zazen

https://m.jpost.com/international/article-840500 It’s tricky with polls because it can depend on the sample size and who was selected etc. Sometimes these polls are used to shape public perception by creating a false sense of consensus. Despite that, a flawed poll can still signal a disturbing dominant narrative in a society - which this shows.

A different opinion:

@Raze with the razor sharp facts and logic as usual. Let’s see what Trump and Bibi come away with in their meeting this week.

@PurpleTree They aren't conclusive or confirmed by the German prosecutor. First vid from 1:55 sec on wards, as the guy says - it's a development that may get them closer to the truth. Seems more like a scapegoat to avoid facing the reality of the situation. We have to look at the motive, means and incentive. - They lack the incentive: their survival hinges on Western support - especially NATO of which Germany is a major player. Meanwhile, the US weakens Russia’s economic leverage over Europe, forces the continent to pivot to American liquefied natural gas, and tighten NATO’s stance against Russia who they want to weaken. - They lack the motive: Why would Ukraine risk alienating one of its most important backers in the middle of an existential war. Meanwhile, Biden had openly threatened to “end” Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, making the US motive more clearer and more transparent. - They lack the means: The pipelines buried deep beneath the Baltic Sea and closely monitored. Ukraine doesn't have the stealth capability, specialized diving teams, or precise coordination to avoid detection in waters patrolled by NATO allies like Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Especially not in the middle of a brutal land war where their resources are stretched. The CIA is exactly the kind of organization specialized in covert operations like this. Sabotage, subterfuge, and destabilization are in the agency’s DNA.

There is something to be said about this possibly helping US re-industrialise over the longer term - but it’s not a guarantee and it does cause short term pain via inflation. Not to mention a damaged relationship with its neighbours. This is a interesting short vid on it: By the time all this happens even at best estimates of 3-5 years - wouldn’t the rapid advancements of AI which the US also want to speed run, end up swallowing the jobs they hope re-industrialising would have created? Many variables at play which makes it hard to predict outcomes. 80% of avocados come from Mexico - so for sure that guac gonna be extra lol

If it wasn’t so clear before - Denmark just gave Russia permission to carry out patch up work on Nord Stream 2. https://www.offshore-energy.biz/denmark-gives-permission-for-preservation-work-on-damaged-nord-stream-2-pipeline/ If Russia really blew up its own multibillion dollar energy infrastructure, why would it be scrambling to preserve what’s left of it? And why would Denmark, a NATO member, sign off on it? The silence from Germany, Sweden, and Denmark about their investigations into the sabotage only makes it more obvious who was really behind it. If even a tiny piece of evidence pointed to Russia, they’d have no issue shouting about it, as they already do so against Russia actions regarding Ukraine. Instead, they’re staying quiet because the truth points in a direction they’re too scared to confront: Washington. This in the backdrop of tensions over Greenland. Europe is finally realising where the true disorder is coming from: across the Atlantic.

Tit for tat now https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/01/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china “The leaders of Canada and Mexico have hit back after Donald Trump signed an order authorizing drastic tariffs of up to 25% on their exports to the US, while China said it would complain to the World Trade Organization after it was also targeted by the president. Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, on Saturday night made a televised address announcing concrete measures including a tit-for-tat 25% tariff phased in across C$155bn ($107bn) worth of American products. Trudeau said Trump had put at risk US consumers’ and industries’ access to much-needed Canadian critical minerals and resources including oil, energy and timber. The prime minister promised to work with Canada’s provinces to review dealings with the United States.”

@Leo Gura True, it definitely has its pitfalls and risks. Maybe Russias version of multi-polarity is its polar bears eating us alive. PS I accept your sites cookies 😁

A governance system isn’t inherently good or bad except by those that make it so. Let’s see corporatocracy relinquish its power over the US. Then we can talk about how good a corporatocracy cosplaying as a democracy is. In China, faces don’t change, but the policies do to meet the changing needs of the people. In the US, the faces change in a political musical chairs of who gets to keep the seats warm, while no policy challenging the deep state corporate power structure ever shows its face. In China , the state directs capital. In the US, capital directs the state. In China, the state evolves for and with the people’s development. In the US, the state revolves around and for capital. Being politically centralized doesn’t translate to being unable to be pragmatic in geopolitics ie being multi polar. Internal governance is how you run your household, international relations is how you behave in the neighbourhood. You can be a strict parent at home but still shake hands and exchange cookies with the neighbour.

Darwinism (nature) is a constant in all time and place - but how Darwin the monkey is socialised (nurture) differs across time and place. Ideally, the raw nature of power is nurtured and refined through principles. Darwin is the hardware, physical, natural state of survival and competition. The social aspect is the software, psychology and cultural narrative that runs on top of that hardware. Social Darwinism is a fact of reality. But bad actors use this truth not as description but as prescription and license to indulge their power fantasies because “it’s just nature”. They turned Darwin into their personal hype man for empire. Different civilizations, different socialization of Darwin.

@Bobby_2021 I agree. Nothing wrong with countries striving to be dominant economic players - they just shouldn't economically dominate others which delves into economic imperialism, through coerced one sided deals that are extractive rather than productive. The Western sense of universal supremacy causes them to want primacy. If there’s a notoriously crazy driver (US) on the road, that incentives others to get bigger cars with better airbags and bumpers for survival. Imagine if instead of drivers needing to waste money on their cars (military expenditure) they could have spent it on their children's education (national development). Perhaps its better if the crazy driver gets off the road and goes to driving school or rehab. Instead of spurring on the world into militarization just to keep up, we should just rehabilitate the problem at its source. My response to Leo and Inleytened below reinforce your points about multi-polarity. @Inliytened1 It's a trap to conflate human nature with Western behavior - or to assume the Western worldview is universal. No nation is uniquely bad, but the West has been typically so if we examine history up to the present. Conquest and war have been the norm, but not all conquest and war were the same. The way power is exercised matters. Human nature is the same everywhere, including the nature of power - but nurture isn't the same everywhere. Not everyone in the same positions of power act the same way. John Mearsheimer style realism is only "real" about the nature of power - but completely blind to the power of nurture. While leftist naivety is blind to the power dynamics of survival, the realist view is blind to principles being able to nurture nature and power towards better ends. The belief that humans live only by power is Western nihilism disguised as realism - a projection of the Western psyche. Westerners are raised within a power structure where they have only ever seen power wielded as dominance, conquest, and supremacy. We project this assumption onto all other civilizations, believing that power can only function in a zero-sum game. This view is deterministic and fatalistic. It's no surprise that every major realist thinker comes from the West - because a civilization detached from the soul, shaped by atheistic materialism and Darwinism, cannot conceive of anything beyond the struggle for survival and domination. Western civilization has been dominance driven since its pagan origins. That harsh, cold and scarce environment shaped the psyche to value material accumulation, conquest and war as survival mechanisms. When Christianity arrived, it served as a counterpoint to that ethos - but the Western mind never fully internalized it. Instead of the principles of Christianity transforming the West, the West weaponized Christianity to serve imperial ambition and astro turfed it on top of the pagan ethos. This is why Nietzsche spoke of the tension in the Western soul between “master morality” (pagan dominance) and “slave morality” (Christian humility). The dominant ethos was never overturned, only temporarily restrained. Christianity became a tool of empire rather than a force that changed empire itself. As Christianity has declined in the West, its been replaced with Social Darwinism - survival of the fittest is treated as principle. The West never truly abandoned "might is right" - it only changed its justification. First it dressed up raw power in Christian language (Divine Right of Kings, Manifest Destiny). In modernity it dresses up power in the language of natural selection, competition, and market forces. Nationalist Christian neocons are larping as Christians. They use Christianity to cover their impulse for domination - their worldview is far closer to pagan tribalism than the teachings of Christ. Meanwhile, the secular left, despite rejecting and even mocking religion like rebellious teenagers - unknowingly inherit their moral compass from Christianity. Values like equality, justice, and human rights were not natural to pagan Europe but were introduced to the continent and injected into its bloodstream. Today the West is caught in a deep internal struggle between these two paradigms. A pagan, power driven ethos that prioritizes domination above all else VS a lingering Christian ideal that principles should transcend power and check its excesses. That tension manifests in politics, economics, and culture. This is why some elements reduce morality to power dynamics, and dismiss cooperation as naive. This is why some elements (who are unfortunately in the driving seat) within the West are so deterministic and fatalistic. It's not a universal law of human nature - it's a specific cultural conditioning that views power as the only reality and views the reality of power as only being dominating rather than liberating. The Western psyche mistake its own cultural psychology for universal truth. Civilization doesn't have to be a constant war of all against all. Multi-polarity can lead to anarchy due to corrupt actors, but uni-polarity inevitably corrupts the hegemon, which then abuses its position - causing anarchy anyway. As we have seen by the US’s actions in the last century. Multi-polarity is a system where multiple poles of power can act as checks and balances on one another. This is the same principle behind why democratic governance is considered superior within Western politics - so why not extend that logic internationally. In a world where power guarantees mutually assured destruction (MAD), survival itself can enforce cooperation. We don’t have to rely on ideals or principles for coexistence if self-interest alone compels it. That’s why the world hasn’t collapsed into total war since the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction has forced restraint, which is why on the contrary we "have nice things" at all. The question is, if arms races are so bad, why is the US sprinting toward doomsday? And who is the US even racing when it spends more on militarization than the next nine countries combined - include three times more than it's ''rival'' China. In reality, the US is just racing itself in a frenzy. It’s trapped in its own bubble imagining phantom enemies and boogeymen to justify its expansion. Multi-polarity means being arm in arm. Uni-polarity means arms up, flexing muscles. One is based on mutual security, the other on perpetual escalation. Not all arms races are the same. A system where multiple powers keep each other in check is far safer than one where a single, overarmed hegemon dictates terms until it collapses under its own weight - or traps itself (Thucydides's Trap) when it inevitably faces a rising power.

In practice, Multi-polarity leads to anarchy only if one or more actors insist on being on top, which in this case is the West/US - that is for sure not a mindset on par with multi-polarity. Just like how the West was right about needing to tackle the failed worldview of communism in the past, perhaps today the ones actually advocating for multi-polarity such as Russia, China etc are right in tackling the uni-polar hegemonic world view of the West. As mentioned in your first sentence - it's the selfishness and self-absorption of the West, and by extension the arrogance and supremacist worldview - that is a hindrance to multi-polarity, but you imply its the corruption of Putins worldview. I would reflexively think so too - shouldn't a nation with corrupted poor internal governance translate to poor international relations? Not necessarily. The distinction is that just because a actor wants to be on top of their own people, doesn't mean they want to be on top of everyone else - on top of the world. Putins kleptocracy can fail and in its current form it won't compete with the West for sure. That's different from it being unable to share power with others - as you've mentioned before somewhere, you don't think he's acting imperialistic, at least not yet. A leader can be corrupt in managing their own country but still pragmatic in external relations - they can be domestically extractive but not internationally expansionist. Imperialism doesn't just rely on internal corruption but requires a expansionist worldview. The US for example acts as if whatever benefits the US must benefit the entire world. China and Russia act in their own interest, but they don't universalize those interests into a imperialistic worldview that is incompatible with multi-polarity - which by extension is incompatible in the modern era. In the past we could afford to have a uni-polar hegemonic power, because the power to destroy the world many times over didn't exist. But in a world with multiple powers, which each have enough power to destroy the world many times over - there's no choice but to be multi-polar and share power with others, rather than have power over others - which is a worldview not on par with modern times and that the West currently holds.

This is Americas problem too, or more broadly the Wests. As above so below - Musk is the microcosm in the macrocosm of Western civilization. Can’t be at the table of multipolarity, just want to be at the head of it with all the arrogance that unipolarity brings - and is characteristic of the West. US hubris is doing a god job at isolating itself amongst its allies it seems:

Perplexity already incorporating DeepSeek.

@BlueOak Well said. We have a corporatocracy cosplaying as a democracy. This is where liberal values are weaponised and practiced in a lopsided way to benefit power. This is why the saying goes: in the US capital controls the state, in China the state controls capital - though it more so directs it and checks it's excesses. Something our liberal values hinder us from doing. We'll scream authoritarian when Jack Ma is being checked in China, yet cry about oligarchic and corporate vampirism in our own countries. Our own values can't defend themselves, which is why elements of conservatism need to be integrated into a liberal world view - the conservative elements of discipline, survival, doing what is needed even it makes one look aggressive or heavy handed. If freedom of autonomy is fetishised as some apex value, then we'll never experience the benefits that the freedom of harmony will bring. We have a lopsided rebellious teenager approach to freedom, rather than a mature one. We can't get that we give up lower freedoms for higher ones. Every limit or constraint on freedom is seen as authoritarian. Sophisticated minds can understand the limits of absolute freedom in their critique of libertarianism but can't extend this thinking to other domains. When it comes to the relationship between people and corporations in domains of importance - healthcare, education, housing, and food - corporations are given the liberal freedom to act as they please, while the people are denied the liberal freedom to resist, adjudicate, or hold them accountable for profiteering and exploitation. Liberal values exist, but they serve the predator over the prey. It’s a one way street: corporations enjoy unrestrained economic liberty, while the public is given more trivial yet still valid freedoms - superficial liberties that do not threaten the structure of power. The people are granted freedom in indulgence, not in fulfilment of meeting their most basic needs. We can protest as loudly as we want, but never to meaningfully challenge power. Even these freedoms have limits if we step outside the approved boundaries or get too loud ie Snowden and Assange. China for example limits protest, but that doesn't mean you can't complain. They have a national help line 12345 anyone can call in fact - to complain, not to protest. The point being - the higher freedom of stability is prioritized over a individual or group protesting which can lead to constant political polarization. This drains the nations energy rather than directing it towards solving its problems. In the West we may be given the freedom to protest loud, in China they are attempting to give people the freedom to not even need to protest in the first place - by addressing their fundamental needs. This is the distinction between autonomous freedom vs harmonious freedom. The irony here is that if democracy truly functioned as intended, if we could enact our own will through the vote - then there shouldn't be so much need to protest and so much frustration within society. The system claims to represent the people’s interests but repeatedly doesn't because it serves elite interests. In Western democracies we are given the illusion of choice and to voice opinion, but in the domains that truly matter, corporations feast while their customers starve.

Watching/reading Peter Zeihan really helps in understanding how geography plays a role. US is truly blessed - he also mentions Argentina, France. Think of geography like the physical hardware, and people like the psychological software within that geography / hardware. Geography / hardware sets the limits, people / software maximize what’s within those limits or constraints. Similar to the whole DeepSeek saga - they maximized for efficiency within supposedly even less hardware (GPU’s - compute). Zeihan is too fatalistic though - he’s been calling for Chinas fall since forever (due to poor geography) and doesn’t consider the human element enough. Argentina for example which he say is blessed geographically hasn’t made the most of its geography.

The tech trinity above in full swing. First we had AI, then a new record in the domain of nuclear fusion energy, now they showing off robots for Chinese new year: When MAGA was talking of a golden age..

If the US were to crack down on corporate or oligarchic power, should we call it tyranny? Should we let capital control the state? Check out America getting adjusted to the reality of a multipolar world:

I came across this on X

Checking excessive power that can challenge, destabilise and undermine the state. Something we are now battling with in the West with oligarchs and corporatist influence. Theres a saying that goes: in the West capital controls the state, in China the state controls capital. But it’s more so that it directs and checks it when it gets out of hand. Not entirely controls it like some micromanaging OCD tyrant - which is the type of central planning that causes typical communist states to fail. Jack Ma was making the same remarks libertarian capitalists like Elon and Techno optimists like Marc Andreeson were making - criticising state regulation saying they stifle innovation, which is euphemism for “get off my back and let me consolidate power” US got deepseeked (I know what you thought - you dirty) by chatCCP and is coping. The best part is that this isn’t just a gain for China but due to being open source - is a gain for the entire industry. Every player and lab in US is going to start implementing and speedrunning AI development - which is equally terrifying as it is exciting. Techno optimists will say tech advancement will uplift us all - but if not given a parachute in the form of some compensatory UBI or safety net - then it isn’t a plot twist in humanity but more of a plot hole that tech elites will build over while we shout from the ditch.

There’s a subtle distinction that can help understand how China operates. They aren’t a centrally planned state like prior communist states - they centrally direct. They don’t control businesses as much as they do direct them and then check the excesses gained from it. Politically centralised, economically decentralised - that political centralisation allows them to check excesses - something Russia hasn’t don’t well. In other words: China is centrally directed and actively checks the excesses of the gains made from central direction, ensuring that wealth is reinvested into national development and benefits a broader population. In contrast, Russia is centrally directed but fails to check those gains, allowing them to concentrate in oligarchic hands, leading to major inequalities and a lack of widespread development.

It’s difficult for a country to be 100% neutral. There’s naturally going to be bias and a tilting to one side or another ie Russian interest or Western. The difference here is that a neighbouring country tilting Westward flirts with and often does become part of NATO - which brings Western advanced weaponery onto Russias doorstep threatening its core - including a imperial mentality that isn’t so advanced and is war mongering. The same level of security threat doesn’t occur in reverse - as Russia doesn’t have a equivalent alliance system that binds nations into a article 5 type commitment. Asymmetrical threat - one is clearly more escalatory than the other. Westerners fetishize freedom and sovereignty in an absolutist way, as if it simply exists in a vaccum. “Do as thou wilt” same way we induldge hedonistically at home, we provoke geopolitically abroad. It’s not that other cultures or nations don’t value freedom, they value it differently - perhaps even approach it more multi dimensionally instead of like a rebellious teenager. Freedom of harmony has benefits that freedom of autonomy will never taste. PS I love the West and am not hating.

Same. A interesting and related tweet from Arnaud : “To me, the most fascinating aspect of Deepseek is the fact it stemmed from a hedge fund, a mere few months after China "cracked down" on the levels of compensation in the finance industry. It's also incidentally an important reason why the U.S. will struggle to compete with China. Let me explain. First of all, worth mentioning that this was predictably, as for most Chinese initiatives, presented by Western media as a terrible move- "why would China do this to the poor innocent bankers" . As usual they didn't even try to reflect on why China would do this: as we all know, all Chinese initiatives are always completely mindless and "crackdowns" are just what the Communist party does for fun... The actual reason this was done, I believe, is that China looked at the West - the U.S. in particular - and saw the overbearing importance of the finance industry at the expense of the real economy. And in particular they saw that the country's most brilliant graduates from the very best Ivy League schools went to work for the increasingly parasitic finance industry instead of working on stuff that actually made society move forward. Bloomberg lamented below that the "crackdown" would "fuel an industry brain drain" and yes, that was precisely the point: China doesn't want those who can most contribute to society to spend their careers building ever more senseless financial derivative products or new ways to trade crypto. It doesn't mean they don't want a finance industry, it does serve a purpose, just not one that becomes such a drain on society, in particular in terms of capturing the country's best talents. China would rather have them working on stuff like... artificial intelligence. And lo and behold, fast forward a few months, and you suddenly have hedge fund geniuses who found a new calling in AI. Too good a coincidence not to see a correlation there. This is something that would arguably be very hard for the U.S. to do, where capital is very much in control: an industry that becomes extremely wealthy, even if largely detrimental to broader societal goals, becomes difficult to reform. We're seeing this with finance, defense, big pharma, etc. It also illustrates that the U.S. and China are at different stages of their development: excessive financialization is a common pattern among late-stage great powers - from the Dutch Republic to the British Empire (but also Venice or Spain) - and a vicious-circle type factor of their decline. Emerging great powers are often more thoughtful and nimble about managing talent flows to achieve technological and industrial primacy. Looking at this question is also very interesting in the context of the H-1B visa debate in the U.S. It feels like the debate doesn't address the elephant in the room: why claim a shortage of top talent when the country's best minds are funneled to the finance industry? Much more coherent to first thoughtfully allocate talent at home before seeking to brain drain the rest of the world... Anyhow, yet another example of a Chinese policy that seems bizarre and incomprehensible to the West at first glance but which over the long run (and even short-run as illustrated by Deepseek) helps China develop another strategic advantage in the tech competition. Simply put: you want your best minds building real value, not extracting it from society.”