zazen

Over 50 Muslim countries exist, most of which don’t resemble the Taliban in the slightest. In fact majority of muslims and muslim countries reject Taliban's practices which are either radical interpretations of Islam or not Islamic at all but cultural - but that then get conflated with Islam. Ijtihad is a principle in Islamic jurisprudence that allows Islam to be evolved and applied to different times. Even during the prophets life rulings changed in response to changing social situations. Islam isn't a monolith in how its manifested. @Nemra @Twentyfirst Regarding your guys discussion on modesty - we could flip it on its head and say: why do liberals fear modesty? (instead of Nemra asking why do muslims fear sexuality?). It's not really about fear to begin with really - liberals don't fear modesty, muslim's don't fear sexuality. The two just approach it from a different place. They have a different civilizational approaches toward sex, dignity, and self-respect. The use the same words, but live in different worlds in how they approach them. - In the West, the individual is at the center. The sacredness of the individual demands freedom of itself, which is expressed through visibility - visibility is equated with freedom, which is why expression becomes a virtue. The more exposed, the more liberated - visibility validates the sacredness of the self. The self finds liberation in and of it self, by itself - me, me, me. Boundaries are seen as chains because the concept of dignity is in the self having none. The West seeks to affirm the self outwardly. - In the East, the community is at the center. The sacredness of the whole demands harmony with it, which is expressed through restraint of the self - restraint is equated with harmony, which is why discipline becomes a virtue. The more restrained, the more harmonious - peace with the whole validates it's sacredness. The self finds liberation through the whole, because it's in accordance with something larger and higher than the self. Boundaries are seen as mastery of one self, for a greater self found in the whole - the concept of dignity is in self restraint. The East seeks to refine the self inwardly. We can see how those orientations have manifested in everything from politics to sex. In the West it's birthed a spectacle society - everything is more shallow because life is lived at the periphery acting, expressing the self, never sitting in the self being grounded. Its more performative, hence the activist culture, hustle culture, identity politics - about whats seen, visible. Identity isn't something to be cultivated internally but something to be displayed. Just look at how Trump and Elon had a spat made public. Imagine a grown ass man, tweeting some dirty laundry of another grown ass man - this is seen as undignified and juvenile from a eastern perspective. In the East, issues are handled discreetly behind doors and face to face. Even at a macro political level state to state - the West demands you pick sides and cut ties with their ''adversaries'' publicly. They ask Muslim countries if they condemn China's actions towards Uyghurs - to which many Muslims nations reply, we are partners with China and handle this sensitive issue with our parnet in private. Even with Israel - Palestine: people were always asked to publicly condemn Hamas's actions on October 7th - which is an insult to even ask such a question, to even think that person would agree with such actions. But its all for show you see. Even diet and spirituality - one must be identified with a sub-group and express this always, hence the meme about vegans not waiting long before telling everyone they are one lol. West: Individual → Freedom → Visibility → Expression → Spectacle East: Community → Harmony → Discipline → Self-mastery → Sacred Easterners generally don't splinter into endless identity subgroups because at a deep civilizational level, they don’t experience the self as an isolated, floating island. They're anchored within a web of meaning towards something larger than the self: family, tradition, faith etc. That larger context gives the self structure, continuity, and belonging. They don't need to find it elsewhere in such and such group or identity, because they are already anchored into one.

you’re pulling from 300 years of history to justify eternal fear and hostility toward modern day Russia. Back then was the era of empires where conquest and constantly shifting borders was the norm, and the norms of modern day borders and international law didn’t exist. Romania happens to be caught between a few of empires (Ottoman, Hapsburg, Russian) due to its location and flat land terrain making it easier to penetrate. But we're not in that century any more and now have international law, nuclear deterrence, global institutions, and much more rigid borders. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union trying to conquer Europe. If past invasions justify eternal distrust of Russia, then shouldn’t the rest of the world be just as eternally distrustful of the West who colonized the planet? Ireland was invaded 8 times by Britain - should Ireland always paint Britain as a boogeyman and treat it as if its like the British empire from the old days? Or does it relate to it as it exists in the modern day which isn't an empire or trying to be one? If you're going to use those 300 years of history to define Russia now, then by the same logic, we should live in eternal fear of the West. We don’t do that because we judge a situation based on context and present day reality which is that Russia today isn’t an expanding empire with a demographic surplus - it’s a stagnant/declining power reacting to what it sees as a threat on its doorstep - just like how the Cuban missile crisis was reacted to by the US. It;s not about defending Russia. You can’t apply 300 years of fear selectively. Either we all live in the past, or we try to deal with the world as it actually is. You're too emotional for geopolitics.

Was supposed to be one comment but added the below tweet separately by mistake* People will still say other people are unfairly harsh when criticising the US and why don’t they criticise other bad things in the world lol something called priority and being efficient with your time by honing in on the worlds largest imperial offender and sower of chaos.

Imagine complaining about radicals at your gates, then funding the very same radicals. lol

Very interesting points that bring nuance. Yeah Candace and that crowd don’t acknowledge bias enough or at all. They point to “we’re all already equal under the law” and that any disparity is simply merit based (quality that they attribute supremacy to) when it can be discriminatory based. The question is, are the disparities more due to merit or discriminatory bias? Discrimination is hard to quantify and find evidence for, whilst disparities are easily quantifiable and visible. The left at least acknowledge that bias exist, but try to remedy it top down which creates its own counter bias. Thats why I wrote that bias still exists even in a equal system, which you added to with your point that the world still has a bias towards collectivism - viewing people as collectives rather than individuals. But perhaps the remedy to collective bias (racism-discrimination) isn’t collective punishment or reward either, via DEI policies. The remedy isn’t reversing the dynamic but transcending it - which only happens organically at a spiritual/cultural level, not a political one.

This is true. Usually liberal and leftists heavily support Palestine, and predictably also support DEI. But isn't it contradictory: they understand that Palestinians (in Middle East) shouldn't pay for the sins of others who caused a horrific injustice to the Jews (in Europe), but that logic goes out the window when it comes to making groups (white people) in the present, pay for the past historical injustices caused to another group (black people). Both punish one person for another’s sin - and reduce people to their group identity. It's like moral racism or reverse racism - because it's identifying someone based on their race and treating them accordingly to protocol (DEI). Equity (equality of outcome - leftism) negates equality (of opportunity - liberalism). The leftists who vouch for equity, assume themselves to be an extension of liberal equality, but it ends up undermining the very principles of classical liberalism which are built on: fairness, neutrality, individual merit, and equal opportunity. The way to look at the political spectrum and make sense of it is this: Far left: Equity (outcome, forced) Middle Left: Equality (opportunity, fairness) Middle Right: Quality (discernment, earned merit) Far Right: Quantity (domination, measurable metrics) Quantity oriented means that which is visible, measurable, surface level - IQ, race, strength / might makes right, eugenics = leads to supremacist thinking to justify domination. Both extremes (far left and far right) reduce human beings to statistics, labels, or categories. Both extremes are metric based, surface driven, and inhumane in the end. They both assign value based on what you are (on the surface), not who you are (at your depth). They both trap you into a label or avatar of a group based identity - rather than liberating you as a person with equality of opportunity, to unlock the best of your qualities. Equity also doesn’t just steal opportunity from one person to give it to another - it steals dignity from both. Imagine getting a position not because you earned it but because your x group. Justice should be prospective by building towards a fair future, not retrospective by settling a historic injustice. The issue that leftists rightly point out is that bias can and does still exist, even in a equal system. But they can't top down engineer and fix that because it only causes its own version of injustice and unfairness. It just replaces bias with counter-bias - which ironically only empowers the far right to pendulum swing back in retaliation. They try to mechanically correct a spiritual or cultural flaw with a structural or political fix - when its a spiritual cultural flaw. The solution has to happen in the domain of the spiritual and cultural, and more organically - not some GMO forced fakery creating a chlorinated chicken. A balanced society doesn’t guarantee success, but guarantees a fair shot - and a soft landing if you fall. They level the floor from where everyone starts, not flatten the ceiling so that everyone can touch it. It protects the right’s principle of merit (quality) while preserving the left’s principle of fairness (equality). And they are both synergistic in that the more equality of opportunity you have, the more quality is allowed to emerge from it.

@Apparition of Jack Give me some popcorn too brother!

Who’s says they’re unattractive? Perhaps that attractiveness is made discreet as to not attract all kinds of hanky panky. Perhaps, theres some real baddies in the Middle East that be driving men mad enough to fight over them 😂

@Nivsch That’s good to hear. Even this is nice to see:

@Nivsch Do these oppositional voices in Israel ever mention that a worthy reason to end the war is also about ending the suffering of the Palestinians? Because it seems it’s always simply focused on the hostages. It just looks like Palestinian suffering is not morally relevant unless it affects Israeli interests ie getting back the hostages, less IDF deaths or cooling down the worlds anger towards Israel. The ending the war discourse always centres around approx 50 hostages now, as if the thousands upon thousands of suffering Palestinians isn’t worthy enough of a reason to ending the war also. Golan says Israel needs healing and rebuilding as if Gaza hasn’t just been demolished and traumatised to the extreme.

I think there's a lesson here in clarifying the discrepancy between societal talk vs state actions. On one level we can have maximalist aspirations and rejectionist emotional rhetoric expressed on the street, whilst having more balanced pragmatic actions taken at the state - politics level. We see this in how Gulf nations take steps towards Israel (such as the Abraham accords) even though locals are unhappy with it - because at a state level your operating via diplomacy, pragmatism, and state interests that are bound and checked by global norms, alliances, economic pressure, and military risk. In Israels case however, societal aspirations do translate a lot more to state actions - because the usual realpolitik and structural incentives that are supposed to be there to constrain them, are instead pushed to their limits and exceeded thanks to being enabled by the worlds superpower the US. Israel gets to act on its darkest societal instincts a lot more than other states would otherwise. A lot of the fear around a Palestinian state can rightly be pointed to the anger and maximalist positions they may hold at a societal level, despite at a organisational one being more pragmatic (such as expressed by the PLA or today by Hamas). But that fear misses how states function differently than stateless societies. Once Palestinians have a state with defined borders, international recognition, economic incentives, and responsibilities, their behavior will shift - not because their pain disappears, but because statehood tames maximalism. That emotion will be channeled into diplomacy, law, and survival strategy - just like it has for other national or liberation movements ie IRA in Ireland. It's the absence of a state that keeps that maximalism alive. Statelessness breeds desperation while statehood breeds accountability - to allies, trade partners and global norms. Once Palestine is on the map, its government would be forced to prioritize stability, legitimacy, and international support, not slogans. Meanwhile, Israel which is already a state - has no excuse for its behavior. Its atrocities and massacres aren’t theoretical or projection, but fact. Just see how at a societal level many Palestinians in the following videos hold maximalist positions, whilst at a higher level of state or political organisation they are tamed into diplomatic pragmatism in order to further the interest of their own people, even against their peoples own maximalism:

@Nivsch @Raze

@Breakingthewall The official UK government website refers to Palestine as occupied territory. This isn’t Hamas or Al Jazeera either. UK is not only a close ally of Israel, but played a foundational role in founding it via the Balfour declaration. If it’s not a occupation what would you call it? The idea that the land was empty can be de-bunked by a quote from one of the Zionist leaders at the time: “There is no misunderstanding Arab nationalism… It is not possible to bring them to accept the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.” — Ze’ev Jabotinsky, 1923 If it was empty why would they need to refer to Arabs living on it resisting them. The whole “a land without a people for a people without a land,” was a mythic justification with no basis in reality. You just know it’s difficult to find an occupation that ended with peaceful resistance, thus your recommendation for them to do the same would be futile and would inevitably lead them to violence. It would be great if they didn’t have to resort to violence, if non-violent methods like BDS weren’t literally banned, and the world’s superpower who enables Israel would ‘t keep vetoing peace and resolution…the latest from just a few hours ago: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164056 People will then flip around and bitch about me always bitching about the US. No shit Sherlock.

Are there any examples of occupation ending through peaceful resistance?

Where’s nuance and the application of a few brain cells gone? It should be common sense for people to separate an ideology or religion - from the atrocities or injustices committed in its name. Conflating Islam that 2 billion people follow with its most retarded radical expression in a landlocked, tribal and war torn country is nonsense. These are political decrees not universal Islamic rulings. It’s as silly as me saying: a Democracy in the Middle East is committing ethnic cleansing (Israel), another Democracy across the Atlantic Ocean (US) dropped two nukes on a civilian population in Japan.. “But people will still defend Democracy after this?”

The Kurdish issue doesn't have a clear actor oppressing or aggressing against another, because there are multiple countries involved with differing degrees of tension and suppression against Kurdish movements in each. So it's just not as clear as Israel - Palestine. There also isn't any clarity on a solution to rally around, unlike Israel - Palestine which has UN resolutions affirming their right to self-determination and statehood. Kurds are geographically dispersed across multiple nations (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq), often in non-contiguous regions. That gets in the way of forming a unified Kurdish state. It's hard enough for one country to cede territory, imagine having four already established states coming to a agreement to cede their territory and make way for a new state. Palestine is a territory recognized by the UN, even if it’s not universally respected. The Kurds unfortunately missed the window of state formation during the post WWI colonial border drawing. If lines had been drawn differently back then, the conversation today would be different. But once nations have formed and solidified, its extremely hard to re-draw them. That;s why the Kurdish cause is treated as separatist while the Palestinians is framed as liberation. One is a claim to statehood within international law, the other is a challenge to already existing states. If Palestinians just sat there and read eckhart tolle do you think that would stop Israel? Non-violence only works if it can bring about some sort of cost/pressure to the players involved. Non-violence doesn’t mean non-disruption: but Palestinians are largely cut off from the tools of pressure/disruption because they are seiged into a enclave. In liberation movements non-violent resistance is a exception not the rule. Occupation is violent by nature, especially when rooted in settler colonialism which wants to uproot the existing population. Settler colonial projects rarely concede voluntarily. Even Ghandi's example of non-violence wasn't purely so, it was paired with violent uprisings and had its own violent wing. Any non-violent means of resistance only worked so far as they could impose a cost - communal riots, boycotts, strikes, the salt march etc. Same with what aided the ended of South African apartheid. Palestinians are boxed into a system where even non-violent disruption is impossible or crushed brutally if it takes place - say in West Bank. They don't have the same unified platform or space to coordinate mass action like Gandhi's India or South African ANC, because they are fragmented. They also have no real economic clout to pressure Israel with the same way Indian workers had on the British in India. Non-violent tactics don't work the same way under occupation. Which is why its up to outside players to change things, or expect violent uprisings as inevitable, unless we expect Palestinians to be Bhudda's in such a environment. Imagine hearing this kid and expecting a Bhudda to emerge from his circumstance:

You mean people or states? Palestine has been a documented injustice for decades so over time it's built up visibility via a support network of charities, NGO's and journalists backing their cause. It's also not a one off occasion of injustice but ongoing. It's also got the involvement and complicity of the West, which just so happens to be where the most vocal activism is. Palestine also has religious symbolism and is too geo-strategically interconnected to a region with vital resources and trade corridors to simply not care about for states and elite interests - even if they don't care for it at a emotional or humane level. Yemen is of course tragic but geopolitically peripheral to most Western agendas. Public outrage and solidarity are powerful but don't always translate to structural tangible changes unless it can affect elite actors, markets or state decisions. Palestinians can scream, just like Yemenis scream, but unless the scream threatens someone’s interest or serves a larger power’s agenda - it will unfortunately remain an echo. Elite interests change things faster than public interests, even though the soul of a people can be moved faster than the structure they live under can be changed. We've never really seen protest at a global scale like we have for Palestine, and sustained over time. This trickles to the top in charge of the structure because it shows there can be a potential cost to maintaining the status quo of that structure - politically, economically or reputationally. It starts conversations in the halls of power - ''what if they don't vote for us?'' or ''what if this poses a investment risk or reputational risk to our brand?'' Just see how mainstream Western media outlets are now interviewing (grilling) Israeli representatives over this aid massacre: Even The Guardian coming out with a Documentary: Everyone running for moral cover all of a sudden because the immorality of the situation has now become too evident and costly - politically, economically, and reputationally - to be associated with. The vibe shift laid the emotional and moral groundwork. But parallel to that, some elite actors were already realigning for their own strategic and economic reasons. So the public didn’t cause the realignment all on their own, but accelerated and legitimized it. The street and the boardroom are converging - one through outrage, the other through opportunity.

@Breakingthewall Yeah its a dilemma. And both sides are too far gone into trauma and dis-trust to solve it themselves. That's why I think only outside forces can do something about it - but for that there has to be enough incentive pulling the players with enough leverage to cause a shift, away from the status quo. We are seeing signs of this, hopefully its not to late before the Ultra Zionists achieve their final solution. I get what your saying as its strong and emotion based. I think in most cases its top down strategic interests of the elites that drives foreign policy and alliances vs the bottom up cultural affinity and vibes of the people. Top down is like the skeleton and structure that builds alliances, the added cultural aspect gives soul to that alliance which helps maintain them for sure, a bit like glue. For example the US has or has had alliances with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt to name a few - they don't have cultural affinity to each other but serve interests. The US-Israel alliance is unique because it has a cultural overlap with elite interests - that softens and brings warmth to that relationship but I'm not sure it sustains it long term which is what geopolitical alliances are usually built on. It could be the exception though. Another point is that other Western democracies with supposedly similar values to Israel have heavily criticized Israel or taken steps against it. France, Ireland, Spain, Norway, and even Netherlands are taking bold stands. France is co-hosting a major UN conference on the two-state solution later this month and trying to lobby the UK and others towards a two state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state. These are big moves we would have never imaged could happen - even just the way the media has turned. It's unbelievable to even see headlines like this in such a publication as the Financial times: These things take time to play out. But what it tells me is that there has been a clear re-alignment, the old game has been demoted for a newer profitable one. Like what was discussed on the previous page about the funding of radicals, the game used to be: underwrite (fund) radicals, to undermine (sabotage) realism and anti-imperialism. That served geo-strategic goals (resource access) as well as perpetuated a threat narrative to justify military spending and feed the military-industrial complex, which was the dominant industry of the US after WWII. Now the game is transitioning, with resistance and tension between factional elites into: underwrite (partner with) the realists (peacemakers), to undermine the radicals, who cause chaos and kill what could have been your future consumers ($$). Instability threatens capital flow, investor confidence, and long term access to emerging growth markets. The rise of the Finance-Tech-Consumer Complex has eclipsed the Military-Industrial Complex and is slowly re-calibrating US foreign policy against the wishes of the MIC neocons who have more institutional entrenchment. I think viewing the US as a sovereign state in the classical sense trips us up in understanding how it functions ie it's a strong ally that always has our back. It's not like a state pursuing unified, long-term strategic goals and sticking to them. It's more like a platform that different elite interests operate through, usually aligning, sometimes diverging, but more so diverging today. Israel and Palestine right now are locked in mutual trauma and maximalist positions due to that trauma. The ability to force a resolution now lies with bigger actors - not just the US but a mix of financial and diplomatic players (EU, GCC, BRICS) who can collectively bend the remaining elements in the US who get in the way of a resolution. The peace process is bigger than just Israel-Palestine because the stakes are too big now.

Where have I said Israel doesn't have the right to survive? The previous page I literally said the two state solution has the logistical issue of the West Bank being a vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv, thus threatening their security/survival. Your saying who wins is right - as in might makes right..yet on another thread you argue against the US using might to achieve dominance - not survival. That's the key distinction, whether something is for survival or domination. Survival is a right, survival dressed up as domination and imperialism isn't. Just like US-UK maintaining their control over oil resources in a foreign land isn't survival but domination and imperialism. The survival term can get abused when used too loosely to justify anything. Like the recent shootout at the aid area in Gaza of which the details are still fuzzy. A IDF soldier can just say the kid lifted a baguette in joy and I thought it was a rocket launcher, so I shot for my survival.

Economic disenfranchisement is the gut punch, cultural fatigue and overreach is the slap in the face, and a political system not taking either of those seriously is a spit in the face. Ginger Hitler meets park ranger: Society sets different standards for private spaces (where adults are) vs public spaces (where everyone including children are) People feel those norms are being disrupted when drag is in the public square - when it’s historically been for theatrical adult entertainment. Lily Phillips above. Her mate Bonnie Blue below sleeping with a 1000 men in 12 hours: “FrEdOoM” and “LiBeRtY” These very rightful values have been hollowed out into their most juvenile form. Freedom is meant to mean something, to be substantial - but has turned into a performative spectacle. Something dignifying is turned into something degrading. The same people who speak out against capitalism are the ones capitalizing most aggressively on its most sacred illusions - freedom, identity, expression - commodifying those same values into stunts and self-parody. The wider world laughs. Even people these “movements” are supposed to represent laugh:

This is similar to how the US-UK funded radicals from the 50’s to destroy pan-Arabism and keep their assets (oil) from being nationalised by anti-imperialist leaders. A short from Chomsky Then came petro-Islam with Saudi and the creation of a mujahideeen factory against the soviets. The irony of the gulf and Saudi to now be coming out as forces against radicalism when it’s from their region and pockets full of oil money it was instrumentalized for geopolitical goals: Israel seems to have adopted and adapted the same tactic for their own geopolitical goal of domination. What peeves people the most is to have people underwrite radicalism, in order to undermine realistic pragmatism - then have those same people bitch about it when they fight what they helped create, and cause Islamophobia in the process tarnishing 2 billion.

True. I just saw this 6 month old video of various Palestinians being interviewed - basically majority want the maximalist demand of a one state solution. I don’t know if this is because of all the suffering and destruction post Oct 7th or if it was their position before.. But yeah, utterly self defeating and disappointing. The sense I get is that they think/feel that the longer they have suffered and been occupied (over 7 decades) the more they need to be compensated for it (all the land) otherwise what was all the suffering and struggle for - half of what was theirs? The issue is a national identity can’t just be undone once it’s crystallised. Beyond being unjust and promising eternal war - this just isn’t the early 20th century anymore where borders are malleable and colonial powers can redraw a map overnight. Another logistical hurdle IF a two state solution were even agreed upon is like you said - the vantage point from West Bank overlooking Tel Aviv and Israel. They would have to accept it to be de-militarized or national peacekeeping forces there rather than either Israeli or Palestinian security forces. Shit show of a situation - seems like a solution simply needs to be decided by more rational larger powers and imposed for a greater peace to prevail so that the region can move forward. I just look at my profile pic, nod, sigh, then zazen

Should we go back to discussing morality? The culture that actually used nukes, and from which another mouthpiece calls to nuke Gaza - thinks there’s something wrong with the culture in Gaza. Ironic.