zazen

Such juvenile, distasteful rhetoric. This is the ugly underbelly of Trump supporters including how Trump himself speaks brashly. A lot of MAGA take “freedom of speech” as license to insult because it makes them feel powerful in a status quo that’s stripped them of it. They view brashness and Trump as their sledgehammer to the establishment. They aren’t thrilled at the insults as much as they are thrilled at the audacity of being able to throw a middle finger to a polished political class high on political correctness and cancel culture. A political class that barely considers them, and when they do it’s them being talked down to and spinning their concerns for political theatre. But this is corrosive and shouldn’t be normalised. Its not as degenerate as drag queens stripping in front of young kids, but is dangerous due to its polarizing effects.

Case in point. The type of attitude seen above is what imo fuels exactly what populists claim to despise. The mockery and dismissal of legitimate grievances. If we’re arguing that Trump single handedly turned millions of apolitical people into vocal critics of the system, we’re missing the larger picture. Trump didn’t create the grievances of his supporters - he tapped into frustrations that were already simmering beneath the surface. The idea that these folks “weren’t complaining before Trump” assumes that dissatisfaction only matters when it’s vocalized, ignoring the years of quiet resentment over policies that many felt betrayed their interests - though they may not have much understanding of them. And if Trump is the sole reason for this populist anger, how do we explain the rise of similar movements across Europe? Are we to believe that every working class voter in these countries is just “following vibes” and “ignorant of governance,” or is there a broader trend here - an expression of frustration with a political establishment that has increasingly catered to elites while leaving ordinary people behind. Populism doesn’t come with polished talking points or think tank approved narratives - doesn’t mean we dismiss these people because they aren’t into politics or have the base knowledge to discuss it. Progressives defend vulgarity and public debauchery as “human expression,” as if slapping the label of “freedom” on it suddenly makes it profound. Maybe not everyone sees it as some enlightened celebration of freedom. People are free to live their lives as they wish behind closed doors. The issue arises when this “expression” spills out into the public square, pushed onto communities that didn’t ask for it. For many who don’t live in cosmopolitan bubbles, it feels like yet another slap in the face from a society that once upheld certain standards and values. And this is the point - populists who don’t care for policy or government wanted to be left alone (as mentioned - they’re busy being apolitical watching sports, hunting and fishing) yet they now feel they can’t be. Populism’s rise stems from a feeling of being forced to accept cultural shifts they don’t want. Urban centres naturally become centres of media and export a culture that reverberates through the American heartland. Coastal liberal conciousness feels foreign to a more core conservative consciousness in middle America. When we say sexuality is just “Human nature” and that the indulgence of it can’t be blamed on Democrats? Firstly, progressives don’t even believe in human nature 🫃🏻 nor understand it (did Comrade Kamala speak of unrealised capital gains tax?) Secondly, as if human nature exists in a vacuum and can’t be nurtured towards the betterment of civilization - but that requires vision, something lacking atm amongst Democrats. Keep America Medicore And Lacking Ambition is the vision, I guess. The above will be the leftist meltdown if Republicans win. But don’t worry, it’s just a form of human expression. Beside the fun and games - we either face, acknowledge and rectify populist grievances which are the back bone of society ie the working class, or we await their come back like a rising populist Phoenix ready to burn our democratic asses.

For sure. Trump can definetely brings chaos which could be very bad. The question is whether people want to live through more of the status quo which is what KAMALA and co stand for - Keep America Mediocre And Lacking Ambition. We will collectively fail to understand Trumpism if we try to understand Trump. Because this transcends him - but people try to understand him, rather than what made him come about to begin with. And this isn’t isolated to America but to the West more broadly, except that Europes version isn’t as cartoonish and stark. Trump, Boris, Bolsonaro etc are simply derivatives - streams coming from a populist sea of resentment and rebellion against a betrayal of the social contract - that the ruling class has the best interest of those it rules over, and that life gets better for the next generation. Populists are simply willing to bet on change, even if it means chaos, because the current they’re currently swimming in is drowning their identity, dignity and dreams.

It’s not about standing by Trump as much as it is about standing with a movement against the excesses of progressivism, liberalism and globalism. Though MAGA have their own excesses which were evidently on display. But see what their complaints are - pushing LGBTQ and vulgarity via a cultural machine which lacks any grace or wholesomeness. Progressives in urban coastal echo chambers deviated so hard from the mass sentiments of the core heartland of America. That mass now wants to reign in this erosion of boundaries. Leftists may enjoy swimming in a sea of moral relativism and hedonistic indulgence but most don’t. Who wants to raise a family and kids in the above society? This is what most Americans fear being exported to their neck of the woods. The rights issue is they emphasise standards and merit to such a degree that it’s lacking any humanity and become elitist. But the lefts issue is the lack of standards and inclusiveness of anything at all which doesn’t even meet the bare minimum - or is made to meet it via moral relativity.

The Western mind gets too hung up on definitions, labels and ideologies to fit itself and others into. As a comment in that Richard Wolff video said- China follows whateverworksism lol. Both extremes can help in understanding the flaws in the other. Both systems (capitalist and communist) concentrate power - communism does so through the state, capitalism does so through private power. Both systems claim to undermine monopolies and the concentration of power that is abused - communism literally concentrates power via the state, capitalism claims market competition can challenge, disrupt and keep monopolies in check. Both systems under-appreciate half of human nature - communism dismisses that people need incentives to thrive, capitalism dismisses that unchecked power always tries to concentrate itself. They don’t deny the other side, just dismiss its importance. Communism fundamentally contradicts itself in its core tenent which is to have a classless and stateless society. In order to have a classless society, you need a state to enforce it via redistributing wealth from elite classes to the masses - but inequality is natural and inescapable, though we strive to shrink the gap, it can never truly be closed which is the naive aspiration of the Utopian minded. Communism believes that once the state creates a classless society, it will dissolves itself. But that's now how human nature works. How does a centralized power structure ie the state - relinquish its own power, power simply doesn't walk away. Communism also relies on central planning - which also requires a state. What plans the economy once the state no longer exists to centrally plan it…the market? But that’s bad old capitalism. Capitalism contradicts itself in that it thinks free market competition doesn't create monopolies and that wealth trickles down to the many. But just like communism overlooks one part of human nature, so does capitalism. Capitalism turns a market place into a chessboard where others get dominated and power concentrates itself, never wanting to let go. Capitalists love to view their society as a wild jungle, where the chaos thrives to create innovation and growth and where the invisible hand of the market regulates itself. But apex predators turn that jungle into a rigged game where the most powerful animals decide who gets fed and who doesn't. In a nutshell: Both systems produce outcomes that contradict the systems ideals. It's good to read capitalist theories to counter communism's flaws, as much as it is to read communist theories to counter capitalism flaws. ''The extent to which property rights are infringed determines the extent to which the incentive to earn and acquire it goes. If the incentive is gone they refrain from earning.'' - Ibn Khauldun (14th Century) centuries before Adam Smith The capitalist techno optimists like Marc Andreeson who are backing Trump view the economy like this: ''Willing buyer meets willing seller, a price is struck, both sides benefit from the exchange or it doesn’t happen. Profits are the incentive for producing supply that fulfills demand. Prices encode information about supply and demand. Markets cause entrepreneurs to seek out high prices as a signal of opportunity to create new wealth by driving those prices down. We believe the market economy is a discovery machine, a form of intelligence – an exploratory, evolutionary, adaptive system. We believe Hayek’s Knowledge Problem overwhelms any centralized economic system. All actual information is on the edges, in the hands of the people closest to the buyer. The center, abstracted away from both the buyer and the seller, knows nothing. Centralized planning is doomed to fail, the system of production and consumption is too complex. Decentralization harnesses complexity for the benefit of everyone; centralization will starve you to death.'' ''David Friedman points out that people only do things for other people for three reasons – love, money, or force. Love doesn’t scale, so the economy can only run on money or force. The force experiment has been run and found wanting. Let’s stick with money. We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits. We believe markets, to quote Nicholas Stern, are how we take care of people we don’t know. We believe markets are the way to generate societal wealth for everything else we want to pay for, including basic research, social welfare programs, and national defense. We believe there is no conflict between capitalist profits and a social welfare system that protects the vulnerable. In fact, they are aligned – the production of markets creates the economic wealth that pays for everything else we want as a society. We believe central economic planning elevates the worst of us and drags everyone down; markets exploit the best of us to benefit all of us. We believe central planning is a doom loop; markets are an upward spiral.''

What if this phenomena isn’t just isolated to Trump and America but a common pattern across the West atm. Its populism. Understand populism and you’ll understand its derivative that is Trumpism. This “Trumpism” isn’t going away with Trump - as long as large cohorts of the populace aren’t respected, let alone catered to. If the Democrats and the left in general didn’t deride men as a category, especially the working man - we wouldn’t have this populist phoenix coming to set fire on our asses. The hope is that Trumps ill conduct and brashness doesn't brush off on and erode the political machine - but that the team who is much more competent than he is oils and makes the machine work - not for the entrenched establishment but for the people. Of course it will also serve a new faction of elite interests, but if it can work for the people in conjunction, that is more welcome than the current status quo which doesn't.

@Princess Arabia On point. MAGA is more than just a man, though Trump set the fire for it. It's not about the contender but about the cause - Trump is just the cartoonish mascot cheerleading for that cause, regardless of his conduct and personal life. The same reason quite a few Pro-Palestinians were cheering on Hamas - non of them in their right mind would cheer for the death of civilians, but its not about them or their conduct, its the cause. Trump articulated and gave voice to that cause, and it is a just one. Progressive leftism and liberalism went too far. Populism is a big fuck you to the establishment that failed the vast majority, and mocks most peoples sensibilities. Liberalism magnified the marginalised, whilst marginalising the majority. Liberal progressivism didn't just the push boundaries of taboo (which is healthy in an evolving society) but demolished them completely and all too quickly. The end result is a society living lost at sea in moral relativism. Pride parades with naked vulgarity on display, twerking drag queens in front of kids, emojis of a pregnant man actually existing on most communication apps 🫃🏻How does one feel okay raising kids in this sort of society? This is what many Americans fear being exported out of blue cities to their cities. Then it’s the disdain for masculinity and framing even the most natural of masculine impulses as toxic - mocking the essence of half of humanity, which are the very backbone of a society. The back bone of society that makes it run on a foundational level is the working class - which was gutted out to a globalist corporate parasite. Decent men wanting to make a decent living to be able to provide for a family - not only was that taken from them, their very essence was mocked in the process. Can’t denigrate the back bone of society without them coming back - bonified, dignified, and ready to confront those that turned their backs on them.

@MrTruf 100% The progressive instinct recoils at any semblance of conservatism, tradition or religion as if they're hell incarnate. This is understandable if you view things in a black and white, tribalistic binary - without seeing the nuances or the ying and yang. Progressives view many things that are normal for a lot of people as if they are regressive - the very opposite of progressive. Ironically, we claim we are higher on the spiral stage, but haven't integrated lower ones. And if you integrate the past stages you don't disdain them in their entirety. Perhaps, it isn't about regression to a past with all its mistakes (of racism, facism etc) but a rekindling of the very foundational principles that even made the progress we see in the present, possible in the first place (this is the ying and yang of it - we look back to move forward). Its not a return to the past, but at turning to the past to see where our civilization deviated. History is a resource, not a destination. Of course, factions will want to regress and return to the past, but these are mostly fringe elements, just like there are fringe elements on the left that enjoy swimming in a sea of moral relativism and degeneracy as if nothing matters - which leaves most of us lost at sea without an anchor. KAMALA stands for Keeping America Mediocre And Lacking Ambition. Maybe we need that MAGA shake up to re-vitalise things - without it devolving into elitism.

Maybe this is the shake up thats needed to bring balance and dynamism back to the country. Theres a lot of excitement because of the team behind Trump, and the kind of people backing him. Supporters feel their ushering in a new great America - with Elon Musks entrepreneurial skills making the Government efficient and RFK Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) so we can all be chads. Techno-optimist backers like Marc Andreeson who believes accelerationism and tech will get us out of our mess. The cheapest goods are consumer goods which have little regulation. The most expensive are healthcare, education and housing which are suffocated with regulation - inflating the cost of the most essential. Something is brewing, a testosterone centric vision adventure, vitality, strength and innovation. A vision of Chadistan which will inspire men to increase the fuck rate of the country in order to inject new babies into a disappearing demographics and decaying civilisation of effeminate, degenerate, cancel culture vultures who fly the rainbow flag instead of the national flag. What vision does the left present? I've seen a profound improvement in health by ditching seed oils, gluten and processed foods. The increase in energy, productivity, mental clarity - and that I'm less of a burden to the nations health care or resources. Imagine this at scale for the population.

Great production quality:

Case in point lol. Ironically, truly integrating a stage within spiral dynamics means accepting it as part of your history and understanding its place in human development, not reacting with revulsion or disdain. Yet, I see many users react to any mention of religion, tradition or conservatism (or the Wests flaws) as if hell is dripping from my lips.

The way I think about politics to simplify it is the following - Equity (far left) Equality (left) Quality (right) Quantity (far right). Heres a breakdown I came to after discussing with Chat GPT: • Far Left (Equity): Focuses on achieving equity of outcomes. It’s about redistributing resources and opportunities to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same or similar position, regardless of where they started. • Left (Equality): Champions equality of opportunity, where everyone starts from the same point but is allowed to rise or fall based on their choices, effort, or ability. The state may provide social programs to equalize initial conditions, but it stops short of guaranteeing equal results. • Right (Quality): Prioritizes quality and merit, advocating for a hierarchical society where judgment is made based on talent, effort, or ability. The right believes that natural differences between individuals should be acknowledged and rewarded, with less emphasis on trying to make everyone “equal.” They value discernment and stratification. • Far Right (Quantity): This is where you can situate the Darwinian or imperialistic view, which sees strength, conquest, and numbers as ultimate justifications for superiority. It’s a quantitative worldview in the sense that it relies on metrics like power, dominance, and expansion—essentially, the ability to measure and display one’s strength or worth through conquest, racial hierarchy, or other measurable forms of superiority. This can manifest as racism, social Darwinism, or militaristic nationalism, where the argument becomes that those who dominate or conquer are inherently more “fit” or deserving. This “quantity” perspective highlights a might-makes-right ideology: the far-right may believe that superiority is demonstrated through measurable outcomes like military victories, economic dominance, or biological traits, which then justifies imperialism or colonialism. This is where neoconservative policies can overlap, with a belief that because a nation (like the U.S.) has the capacity to dominate, it is morally justified in doing so. By framing the far right through quantity, you’re tying together ideas of strength, power, and survival of the fittest, where the strong are justified in imposing their will on the weak. It’s a framework rooted in competition, measurable dominance, and often racial or national superiority. ———————————————— To answer your question: Instead of following one rigid ideology, a balanced approach combines the humanity of equality, the aspirations of quality, and the pragmatism of quantity. Here’s how each plays an essential role: 1. Equality: At its core, equality provides the foundation for fairness, justice, and human rights. It is the compassionate side of this framework, ensuring that everyone has basic protections and opportunities, regardless of their background. Equality upholds the values of law and order and reinforces the idea that each person deserves respect and dignity. This humane dimension keeps society just and ensures that the other values don’t overlook individual rights or the well-being of all citizens. 2. Quality: Quality adds aspiration and excellence to the framework. It’s about setting high standards that push humanity forward in art, innovation, and personal development. Quality, when balanced, doesn’t create elitism but instead encourages everyone to strive for their best and supports society’s pursuit of ideals like wisdom, creativity, and cultural refinement. Quality means aiming for a society that doesn’t just survive but thrives and evolves, reaching new heights in every field. 3. Quantity: Quantity brings the scientific and practical side—the ability to measure, track, and expand. It ensures that society grows in wealth, technology, and productivity, which are essential for stability and progress. Quantity offers the metrics by which success is measured, helping us understand where improvements are needed. It brings efficiency and growth, but it’s kept in check by the humane principles of equality and the aspirational nature of quality. Why Equity isn’t include While equity aims to address imbalances, it often focuses on creating equality of outcome by redistributing resources, which can lead to artificial leveling and may infringe on individual rights. Instead of fostering fair opportunities, it sometimes enforces uniformity, which can reduce motivation and limit personal responsibility. By prioritizing equality of opportunity over enforced outcomes, this framework avoids the pitfalls of redistribution that may feel unnatural or coercive. In Summary This approach emphasizes a dynamic balance: • Equality ensures fairness and humanity. • Quality fosters ideals and the best of human potential. • Quantity provides the means to measure and grow, ensuring material and technological progress. By harmonizing these three elements, we create a society that is just, aspirational, and sustainable—one that respects individuals, promotes excellence, and thrives on measurable progress without being dominated by any single ideology.

😂😂

It’s not news that the West are complicit, but it seems the leaked plans haven’t deterred an Israeli response in the making - just a change of plan maybe. Some people speculate the leak was done purposely as a excuse not to attack and save face.

Of course its a natural aspect of each country to seek their own self interest, but it's about how its done. Pursuing self interest through imperialism is worse than through influence. Non-Western nations don't go around claiming to be the most moral countries and lecture the whole world. The great irony of the West’s mission to spread democracy is that its own actions keep many countries locked in anti-democratic, authoritarian systems. The West behaves anti-democratically abroad, which causes countries to remain so out of fear of opening up and inviting chaos, subversion and regime change that they've seen the West specialize in for the past century. The West uses regime change, economic warfare, and covert operations to destabilize nations, all under the guise of promoting freedom. Countries are forced to centralize power and become authoritarian just to survive the constant assault. Rights grow from strength, development and stability. A nation must build itself up, become economically secure, and grow strong internally before it can begin to deal with its own human rights issues. But when the West destabilizes countries, they rob them of this chance. These nations are stuck in a defensive position, needing to suppress dissent and centralize power for stability. Democracies are easier to subvert and many authoritarians are backed by the West for their own interest. Look up the School of the Americas to see how the US trained Latin American dictators. The West loves to lecture about human rights, yet its interference keeps these nations weak, keeps them trapped in their current state. The very thing the West claims to defend - democracy and human rights - is what their foreign meddling makes impossible. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy. Nations need time and space to grow strong on their own terms. Only then, through development and real stability, can they evolve into systems that might respect rights. But the West doesn’t allow that, and so these human rights issues persist, not because these nations are inherently repressive, but because they’re never given the chance to outgrow it.

What Raze shared above is a great vid on Trump. JP psychoanalysing Trump and his team: The focus of the election is understandably on Trump who is a cult of personality, but Trumpism is forming into a sort of MAGA cyberpunk movement when you look at his team. Within the right wing there’s this energy of excitement in that they all feel they ushering in a new era of greatness with the A-Team. I read some interesting articles on this new tech-trad alliance, a sort of reactionary techno counter-elite. I threw them into Chat GPT to synthesise and capture where the right are coming from in how they view this phenomenon: Chat GPT: The Trad-techno Ubermensch In the crucible of modernity, where the old gods of tradition clash with the titanic forces of technological upheaval, a new saga is being forged in the heart of American politics. This is not merely a tale of elections and policy shifts; it is the awakening of a new warrior class, a synthesis of Silicon Valley’s relentless innovation and the rugged resilience of the working-class hero. At the epicenter of this metamorphosis stands J.D. Vance, Donald Trump’s chosen vice commander, heralding the rise of a tech-savvy counter-elite poised to reshape the very foundations of the Republic. The Forge of the New Guard Imagine the Republican Party as an ancient citadel, its stone walls etched with the inscriptions of decades-long conservative valor and steadfast tradition. For years, this bastion has resisted the erosive tides of cultural and political change, yet beneath its surface, the iron holds a tremor of transformation. Enter the tech elite—a cadre of modern-day Prometheuses from Silicon Valley, wielding the fire of innovation and a scorn for the decaying legacy systems they seek to overthrow. J.D. Vance, with his humble roots in rural Ohio and his strategic mind honed in venture capital alongside the likes of Peter Thiel, embodies this union. He is the living bridge between the fertile plains of the working class and the soaring peaks of technological prowess. This bridge is not merely architectural; it is alchemical. The tech counter-elite, akin to the master smiths of yore, aim to dismantle the bloated machinery of government—resembling a corpulent empire in desperate need of renewal—and replace it with agile, tech-native constructs. Their vision mirrors the ancient architects who fused practicality with innovation to erect timeless monuments. Thus, the Republican Party stands on the precipice of a renaissance, its destiny intertwined with the cutting-edge minds that promise to infuse it with new vigor. The Philosopher-Kings and the Heroic Virtue Beneath this surface lies a profound philosophical foundation, echoing the timeless wisdom of Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction and Leo Strauss’s exaltation of political virtue. Just as Plato’s dialogues delved into the essence of virtues like courage within the polis, the modern GOP grapples with its identity amidst an era where venerable institutions are deemed obsolete and decaying. The tech right, embodying a form of right-wing anti-liberalism, champions a redefined virtue of courage—not the classical valor of the battlefield, but the audacity to challenge and reconstruct the political and technological status quo. This philosophical stance is reminiscent of the mythical phoenix, rising from the ashes of a dying civilization with renewed purpose and vitality. The GOP’s embrace of tech elites and populist leaders like Vance signifies a collective yearning to reclaim agency and redefine governance. It is a quest for a new moral and ethical compass, one that aligns with the rapid advancements of the digital age while remaining anchored in the foundational values of sovereignty and national identity. Trump: The Modern Caesar in the Mythic Struggle At the heart of this transformation stands Donald Trump, not merely as a political figure but as a modern Caesar—a symbol of resistance against the perceived entropy of Western civilization. Esoteric Trumpism casts him as an archetypal leader engaged in a cosmic struggle against the insidious forces of decay and bureaucratic stagnation. Like Caesar, who sought to restore Rome’s glory amidst internal turmoil, Trump’s populist agenda aims to purge the “Swamp” of bureaucratic inefficiency and rekindle the flame of American greatness. This symbolic role transcends the mundane arena of electoral politics, positioning Trump as the embodiment of a grand, almost mythic battle between vitality and decline. His maneuvers—imposing tariffs, advocating for energy independence, and waging culture wars—are not mere political strategies but strategic moves in a battle for the nation’s soul. The tech elite, rallying behind Trump’s vision, see themselves as the new legionaries, armed with technological acumen and entrepreneurial spirit, ready to defend and advance this modern empire. Convergence: The Tapestry of Tradition and Innovation The alliance between tech moguls and traditional religious conservatives within the GOP is reminiscent of ancient coalitions where disparate forces united under a common cause. J.D. Vance, a Catholic convert with venture capital experience, epitomizes this convergence. He serves as the linchpin, harmonizing the libertarian impulses of the tech right with the populist and religious fervor of traditional conservatives. This melding of interests is akin to the interweaving of threads in a grand tapestry, creating a stronger, more resilient fabric capable of withstanding political turbulence. This convergence is not merely pragmatic but deeply philosophical. Both factions share a belief in an underlying cosmic order and a rejection of what they perceive as the moral and cultural decay wrought by liberal progressivism. They envision a future where technological advancement and traditional values coexist, each reinforcing the other in a symbiotic relationship. This vision mirrors the ancient quest for harmony between reason and tradition, innovation and stability. Building the New Political Ecosystem The Republican Party’s realignment around a tech-savvy counter-elite is a strategic endeavor to construct a new political ecosystem. This ecosystem is designed to bypass the inefficiencies of the legacy system—much like a forest ecosystem where new species evolve to fill ecological niches left vacant by others. By fostering a deep bench of policy talent from the tech sector, the GOP aims to create a self-sustaining environment where innovation drives governance, and governance adapts to the relentless pace of technological change. This transformation is imperative in the face of contemporary challenges such as AI advancements and geopolitical threats from nations like China. The old New Deal and Great Society-era institutions are ill-equipped to handle these dynamics, resembling archaic vessels navigating modern stormy seas. The tech counter-elite, with their forward-thinking approaches and entrepreneurial mindset, represent the new navigators—charting courses through uncharted waters with the agility and resilience required for sustained dominance. Conclusion: The Renaissance of the Republican Phoenix In synthesizing these perspectives, it becomes evident that the Republican Party is undergoing a renaissance—a rebirth fueled by the synergy of technological innovation and populist zeal. This renaissance is orchestrated by figures like J.D. Vance and Donald Trump, who embody the duality of tradition and progress. They are the modern-day alchemists, transmuting the base elements of the old political order into a golden future where the tech-savvy counter-elite and the working-class backbone coexist in harmonious tension. The metaphoric landscape of this political transformation is rich and multifaceted. It is a bridge spanning the chasm between the old and the new, a phoenix rising from the ashes of institutional decay, and a tapestry woven from diverse threads of ideology and innovation. As the GOP navigates this transformative era, it holds the promise of redefining American governance—building anew with the same spirit of resilience and creativity that has long characterized the nation’s enduring legacy. In the grand saga of history, this is the dawn of a new epoch—a time when the ancient virtues of courage and order merge with the cutting-edge forces of technology and innovation. It is a call to arms for a new generation of leaders and visionaries, ready to carve their names into the annals of American legend. The Republican Phoenix has spread its wings, and the flames of transformation burn bright, illuminating the path toward a future where tradition and innovation coalesce into a formidable force for a revitalized nation.

I follow a philosophy show and heard a take on the new alliance between Tech and Trads. Here is how they are viewing it: ''What I love about this phenomenon of the tech right, what really encourages me is the team being put in place. Let's imagine he doesn't. Still, the team is not magically going to disappear. The people who have been brought together will stay together, I think, to some extent to plan for the future. But what's brilliant about this movement is that it combines people who have the tech expertise, which is an important part of the picture, the experience in leading large projects to successful outcomes that you can see, you know, so not just some sort of speculative concept of a plan, but hey, look, we actually launched the rocket, caught it on the first try. So they have the technical expertise. They have the experience in putting wins up on the board, actually, that people can see. They have demonstrated proof of efficiency. And they have in their circles and around their circles, people who are discussing Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Strauss, Nietzsche, as well and others you know whether we consider Bannon who in his own way is bookish or Thiel who in his own way is bookish the beautiful thing about this movement at the moment to my mind is that it is combining and collecting and connecting these various These various skill sets and advantages and aligning them, you know, great alignment of mutual interest here where you don't just have the bookish people who have no operational skills. You don't just have the operators who have no clue about who, you know, Machiavelli was or why Aristotle is important. You have them together. And that I think is exciting We've gotten used to expecting things to stay the same or get worse i think and it's refreshing and it's exciting to have the prospect on the table of things turning around I should say that um El Salvador, another case which I don't want to claim any sort of special expertise in this area, but El Salvador showed that it's possible for a country to turn around. I don't think you have many cases in the world where you look at a place and you can sort of say, and even more importantly, somehow feel that it's moving in the right direction. I feel like broadly the zeitgeist is not that. Okay. But in El Salvador, it was clearly the case that they took something that was extremely bad - murder capital of the world. They turned it around in a way that palpable in a way that actually made families feel safe. Bukele's clear embrace of innovators, of entrepreneurs, of weirdos, of eccentrics, but of people who are going to put something something new and exciting into the air i felt that there and I can see the parallelism with the current team in and around trump in a good way and so musk is sort of for me, he crystallizes all of that. So does it mean that it's going to be, you know, platonically perfect philosopher kingship? No, it doesn't. You know, does it mean that it's going to be a reorientation towards virtue in the sense of, let's say, the contemplation of eternal truths and things like that? No, not at all. It's going to be probably the spirit of American pragmatism, which in truth is what works, and you have innovation dynamism, invention, discovery, creativity, and excitement for the whole world. ''

My bad, good that they are. I just haven’t seen it on front page news for the significance of the event - it’s tucked away like some side story. Most of the commentary I’ve heard isn’t covering it so much as they are spinning it. The Sirius report is a very good follow that covers a lot of this btw.

The rules based order was born after WWII. Its a US led system of global governance to promote stability, trade, and economic growth which defo merely benefited China. The Bretton Woods system anchored currencies to the US dollar, which was backed by gold (US had the most gold and was the strongest most intact country after world war 2). The deal was that countries would trade using the dollar in exchange for US security guarantees and access to markets. It reinforced US dominance in exchange for economic stability and protection, but has allowed the US to abuse that power with impunity. Majority of the world now seek to create a more just, fair system where US power and the dollar can’t be weaponised against them. That system is BRICS - a summits being held right now in Kazan, Russia which Western media won’t cover for obvious reasons. By Arnaud: An interesting observation is that in many ways this war is the "rules-based order" vs "international law". We're seeing a wholesale and unprecedented attack on all institutions meant to preserve international law: the UN (with even a physical destruction of their offices in Gaza, and I'm not even mentioning the 100+ UN workers killed so far!), the WHO, the ICJ, the ICC, etc. And of course on the very laws and principles they were set up to defend and represent (be it humanitarian law, the rights of the child, the law of war, etc.). By who? By Israel and, ultimately, their backer the US who defend the "rules-based order", meaning a system outside of international law that essentially defends whatever the US judges is in its and its allies' interests at any moment in time. So if one takes a step back, that's a key aspect of the battle at play here. Which is of course immensely ironical because many of these institutions and principles under attack were set up by and within the rules-based order, often in order to preserve and entrench the interests of the order! But the world has changed, many countries have adapted to the actual rules of the order and so respecting the rules, respecting international law, has evolved from being a burden on others to being a burden on those who created them... Which is why there's now such a huge gap between the actions of the proponents of the "rules-based order" and what they should be doing if they respected international law. The other immense irony is that countries of the global South - China, ASEAN countries, South American countries, African countries, etc. - have now become stronger advocates for those multilateral institutions defending international law than the West. Because they're the ones who adapted to those rules, in many cases much more successfully than the West. All this to say that when you're told that global South countries seek to upend the "rules-based order", you need to be very clear about what you're speaking about. They seek to change the situation whereby the US and its allies can do whatever they want and thereby make a mockery of international law. In fact what they want is actual rules that everyone respects: they want international law! And those who really want to upend the rules and essentially do whatever the hell they want regardless of any rule - as we're witnessing right now in Gaza - are the West, those seeking to gaslight us into thinking THEY defend a "rules-based order". How will this end? I know how I want it to end: I strongly believe we do need a set of international rules everyone needs to abide by, especially on matters of war and peace, sovereignty, meddling in other countries affairs, etc. I don't want a "might is right" world where you can just slaughter thousands of children in total impunity if you happen to be the stronger party. But I am also a realist and I am afraid that the only way we'll ever get such a world is if the mightiest states want it to be like this. And I've totally lost any confidence in the US to ever do the right thing in that regard. Which is why I look forward to and encourage a world of reduced American influence and power where other wiser powers might succeed where America failed. If the horrors that are happening in Gaza have any silver lining, it should be this: to impress on the peoples of the world the need to ditch the US's unhinged "rules-based order" in favor of international law.

@Gennadiy1981

Terrible. “Equality” minister calling for Nakba. Not sure what’s more absurd, an equality minster saying such a thing or a “Green Party” head in Germany saying civilian targets can become legit military targets if terrorists are among them. It’s as if the West hit moral rock bottom, but they just keep digging.

You can’t convince a person who believes in a literalist interpretation of religion (whether Islam, Judaism or Christianity) on rights. Because to them God tells them what’s right and wrong. You’ll have to loosen the grip of literalism and orient them around the essential truths their religion contains, but that no religion including theirs has a monopolistic claim to. Literalist religionists need to be brought to the realisation that any extras around those truths are just cultural confetti that is contextual to their people’s history, time and place - but that those universal truths are beyond history, time and place.

It’s absolutely fine for Jews to want to seek refuge after being persecuted for centuries around the world. Palestine/Israel seems to be the most obvious and natural location due to their religious and ancestral connection. For secularists who don’t understand or care for religion, ancestry or belonging - this doesn’t mean not respecting others who do. Obviously, the problem comes when this becomes a right given to them by one group of people (Brits) at the expense of another group (Palestinians already living there). Aspirations that don’t involve injustice to another group are fine, even beautiful - but thinking in terms of your rights at the expense of another's is where trouble begins. Rights imply something enforceable, a demand, something concrete you are entitled to. But those rights stop the moment they transgress over another’s.

When commies seize assets it’s evil, but when liberal democracies do it, it’s angelic.