora monarchists have quietened after egging on “US democracy promotion” only to find the US hitting civilian infrastructure (hospitals, universities, a bridge) and a madman threatening a entire civilization. What’s changed? The “regimes” been set back but strategically still has control of Hormuz and has pushed back US basing presence out of fear of Khoobideh missiles. Iran the landlord has served eviction notice among other contortions being negotiated. A country can be set back tactically / operationally and still come out stronger strategically. Everyone should be asking - has Iran gained more or less leverage from this US operation - than they had before? Stay safe azizam

I agree woke leftist utopian politics is untethered from reality and basically ghey - but to leap to the US being afraid of being bullied is a reach. The US is getting relatively weaker against rising powers, but not to the point anyone’s even flirting with threatening it. What’s at threat is the empire state, not the nation state. National security is way less at threat than international supremacy. And if Israel is deemed a 51st state that needs protection in the Middle East then that’s a lot due to its own maximalist security doctrine that ensures its constant insecurity. Threats are inflated due to past historical trauma + desire among a subset (of Israeli and US imperial elites) to dominate the region that weaponise it. That heightened threat perception is laundered and projected absurdly onto “Western civilization” and the US. The problem with a domination based / maximalist security doctrine is it can never be at peace because pre-emptive actions always taken (mowing the lawn) against a possible future threat that doesn’t exit today - it has no limit. But every pushback against that domination provokes a reaction and then becomes proof you were right to dominate in the first place. It becomes a circular circle jerk of who dunnit which is where we are today. “We gotta flex and bully the world or someone else would do it - better us than them. MAGA and MIGA energy” More like FIFA - fuck Israel and fuck America ( the empire state, not the nation state and its people ) This is probably the only chance Israel’s gonna get to subdue Iran and cements its hierarchy into a regional order alongside GCC. Its patrons support is on life support and moving this many assets to the region is highly unlikely in the distant future. For this reason Israel will sabotage every peace effort it can because it has different objectives to US who is trying to maintain the financial system and global empire. Whether it loses it over Israel or not is to be seen - whatever the case - Israel will be hated for influencing the US enough to jump into this conflict and ruin its prestige / global posture. Everyone will be running politics through a lens of whether a candidate or podcast bro is America first or Israel first. The “great filtering”. It’s the new “do you condemn Hamas”.

Israel : “why does everyone hate us” Also Israel : *bombards Lebanon killing hundred within minutes, within a day of a supposed ceasefire to prevent war titling the world towards energy crisis and potentially WW3*

@Elliott We got some calls right early on in Jan. Trickery (attacked during negotiations) + the need to keep any war short due to interceptor stock piles running low. US weren't expecting Iran to shut Hormuz or spread the war to the region as way to impose economic costs. They ran of out military options and had to resort to civilian infrastructure / industrial capacity. But any further hits would be highly escalatory and risk the gulf countries which have reached their limit of tolerance. They expected Iranians to coup the regime but instead they rallied around the flag. US got more desperate from Iran not bending + the economic pressure mounting from the cascading affects of a oil supply shock (oil hitting 140 yesterday) = so Trump had to heat up the rhetoric threatening Iran after which he taco'd a few times. In the latest threat against the power grid / more bridges - Iranians instead made a human chain around the power plants in protest. They flirted with a lowkey ground op on the weekend which also failed and that they tried covering up with attention diverted to the pilot rescue. That means they won't try a proper ground invasion in the future. Had little choice but to find a off ramp and Pakistan helped midwife it. Israel is still acting rogue and hitting Lebanon hard despite it. Not sure if that will flop the negotiations which seem to be difficult already. Iran has gained more leverage after this confrontation instead of less as they still have de facto control over Hormuz which will only make their bargaining position demand even more.

@Nivsch thanks for providing nuanced views. I think the centre has moved right enough for that bill to be passed - so can’t just be pin pointed at Ben Gvir etc although he’s the most vile of the lot. Israel is divided but it’s hard to know how much? I’m just guessing it’s a 1/3 left, middle and right but the left are shrinking whilst the right are increasing. The centre doesn’t have to be far right but simply fear driven enough to tolerate a mobilised right wing to gain momentum especially post October 7th. On some issues or views we see in polling that majority are in agreement ie war on Iran being good or necessary, or after October 7th most agreeing Israel wasn’t going hard enough on Gaza even though a week or two in they had already dropped massive amounts of bombs. It’s tough to know how representative those polls are, but even then - let’s say they are true. I don’t think most Israelis are intently wanting the mass death of Palestinians, but also I think many simply are indifferent and feel whatever needs to happen for survival needs to happen - and that can be equally bad as a result because it enables harmful actions and ends up tolerating the far right due to ‘survival’. The main issue is the threat perception of Israel remaining on high alert and its security doctrine being maximalist in the region which reinforces that perception. The man security dilemma between Israel and Iran needs resolving for things to really settle - and then the Palestinian issue settled too. The issue is we now see Israeli heads talking of a new Sunni axis as a future threat (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi/Pakistan). If threat perception always remains high that will ever ensure insecurity of Israel. This may be partly due to past trauma (understandably) but is being weaponised by other interests (domination / imperialism).

Lets not forget the magical mullahs who want to impose clerical facism on the world lol What makes geopolitics so interesting is how it has multiple domains interacting with each other, but that's also what causes flaws in many analysts if they lack knowledge in certain domains (finance, oil markets etc). I've started seeing finance guys saying how this war was started by financial interests because they have captured the US state totally - thus control its foreign policy. Jiang goes for the more ideological being the driver ie Christian Zionism. But its never one cause - and the US empire state isn't as captured by capital as the nation state which has been much more hollowed out by capital interests. The security state (NSA/Washington) still has its own logic of primacy, national security etc which can hurt capital interests (tariffs, tech containment of China, sanctions etc).

@Ramasta9 The problem with conspiracy theories which may not be conspiracy is that they lack evidence or use half truths as evidence. Many of these conspiracy point to something real enough to have people resonate with it - but then add on layers false truths or overstretch things to the point of not being true. From another thread about Zionist control of the US, I responded to others regarding it:

Mehdi Hassan is such a Karen If Jiang spoke to a serious geopolitical analyst he would be challenged properly on his claims instead. Like for example how is it possible for Israel to usher in pax Judaica with the small population / industrial base they have. 10m people who are themselves internally divided can’t be an empire - which is why they piggy back of the US empire to achieve their goals. Then he says Israel will take over CENTCOM / US bases in the Middle East and that this is the plan of the war. But Iran has destroyed / partially made them ineffective lol as if Iran really gonna be okay with Israel taking the throne there. On his latest video he “speculates” how the outcome of this war is Trump World Order where he destroys the Middle East’s energy share to make the world (Europe and Asia mainly) dependent on US energy, food and fertilizer. But oil is priced globally so high oil prices means inflation back at home in the US. The entire dollar / financial system comes under stress or implodes. The US also can’t replace that much oil supply. At least he does caveat that he’s speculating.

British and then US empire are underpinned by control of corridors (trade) and clearance (the currency that trade is settled it). Any country important enough that is outside that systemic control or resists it is a target. The primacy of that system is being contested by new emerging powers. China/Russia would be too catastrophic to go to direct war with - so weaker links are tackled and any strategic advantage is being locked in to prevent their dominance dilute further. The empire became financialized (paper heavy), as rocks (resources) and scissors (industry) got outsourced. That made it brittle and vulnerable to new powers emerging who do have strong rocks (Russia) and scissors (China) who together are creating a parallel system (paper/financial rails) circumventing the US one. The system (paper) has to be backed by something (rock/scissors) but increasingly is seen as hollow (outsourced industry) and vulnerable (high debt). Empire needs to re-anchor the system to material power to keep its credibility and enforce the quality of its collateral (US system perceived as pristine condition). This is being done coercively as we can see. There’s a scramble to re-industrialise and lock down critical supply chains and industry (friend/re-shore) to become resilient. JP Morgan has a fund earmarked for 1.5trillion dollars over 10 yrs for this. BlackRock are going in on stabelcoins and tokenization to extend dollar reach and maintain its primacy against de-dollarisation. None of this has to be some grand strategy on behalf of Trump, but it’s more so institutional logic, instinct and inertia with multiple actors converging on the same incentives to keep the system they benefit from dominant, against a rising challenge. I think that’s how VZ, Greenland (new Arctic trade corridor opening), Donroe doctrine and hemispheric co from, and now Iran make some sense.

No one asked or tested if Jews were trusted enough to be given a state. In fact they were wrongly mistrusted for centuries and instead persecuted, leading to the crime of all crimes - Holocaust. The horrors of that made it clear - people are owed a right to dignity and safety - inalienable and unconditional. But now Palestinians are asked to build enough trust to earn the right to live in a portion of their own home from which they were cleansed from. This is inverted and gaslighting propaganda Western Zionists speak of. Rights of this kind are a domain where permission doesn’t need to be asked. That doesn’t mean trust doesn’t need to be built - but it’s not a prerequisite for the right. “UN Recognition: Numerous United Nations resolutions, such as Resolution 3236, explicitly reaffirm the "inalienable rights of the Palestinian people," including the right to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty. "Not Conditional": In legal terms, these are often described as jus cogens (peremptory norms), meaning they are fundamental principles of international law that cannot be set aside or made conditional upon the "permission" of an occupying power or neighbor.”

US is funding terrorist groups in the Middle East for their own geopolitical aims. Bibi funded Hamas. See the two videos I shared in that comment. Beside my own whataboutism: The Palestinian authority in the West Bank has worked with Israel (recognised them) and polices their own people. They’ve cooperated and what happens there? Settlement expansion. Who knows - other Middle Eastern countries didn’t have Iran’s same rhetoric or fund proxies next to Israel and they still got fucked. Venezuela and Cuba don’t have that rhetoric or fund proxies (as far as I know) - Maduro offered to work with US corporations and still got plucked out like a flower, Cuba’s getting embargoed as we speak and has been sanctioned for decades. The point is regardless of rhetoric - geostrategically important countries that want to maintain their autonomy aren’t allowed to: Your putting all those countries into the same bucket as if they all wanted to destroy Israel - all critiqued Israel over Palestine, some had hostility, and others were more extreme (Iran). Saddam used the Palestinian cause for legitimacy and to become a gulf hegemon - his doctrine didn’t revolve around Israel or its elimination but was against Iran and then he invaded Kuwait. It was literally called the gulf war - and that triggered a coalition against him. Assad’s dad was hostile due to the territorial dispute over golan - not necessarily eliminationsit. Gaddafi proposed a one state solution with democratic rights for everyone (calling it Isratine)- a restructuring or evolution of Israel to resolve the issue, not total destruction. Turkeys recognised Israel since 1949 and trades with it but critiques it heavily due to its actions - also not eliminationist. Saudi, Qatar and the gulf have had the stance of a two state solution since the Arab peace initiative - just because you see a TV anchor or minister have strong rhetoric against Israel doesn’t mean the official stance of the government is to eliminate it. People are obviously angry at Israel. Israel had existential hostility against it in its early founding but we can’t take those peak threats and project them forward in time when they’re largely subdued and the region is largely negotiating with Israel instead - even normalising in some cases or making it conditional upon Palestinian rights. Iran has the biggest Jewish population in the ME that haven’t been been eliminated (because the issue is geopolitical, not some fanatical hatred of Jews as you make it out to be in your caricature of Muslims): Palestinians rejected those deals because they weren’t fully sovereign or viable states. Just one detail relevant today - right now EU countries including your own (Spain) are denying the US airspace for its actions - that’s their right. Palestinians weren’t given right to their airspace, let alone other things (borders, resources or airwaves like telecoms, wifi etc). Should EU give up its ego to make peace the with global hegemon in your view? Or are they too stubborn and don’t want to be seen as humiliated just like the Palestinians and Iranians over giving up their sovereignty? So might makes right in your view? Sovereignty is only for those strong enough to defend it?