zazen

The classic definition of facism and communist don’t cleanly map onto what’s happening today if we only use their worst historical examples as barometers. It’s like how Zionists will say genocide isn’t occurring because it doesn’t match the Holocaust or Rwanda like a carbon copy. Theirs a danger in using definitions too loosely - because it’s premature, demonizing and polarizing. But then again - there’s a preventive logic in broadly defining something as a danger in order to stop it in its tracks. People call something “fascist” or “genocidal” early on not because it resembles Mussolini’s Italy or Rwandas genocide but because they fear it could harden into that if left unchecked. But also - not every case is supposed to look like its worst example of those definitions. Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin notoriously cemented those definitions, so we historically gravitate to those examples as anchors whenever those words are evoked. It’s possible to have facism and communism with American characteristics. So what is US facism? I don’t think US christo-facism will look like the total fascism of the 20th century because they lack the educated bureaucratic staff to run the machinery of the state in such a total way as to impose their vision top down. The base is made up of blue collar workers which means they don't have the pool of white collar professionals needed to staff the institutions to carry out their vision. This is why “the establishment” generally leans liberal for that very structural reason. That’s why all they can do is gut institutions rather than have the capacity to build or revamp institutions in their own image. The same reason they can’t run a modern expansive government of a superpower is the same reason their international imperial empire will be in rapid retreat. This doesn’t mean it won’t be bad at home - it will be patchy authoritarianism using the existing tools of state, but not totalizing the state for their own end. Relief abroad from US imperialism, repression at home. The US right are reactionary populists with patchy authoritarianism and racists among their ranks. The US left are technocratic liberal reformists with commie revolutionaries among theirs. But the extremes within their own ranks don’t define the total. Generally, the right aren’t pushing an organized ideaology of racial supremacy and domination - and the left aren’t pushing a commie revolution to abolish private property. The larger point to all this is why the polarization in the first place? Ask yourselves if this is structurally due to the inherent contradictions within liberal democracy itself? If liberalism encourages diversity, and democracy gives those differences political power - then when those differences grow too divergent, each side uses politics to impose its “vision of America” on the other. Social media and dumbed down discourse doesn’t help in fueling that conflict over whose version should prevail.

https://thegrayzone.com/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-netanyahu-israel-assassination/ Not outside the realm of possibility is it. Conspiracy ooo, cohencidences oooo, literally a thread about Israeli deception but we can’t be deceived here can we ooo The professionalism wasn’t in the shot itself but the set up and being the fall guy. Cui bono? Still don’t think it’s worth the geopolitical risk though. Possible but perhaps not probable - even with the odd timing of it all.

Connected to this is that Liberalism is ultimately noble but naive. The same way those two rights (speech and arms) cancel each other out without a culturally-socially cohesive foundation - liberalism and democracy cancel each other without a similar foundation. You may be able to have liberalism and democracy separately but not together without a strong foundation - and that foundation can't simply be papered over with more constitutional ''rights, laws and freedoms''. Liberalism multiplies the differences that democracy can only manage if differences are limited. The more plural the society, the less coherent the demos. The less coherent the demos, the less functional the democracy. As liberalism creates more diversity and democracy gives political voice to that diversity, each group starts using democratic power to impose their vision on the others. Which creates more conflict. Which liberalism responds to by celebrating even more diversity. Which democracy expresses through even more polarization. Democracy only works under very narrow conditions: relative equality, cultural cohesion, and some shared belief in progress or prosperity. For a while the UK and US could maintain those conditions because empire guaranteed both wealth and the expectation of more wealth to come ie the social contract. That economic cushion bought them the stability to pretend that democracy was universal and self-sustaining. But once empire and unipolar supremacy fade as they are doing so today - those conditions vanish. If liberalism is built on the sovereign individual and the sanctity of self-expression, then logically it must extend to groups of individuals - cultures, religions, lifestyles - all treated as equally valid within the same political framework. That’s how liberalism naturally evolves into multiculturalism - even without migrating multiple cultures into the ''demos''. Liberalism generates internal multiculturalism because once you elevate individual freedom and choice as the highest good - people splinter into subcultures, countercultures, ideologies, and identities. It inevitably fragments the cultural fabric. Belonging is a longing and a need that can't be un-needed - people must identity with something. Liberalism dismembers limited identities of belonging for a larger identity of universal belonging (the noble part) - it tries to transcend nationalist tribal belonging into a internationalist globalist one. But its very hard to scale tribal identity (the naive part) - and in doing so you uproot many people who then backlash at being uprooted. Now with multiple cultures under one roof, diverging worldviews mean you don’t have one demos but many, all trying to operate under a single democratic shell. It's no longer one people or demos, but multiple peoples attempting to share one political frame work and territory - essentially multiple countries in one. You can have a multi-ethnic society with a mono-culture, but a multi-cultural society that's even mono-ethnic, becomes in-coherent. If America was 100% ethnically homogeneous, you'd still have the same breakdown because the fundamental problem isn't simply racial diversity but cultural fragmentation. These are religious differences dressed up as political ones. Its fundamentally a socio-religious problem trying to be solved at a political level. Democracy contains the seeds of its own undoing in that if the people or demos ''will'' an authoritarian, and use the vote to elevate them, democracy has faithfully functioned - but only to end itself. That’s why populism is such a dirty word among the liberal elite establishment: it exposes the contradiction and breaks down the worldview underpinned by enlightenment and liberalism. Democracy demands fidelity to the people’s will (the most popular voted in), but the people’s will is not guaranteed to be enlightened, moderate, or liberal. Sometimes it’s angry, fearful, or authoritarian. Sometimes it chooses Caesar. Populism is simultaneously democracy’s purest expression and its greatest danger. I found this interesting: ''Modern liberalism is what happens when you take classical liberal insights and turn them into a totalizing ideology divorced from any limiting context. Classical liberals wanted freedom FROM oppression. Modern liberals want freedom FROM reality itself - from biology, from scarcity, from human nature, from the basic constraints that make civilization possible. Classical liberalism was a scalpel designed to remove specific tumors from an otherwise healthy social body. Modern liberalism is chemotherapy that's been running so long it's killing the patient along with the disease. The original vision? It was actually achievable under certain conditions - homogeneous societies with strong social trust, shared cultural values, and clear external threats that maintained internal solidarity. America in the 18th and 19th centuries actually pulled it off for a while, at least for white Protestant males who owned property.''

Can’t have a marketplace of ideas if having those ideas gets you killed. The rights of speech and arms ultimately cancel each other out in a broken society lacking social cohesion and civic sense to exercise those rights wisely. They were intended to check the tyranny of the state - but what happens when the “other” is viewed as the tyranny? These were tools of liberation and democracy designed for a cohesive society that all agreed on some basic fundamentals - including what they considered a threat. The misuse of the first right (free speech) creates the conditions for the misuse of the second right (to bear arms). The fear of the “other” to use arms, has a chilling effect on the “other” to exercise their right to speak freely. The macro blindspot in all this is in enlightenment values and liberalism itself: that assumes wisdom and responsibility scales to the masses by default. Liberalism conflates equality of dignity with equality of discernment and responsibility. Don’t mistake the tools of civilization (rights, democracy, liberty) for civilization itself. Don’t believe that simply possessing free speech, guns, and a ballot makes a society “civilized”. The tools don’t automatically confer the maturity to use them. Civilization is having the civic sense to use them.

Crusaders were the security for the Gaza aid sites. Vile.

@Socrates The political cost is super high for them to do it, but their desperation is also higher today. Couldn’t imagine them trying this 10 years, even 2 years ago - but the shift in narrative not only globally but in the US who they materially rely on changes the calculus. Them being capable also doesn’t mean them being willing - but then capability also means being capable of doing such things and getting away with it - as they have been getting away with all they have recently. So surely they can be more brazen about what their willing to do also. They just struck a gulf capital who the US is an ally of and has the largest base. That totally fucks up the US’s image of being a reliable security partner and ally. It goes completely against their interest to be setting up mediation talks then having those mediators be bombed - in a location such as Doha on top of that. The fact that Israel can’t afford to lose MAGA cuts both ways - they can’t afford for MAGA to start questioning Israel, as much as they can’t afford to lose MAGA as a response to them taking out one of their biggest influencers.

The US is the last supportive pillar of Israel after the world has turned on them. And specifically the Christian Zionist demographic - Charlie Kirk was the biggest face of the right wing demographic and young - meaning he had a long road ahead of him in politics. He just started questioning Mossad, Epstein and the ability to question Israel. The left are already accounted for in their criticism of Israel. But to have the other side start to become increasingly so is something they can’t just allow to happen so easily. He even questioned the narrative of October 7th on PBD - saying it’s the most surveilled militarised place and that it’s fishy it took them that long to respond ie must have been ordered to stand down. Mossad are also more than capable. Israel bombs and de-capitates people in multiple countries - including a US ally with the largest US base in the Middle East just days ago (Qatar). But we’re supposed to believe they will be restrained when it comes to US soil - for sure the political cost is much higher doing anything on US soil - but at the same time they have become increasingly brazen and desperate. They also have the operatives and networks to cover such tracks on US soil. The timing is also fishy - why would an extreme leftist cell do it now when political tensions aren’t as high as for example before an election. The timing of Israel’s recent actions and the Charlie’s narrative shifting line up more with incentives to carry this out. There’s a lot of heat atm - from Epstein to Gaza etc this could put a chilling effect on others speaking up including neutralizing one of the largest voices of the right that they simply can’t afford to lose. Then again, I just can’t imagine Mossad to gamble and risk such a thing.

The US is the last supportive pillar of Israel after the world has turned on them. And specifically the Christian Zionist demographic - Charlie Kirk was the biggest face of the right wing demographic and young - meaning he had a long road ahead of him in politics. He just started questioning Mossad, Epstein and the ability to question Israel. The left are already accounted for in their criticism of Israel. But to have the other side start to become increasingly so is something they can’t just allow to happen so easily. He even questioned the narrative of October 7th on PBD - saying it’s the most survived militarised place and that it’s fishy it took them that long to respond ie must have been ordered to stand down. Mossad are also more than capable.

Disgusting what happened - even more disgusting to see the heartlessness of people’s reaction. It was clearly a profession assassination with the shooter now gone. Question is who? This came up: Was he free speeching wrongly? 4min mark, just a month ago. Could be a cohencidence though. That or a lone extremist leftist - what’s more plausible?

Have done so before. Have a good day too.

I agree - where have I praised their internal governance and development? Again you conflate critique with shitting on - and conclude I'm praising the authoritarian world. I would praise the downfall of Western imperialism - but that's not the same as praising the systems or leaders who have done so. The Western led order is the largest imperial offender on the planet so that's naturally where my focus goes. I don't have time to spend writing back and forth all day long on ''flaws of internal political systems''. That's also why I'm barely on other sides of the forum like dating etc because I like the big picture - geo-politics and the shifting world order, of which Israel and Ukraine relate to also. The downsides of tyranny, dictators and communism are pretty evident so don't have to be commented on. Most of us on the forum are Western and liberal minded already so what perhaps is overlooked are the flaws within liberalism - including the Western order we are part of. What should be and is discussed is stopping the conditions that give rise to populism, fascism etc. Part of what's given rise are the blindspots within liberalism. Me bringing those blindspots into light is conflated with me loving authoritarianism though. I'd like Europe as a whole not be vassal to the US and be a pawn in a larger game of empire - including Ukraine itself. To increase European sovereignty or as they say ''strategic autonomy'' requires intelligence, foresight, courage and not having ideological blinkers on. It also unfortunately means cutting losses now and building up your strength and sovereignty as to not get caught up in that mess. This is what Merz said just a few days ago: "We are currently unable to exert sufficient pressure on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to end this war," he said. "We are dependent on American help." https://www.dw.com/en/germany-updates-merz-urges-stronger-european-role-in-global-affairs/live-73889023 Is it patriotic to encourage a Chihuahua to fight a pitbull? Are you gonna spill blood and money for Ukraine? If not then respectfully don't push others to die for your Russiphobia or wet dream of containing Russia. You want Europe to kick Russia's ass and take that Ukrainian land back right? Okay, with what arms, manpower and funding? Western establishment outlets themselves highlight the stockpile shortages, being out produced by Russia in arms, and the struggling manpower issue in Ukraine. France and UK are on the precipice of a debt crises as we speak and Germany's de-industrializing. If you aren't gonna go die on the front line or give up money to the cause then stop raging war with Russia thinking its some easy feat to defeat them that you or I won't suffer consequences for. Actual Ukrainians are dying on the front line for a larger geopolitical game between two powers and you know that. I'm saying get real about the situation. Address security concerns and establish peace. Get real about Europe's geopolitical standing and it strength and weaknesses - and make decisions based on that, not on some liberal moralistic delusions not based in reality. You want to prevent far right populism rising in Europe? Okay, well how do we stop economic inequality getting worse, on top of excessive migration and lack of assimilation of current migration that will cause native people to revolt and elect a new Hitler? You think Europe freezing its relations with Russia including its cheap energy access that supported it all these decades - to in turn get much more expensive energy from the US - will help Europes economic competitiveness on the world stage which requires it to now compete with China? That's economic seppuku that will only ripen the conditions for populism and fascism. I assume your friend is more liberal like yourself, or Western? It makes sense that someone coming from a different culture would view China’s centralization as a big downside - as I said in my previous comment: the cultural conditioning is there to view it as such. It's worth asking if the things he praises are also made possible by that same structure. Every system has trade offs. In China, centralization brings real limits on freedoms, but it also channels collective effort in a way that produces stability and progress. Perhaps the Chinese people value sacrificing lower freedoms for higher freedoms of stability, harmony and saftey. It's like libertarians who view every constraint on freedom as tyranny, but underappreciated that those restraints (laws) are allowing them to exist in a more stable society that allows them other freedoms and luxuries - the kind your friend may be praising. Agree - centralization isn't the only piece or model that can produce good outcomes. China's system isn't the only cause of its success - its a enabler of the peoples efforts. It's ultimately down to quality decisions made over a long enough time period - that ultimately boils down to quality people making such decisions - and a strong culture that values hard work, discipline, pragmatism etc. Japan and South Korea are allies with the US. They aren't viewed as threats the same way Russia or China are - and they aren't large or sovereign enough to be considered geopolitical rivals. So China exists in a different geopolitical reality than most countries. If China were to open up and become democratic - that would mean opening up to foreign interference, regime change and color revolutions that the West, particularly the US have perfected. The US has every incentive to destabilize it if given the chance - and liberalizing politically would give them more tools and access points to do that. If you look into the recent protests in Thailand, Indonesia and now the very violent uprising in Nepal - you'll find US funded NGO's tracing to the movements that have kicked such things off. Imagine if you were the leader of a great civilization with over a 1 billion people such as China - you have to provide stability and progress to these people - and you see a imperial actor like the US who has a open track record of regime changes across the world, who openly wishes to contain your rise and your peoples - would you simply sit there and liberally open up your country in a such a way as to allow those same actors to fuck up you and your peoples trajectory? Or would centralizing and controlling the information / political space be seen as a lesser evil for the greater freedom of even being able to exist as a rival super power?

Bro the reason you think everything I write is AI is perhaps because you don't think its possible to come up with those takes yourself - so maybe your just projecting here. Maybe that's why you don't want to rebuttal or discuss the points further - but I'm saying why not use AI yourself to do so and maybe you'll learn more through using it too. I actually often edit a lot of my comments because I see unclear writing or bad grammar - if I was straight copy pasting from AI I it wouldn't have those mistakes. Anyway on to your point: The fear of authoritarianism is valid - I also don't want it. The issue is what is authoritarianism and what is simply greater authority or centralized governance that gets conflated with it. Me criticizing democracy or liberalism isn't me subtly advocating for authoritarianism either. I'm all for more a honest, competent authority that serves the people - we actually need more bolder leadership in the West. I think theirs a place for strategic centralization that isn't disrupted by election cycles and which prevents long term planning - because in order to compete with China and others, long term plans are needed. That's why deep states exist to such a degree in Western democracies - because the surface level state will keep getting in the way. But that then creates special interests doing whats good for themselves rather than the national interest. It becomes a false or weak democracy with real technocracy and oligarchy. Western democracies often hide or obscure centralized power behind democratic optics - because Western culture and liberalism have placed such primacy on individualism and democracy that the people are culturally conditioned to go against anything that is beyond their own democratic reach. Imposing top down control, policies or values on societies conditioned to believe they have total democratic control only creates mistrust and backlash. That forces power to hide behind and beyond the ballot box. That power can then easily become corrupted by elites that remain invisible or unaccountable. On the other hand China's centralized system seems to be working better perhaps because it's more honest about what it is, more culturally accepted by its people, more aligned with its national interest (rather than private or international interests), and is transparent about who is running the show - still not without its flaws. Centralization seems to only work when when it’s honest, aligned, and built for the nation. It fails when it’s hidden or opaque, hijacked by private interests, or pretending to be something it’s not which causes trust issues. Also, China and Russia aren't pushing authoritarianism onto the West - it's been the West that has been pushing its political system and ideals on to the world. Authoritarianism doesn't need to be pushed onto a country - it can just as well be democratically voted in, or arise from internal conditions in a country. The issue in the West is much of the domestic and foreign policy of the liberally detached elite have fanned the flames and set the conditions of the far right rising in their own countries. We've discussed this before on another thread you started where we talked about EU policies being good or bad: You then said you don't like the conservatism of Eastern Europe. But the issue is you can't impose liberalism from the top down (as I mentioned earlier) - it needs to come organically. Otherwise that's the very issue causing the backlash and rise of the right - bad policy that is blind to the ground reality. When the political and economic elite gut out your industry for globalized profits (special interests vs national interest) and then flood in migration to help boos domestic demand, property prices and labor shortages that rapidly change the culture of the country - of course people will backlash. The same conditions that gave rise to Hitler - cultural humiliation and economic hardship. Look back at our conversation in that thread and see everything that has transpired since - the tension is between national interest vs private / transnational interests. Even look at whats happening now with France (vote of no confidence and mass protests right now) and the UK with migrant protests and a new all time low approval rating for Keir Starmer of 22% (this is only within months of him being ''democratically voted'' in). How is that democracy working well - and the real question is why isn’t it working well? Which my above points partially cover.

Your conflating critique with hate - does you critiquing me mean you hate me now? I critique Western leadership and their failures, including the hegemonic Western imperial structure led by the US that seeks to maintain its position. That doesn’t mean I hate the West or that I now love Eastern tyrants. There’s literally two threads on the forum questioning Democracy and about being fed up with America - does that mean those posters now “hate” the West or democracy? Many people in the West are disillusioned with Western leadership and imperialism around the world - I'm not the only one, and that doesn't make us Western haters. You see me discussing geopolitics (state to state relations) and automatically conclude and conflate that as me arguing for authoritarianism or praising authoritarian leaders themselves. I actually think Russia is very corrupt and poorly managed internally, I also think China has done a 100x bettter job than them at developing their own nation - that doesn't mean China doesn't have its flaws. I also think Kim from North Korea is a tyrannical clown running a dystopia. Geopolitics and state to state behavior is separate to the internal politics of those states - great power competition exists regardless of the political system of states - and I discuss those dynamics including the larger dynamic of the world order which is where a uni-polar order is resisting a multi-polar one that is already pretty much a reality. All the countries in the world being liberal democracies wouldn't erase the geopolitics of power dynamics, including those powers having red lines and security concerns that need managing - the very thing that has been mismanaged regarding Russia / Ukraine. What is your position (as you haven't laid one out): 1. That a uni-polar world order led by the West should be maintained - including the containment of multiple poles and powers within that order rising and wanting not to be sub-ordinate to that order? 2. Or is it that because other countries are flawed and demand obedience from their citizens (authoritarians), that they should be intervened in and contained? Like the interventionist wars of the past decades that ''spread democracy''? Hard times creates hard liners - perhaps a better method is to simply trade and allow them to get wealthier to loosen their authoritarian tendencies. 3. If you view Russia and China as authoritarian because they demand obedience from their own people, then wouldn't you also view the West as authoritarian when it demands obedience from other countries in its own uni-polar order? Perhaps the West itself enforces authoritarianism globally by refusing multi-polarity. The so called “authoritarian” states are the ones calling for multipolarity - which is closer to actual democracy on a world scale. The issue is liberals moralize and universalize their system as the only valid one - its unfathomable that other cultures may have a different approach or political system. Most humans have the same universal values and aspirations to a good life - liberals universalize their application of those values and aspirations. Everybody wants to be liberated (free) and seeks democracy - which is to have their will (to the good life) manifest. The difference is in how that happens and what the best system is for achieving that. Good governance depends on quality decisions made over a long enough time period. Western democracy basically outsources those decisions to the masses, assuming they have the discernment to choose the right candidate. A centralized system done well basically filters for that quality and doesn't buy the notion that quality and wisdom are as scalable. Neither system is superior - what makes any system work is ultimately the people themselves, because those quality decisions require a quality mind and people to make. The West dickrides their version of democracy as the only plausible version and reflexively opposes any system that's different - even if it may be better suited to that particular culture / civilization, and produce better outcomes. They measure democracy (will of the people) in ritual and procedure, rather than outcome. If a so called “authoritarian'' centralized system actually delivers stability, rising living standards, and a sense of security, while “liberal democracies” deliver endless crises, inequality, and political paralysis, then who is actually closer to realizing democracy (the will of the people to a good life)? Whilst all people share the same values, some people may approach those values differently and rank them differently. Not everyone has the same conception of freedom as the West - the world doesn't revolve around the West who make up 15% of the global population. Perhaps some cultures find liberation of the individual through the community (harmony, stability), perhaps centralized governance is better suited in fulfilling the will of the people. It's possible that centralized authority doesn't always automatically mean tyranny. Liberals obsess over internal political systems because it moralizes the West’s dominance as good and righteous - that because other countries aren't liberal democracies they should be intervened in, contained or de-legitimized. This is where bloc politics comes from - and empire uses it as a pretext for its own cause. It that kind of ''with us or against us'' thinking that creates bloc and raises tensions. No where in your long ass rant have you provided any substance or arguments - just that I must be Dugin, a Russian/Chinese bot, and use AI lol. I'd rather you actually use AI to rebuttal me so we can have a interesting conversation. Blueoak doesn't ad hominen and actually argues his points and pokes holes in mine very well in comparison.

Technically true, not totally true - that's why it was called a world war not a European war: because it was a collective effort of the allies (China included) to defeat fascism. Germany, Italy and Japan formally signed the Tripartite Pact in 1940 becoming Axis Powers against the Allied bloc of China, USSR and the West. It was a shared front but in different geographical theaters. By tying down Japan, China prevented massive Allied resources being diverted away from Europe - aiding in the defeat of Hitler. It was a collective victory against the facist axis. The issue isn't what Kallas said in that isolated moment but that the West try to monopolize the narrative of victory and underplay Russia or China's efforts. In Kallas's own words they are viewed as threats to be contained / balkanized and de-legitimized - part of that de-legitimizing is underplaying their efforts in that global struggle which was called a World War for that very reason. For example in 2019 the EU had a parliament resolution claiming that Nazi Germany and the USSR were co-instigators in starting WW2 - because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 that emboldened Hitler. But Britain and France signed the Munich Agreement in 1938 just a year earlier where Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia. That also “paved the way” for war, but it’s remembered as appeasement, not co-instigation. This is trying to brand the USSR as co-instigator when the same actions occurred by the Western allies themselves - which is obviously not showing any respect for the millions of lives the USSR lost in that fight, and who made it a decisive victory. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/european-identity-and-paradox-anti-communism/

@Nivsch I'm not denying that today their are Israeli's who want a two state solution or a peaceful solution / manifestation of Zionism. I was pointing out that historically from the beginning the structural contradiction of Zionism is what caused it to default to domination. The contradiction is that the land they wanted to secure was already inhabited - and force was required to secure that land from those natives, including till today as those natives resist giving up more of their land. The idea of a two state solution or sharing of land came later but was never the premise of Zionism from the start. That's why its called solution - because the problem was that the original aspirations required domination, that would have resistance to that domination baked in. And a solution to that resistance and violence is a two state: that's meant to solve the problem caused by the original manifestation of Zionism that is unfortunately still playing out in its own way today. The geopolitical reality of the situation forced Zionism to evolve a more ethical and sustainable solution. As I said, there's different versions of Zionism. One side thinks it needs to dominate Palestinians in order to secure the self-determination they already achieved or even perhaps take that away from them in order to expand Israel to absorb their land. The other side (you and moderate Israeli's) thinks both should live with self-determination in a two state solution.

Kaja Kallas two days ago said: "I was at the ASEAN summit, and something seemed interesting to me. Russia turned to China and said: "We, Russia and China, fought together in The Second World War, we won the Second World War, we defeated Nazism together.“ And I thought, "Okay, this is something new." If you know a little history, then a lot of questions immediately arise in your head. But you know, today people read and remember history less and less, so, unfortunately, many people believe in such narratives," It's this same ideologically corrupted brain rot rooted in liberal universalism and exceptionalism that is un-tethered from reality - that leads to terrible domestic and foreign policy. Speaking of detached establishment - watch it on display in the first 3 min: From yesterday: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-defense-strategy-china-homeland-western-hemisphere-00546310 ''Pentagon officials are proposing the department prioritize protecting the homeland and Western Hemisphere, a striking reversal from the military’s years long mandate to focus on the threat from China.'' ''The three documents will be intertwined in many ways. Each will emphasize telling allies to take more responsibility for their own security, the people said, while the U.S. consolidates efforts closer to home.'' More like consolidate imperialism close to home whilst it still can (in Latin America and within their borders via the imperial boomerang effect). Perhaps the China parade sharpened minds a little in Washington. The strategic value of Taiwan is in semi-conductors which they will hopefully domesticate within years - beyond which there is no reason to go war over - that they have a major dis-advantage in fighting far from home against not only a peer rival but perhaps a superior rival. The gap will only widen in the coming years between their capabilities. I told ya'll so.

Zionism is essentially self-determination and securing a safe homeland for the Jews. The issue is because there are other natives on the land they want to secure - they need to resort to violence, force, dispossession and domination to do so. And Zionists who carry this out do so in the name of Zionism - which gives Zionism itself a bad name. There's a dark distorted version of Zionism that's blurred with its more understandable aspirations of self-determination. The problem is that Zionists already have self-determination and a state of Israel that is recognized by the world and UN - but they deny this same right of determination to the Palestinians who are natives to the same land. When those Palestinians resist Zionists getting in the way of that determination - they are deemed a security threat for doing so. This then justifies dominating them beyond the borders of Israel in the form of occupation which involves resistance to that occupation - which then gives Zionists further ''evidence'' that they are acting for security reasons - a form of circular logic. But the root cause is obvious to anyone who see's the issue clearly. You can't claim to want self-determination whilst denying the same to those sharing the same land as you. You can't find security in keeping another people insecure indefinitely - unless a final solution is inflicted upon them ie ethnic cleansing or genocide. You can't dominate another people in the name of security, in the name of Zionism, and then expect the world to be okay with that sleight of hand which is obvious to the world.

I look at things structurally. Drones in Lithuania and Poland are reckless, yes, but that’s not an expansionist campaign into Europe. Most of them drift from Ukraine strikes or probe air defenses. Spies, migrant influence, far-right meddling? Sure, asymmetric means are used just as the West use them on powers that are too risky to confront directly. Russia may exploit and poke at those issues - but they exist regardless of Russia. Structural conditions have caused the rise of the right. Western leaders have themselves opened the doors to migration including being lax on border control - Elon alone has done more to fan the flame of the right than Russia. Russia also told the West where its red lines were - and that NATO expansion would end badly. They said and acted on that did they not? The West was too imperially minded and arrogant to listen. You rightly connect many dots - but we differ in how they connect. Those are largely symptoms of a deeper issue: a uni-polar order run by the US that refuses to accept limits, red lines, or peers. You’ve accepted the US as a bad actor but won’t extend that logic to include others reacting to that bad actor. This same actor has evidently been globally violent its entire existence including in the present, openly talks of containing its rivals, and wants to park up right next to them either by land (Russia) or sea (China). Are these rival countries supposed to simply not act because they may be breaking laws? Laws take a back seat to security and survival imperatives as we’ve discussed before. China pouring sand into the ocean and fortifying islands isn’t being ''imperially expansionist'' - it’s securing trade routes for food and energy lifelines that it’s not self sufficient in - that a hawkish US could exploit. Geography dictates vulnerabilities, and great powers act on them. “Russia always invades” is like me going back in time and saying Europeans have always been fighting. After 1991, Russia lost massive territory and accepted NATO expansion deep into Eastern Europe. The red line wasn’t Poland or the Baltics but Ukraine. That’s not a modern day pattern of always invading but a declining power finally snapping when its survival buffer was crossed. Historical patterns rhyme but aren’t destiny - they are conditional and based on circumstances, meaning that if those circumstances change then repeating history isn’t inevitable. Patterns rhyme but aren't identical or inevitable, whilst principles of power dynamics and geography remain a constant. One of those principles is that great powers react when cornered or encircled. Another is that great powers will endure hardship and struggle before facing humiliation at the hands of another power. Neither has geography changed. Ukraine has always been the invasion corridor into Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler. That’s a permanent vulnerability, and so is a permanent principle of Russian strategy. They’re not acting from imperial nostalgia but from geography - and it wouldn’t have come to open war if their red line had been acknowledged and built into a shared security architecture. That was denied any lasting solution because the US and its allies would rather have other powers be sub-ordinate than at the table as equals. Speaking of patterns, here’s one now: China’s containment from a Western hegemon. In the past it was Britain trying to balance its trade deficit via opium wars - today it’s the US containing China, first through banning semi-conductors and now through a trade war. Cutting off semi-conductors is a declaration of economic war - as its a critical input being the oxygen of the modern age. It’s as bad as an oil embargo - and yet China didn’t lash out aggressively. Only now when Trump is trying to tariff them and the world have they hit back with a rare earth export ban ie upon further provocation - just like Russia. By your logic (which is uni-polar unintentionally or not) both rivals need to be contained - as you commented above, China is the main threat. The real thing to contain are the conditions (set by a uni-polar mindset in a multi-polar reality) that perpetuate zero-sum thinking and make confrontation continuous, and war inevitable. Back to the principle of great powers avoiding humiliation. There’s a parallel in how the US is dealing with both Russia and China - the US is taking a civilizational kin state of a rival and is weaponizing it against that rival. So not only is it escalating a security threat, it’s insulting both at a cultural / civilizational level. It’s like turning family on family. Imagine your cousins make semi-conductors that are important to the modern age, but an outsider barred them from sharing it with you? What would have remained a cold logical security concern becomes a hot emotional concern - it amplifies something geo-political into something personal. It radicalizes the perception of the threat for both parties. Any great power will react to this security threat, that is only amplified by its humiliation and insulting nature. This is where the past repeating itself isn’t inevitable. Today the circumstances and reality are different, and the history of China’s century of humiliation doesn’t look to be repeating. Clearly: The reporters comments are as insightful as the ones in the comment section lol In fact quite the opposite: The order that insisted on ordering others around is now dead, and they cry at this loss. Someone give the guy some kleenex, probably made in Chyna. If we treated every compromise as “appeasement” the Cold War would have gone nuclear in the 1950s. Security driven wars differ fundamentally from ideological-imperial wars. Security can be negotiated, expansion for the sake of domination can’t. That’s why the Western narrative needs to keep making the lazy Hitler comparison - because it shuts down a proper solution that’s been denied all this time for the purpose of leaving a avenue for subjugation to empire. Perhaps that interdependence with Russia would help in keeping some leverage over them, the same way European economies became intertwined to avoid constant and global world wars. Now that Russia has just signed Siberia 2 with China - what leverage does EU have over them? What if a even more hard line figure comes in after Putin, such as Medvedev who you love to share as being hawkish and threatening - by comparison Putin who has been quite pro-Western and tolerant up to now. Perhaps Europe needs to see the US make a deal with Russia and buy Russian energy packed and re-sold to them from the US with a label slapped on - to really get the hint why its important to actually have some foresight, tactfullness and balls to do whats in their best interest. Europe's competitiveness has just been locked into being meagerly low for the foreseeable future now. It's not looking very good unfortunately.

Reality anchors all that propaganda - propaganda that’s used to get Russians rallying around the flag to support the war. It shouldn’t be taken at face value similar to Western propaganda - there are structural realities that limit that bluster. State policy and military doctrine are different to what hotheads on TV or some ground units are doing. Same way we don’t look at Bandera Nazi salutes and Azov insignia then conclude the West is funding a neo-Nazi regime. It can be dangerous if the structural conditions change to where that propoganda can be acted upon at a future point. I just don’t think those conditions will come - say for example a totally weakened West, entirety of Ukraine not only taken but held against a resistant Ukrainian population continuously uprising - from which point a demographically aging power like Russia is supposed to march into NATO countries and face fresh troops and F35s. It wasn’t just Trump that turned the US bad, it’s the unipolar hegemonic structure that’s bad by default - because it seeks to limit and contain the rise and autonomy of other powers. If you realise this as bad, then surely you can realise that perhaps Russia and China’s actions may be in response to that structural pressure? That not every action is merely imperial but in fact a defensive response to imperialism itself. It may be aggressive and opportunistic, but not necessarily imperial in its motive or intent.

The term “sphere of influence” itself is tricky because it’s used for countries projecting any influence anywhere - but in the classical geopolitical sense it’s for large powerful states with enough mass to have those around it be pulled into their gravitational orbit - via scale of geography, culture, trade, population and military might. It structurally involves a core state or orbit. Iran having proxies, Turkey in Syria or Israel dominating its neighbours militarily make them influential but not gravitational giants with spheres of influence - that has the pre-requisite of an orbit (to have a sphere around) which is big and strong enough to pull others into. Like I said - they are contending for that position but none have the scale or power to be continental poles like the big four. They will only be regional partial hegemons that need to share space. Europe’s issue is there’s no clear center of gravity - no one knows who’s boss. People refer to “the EU” but who do they mean: Paris, Berlin, or Warsaw? Brussels claims to speak for all, but each nation still has its own crystallized identity and national interest. Those identities never melted into an EU identity, which is why there’s constant friction between Brussels and the capitals. The EU is a constellation of nations without a sun. India is just as diverse as Europe, but it crystallized into one nationalism - turning a civilizational pole into a nation-state pole. Europe crystallized into many nationalisms, so it remains a civilisational zone without a pole. It never produced a core state or identity strong enough to pull others into orbit. Overlapping religion, culture, and law fractured into rivalries instead of nesting into a larger single identity. Pakistan is a closer parallel to Europe’s path. Despite sharing a civilizational overlap (Indic identity) it split off by hardening into a Muslim South Asian identity - just as Europe split into Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and later exclusive national identities like German, French, and British. This is also why no blood was spilt over Brexit and it simply peeled away - because theirs no core orbit or state to peel away from. It didn’t feel existential to identity because under the EU scaffolding their are still distinct national identities - perhaps it’s a threat to the political project of the EU, but not a threat to national identity or security outright which causes people to spill blood for. EU is a political scaffolding sitting on top of intact nations, not yet a gravitationally cemented identity binding them together. The national identities it speaks on behalf of are too crystallised to dislodge and melt into a larger continental one. Maybe in a distant future it would become a United States of Europe, and then be able to exist as a sovereign pole, but I think that’s far off.

From a uni-polar world order: To a multi-polar world order: Reminds me of that meme: him VS the guy she tells you not to worry about lol

@BlueOak just heard this discussion which was uploaded after I commented above. Coincidentally covers the same topic of gaining European sovereignty from the US. Well worth a listen, from a German politician:

@Basman

Wealth tax may have worked in the past when people were less mobile and had a shared sense of duty to each other - but in a globalized multi-cultural world most likely people just go to another jurisdiction. Being wealthy means you have the means to get up and leave. That second home in Dubai, Singapore or Cayman Islands? Cool, just make it the main home base. The reason politics sucks is because it’s complex - and complexity requires intelligence, nuance and hard work to work through. That’s not for most people, yet Democracies politicise their entire society. Now your neighbours vote is a threat to your survival if it means they vote for something your values don’t align with. In a multi-cultural society that is only compounded. Liberalism equates dignity of individuals with their ability to discern. Democracy assumes the masses have the discernment required to vote for competence rather than popularity - democracy is essentially a popularity contest: the one with the most votes wins. Yet when the candidate isn’t an establishment one their labelled a populist with a negative connotation, when it’s an establishment candidate it’s just good old democracy and will of the people at work. Ancient wisdom knew that discernment isn’t scalable to the masses, hence we had councils of elders type governance - that in its best iteration stewards the people, in its worst rules over them with a fist. I call it Democracy vs Discern-ocracy.