Imperialism killed over 1.000.000.000 people and US is the Imperial Core.

[What Am I]

14 minutes ago, Some dude on the net said:

I've said just that people who use psychedelics more are inclined to Solipsism.

I suppose this particular statement is probably technically accurate.

It's just sad though, because a much more useful understanding would be something like "Anyone who enters the state of consciousness commonly called nirvikalpa samadhi (by whatever means) will be inclined towards a sophisticated comprehension of solipsism, due to their direct experience of dissolving into a superconscious everything/nothing/forever identity."

It's worth expanding one's horizons beyond a base-level understanding of something so innate and profound. This is a potential that all humans have. And yet, it's practically become vestigial, with most people being unaware of what they're missing. I get that your university professor and favorite youtube channels likely don't ever bring up the topic, but maybe it's worth another look before assuming you've got a perfect handle on how things really are.

[Some dude on the net]

@What Am I  I appreciate your nuance, I consider myself quite "woke" . At the moment, I no longer want psychedelics, what you're saying seems more connected to the turquoise level. For now, I'm focusing on the values of the yellow level. I want to take the yellow to the last level of obsessive refinement, haha. I was dead for 5 days in a coma (grade 4). I know what peace is. True confidence in the self comes when you know you're okay with dying at any moment. Right now, I'm focused on patterns because they tickle me the most. Cheers.

[What Am I]

4 minutes ago, Some dude on the net said:

@What Am I  I appreciate your nuance, I consider myself quite "woke" . At the moment, I no longer want psychedelics, what you're saying seems more connected to the turquoise level. For now, I'm focusing on the values of the yellow level. I want to take the yellow to the last level of obsessive refinement, haha. I was dead for 5 days in a coma (grade 4). I know what peace is. True confidence in the self comes when you know you're okay with dying at any moment. Right now, I'm focused on patterns because they tickle me the most. Cheers.

[Some dude on the net]

This is why China can be considered more democratic than the US. The US conducted over 50 coups in South America. In Vietnam, they killed 3,200,000 people, 2,000,000 of whom were civilians. They dropped 80,000 tons of "Agent Orange" onto the jungle. The Vietnamese used booby traps with vipers tied to wooden stakes and buckets of scorpions that would fall on American troops. Agent Orange is a deadly substance that causes cancer. Even today, babies are born with deformities because of the 80,000 tons of toxic poison the US dropped over Vietnam. This has poisoned water supplies and crops. The media played a significant role in twisting the damage. "Who controls the media Controls the Mind" - Noam Chomsky. They reported how the US was wiping out entire Vietnamese cities, but from a framework of nationalism, which went like this: "Unfortunately, we need to wipe out entire towns to save them from the terrorists." There were no terrorists, no Russians, no Chinese just the US. The US were the Terrorists. But the media would never say that.
This is the exact same strategy being used today in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. "We need to bomb them to save them from the terrorists." "UN peacekeepers are Hezbollah shields, so we need to attack them." "We need to bomb their hospitals and kill their children to save them from the terrorists." This is the same playbook they used in Vietnam. People don't understand that democracy is also what's happening around your country not just in it. If your country is a heaven to live in but hell for others, then your country is pretty fucked. This is why many people here have a bias on the US and Mearsheimer. Because they live in the US. My country has always been a ping pong ball between 2 superpowers. I have no bias, I just look at the world from a birds eye view and compare what I see. And I also didn't like how Leo dismissed the 4.700.000 millions of people killed by the US after 9/11 as "Those were definitely wrong wars". No they were wars for oil, exactly like now. I'm not judging anyone, it's just the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AeAfFfTqMk You don't give a fuck about truth. You just want to defend you ideologies. Shame on you Leo. You are a green hippie. If you were yellow you would listen. Turquoise is out of the question. This the reason why the dudes over spiral dinamics took the Turquoise episode down. You don't know what your talking about. 

Edited Monday at 11:55 PM by Some dude on the net
There is no hope for world peace if even someone like you Leo ignores the truth about US. Your making a mistake.

[royce]

On 10/13/2024 at 10:12 PM, Some dude on the net said:

Ad Hominem. You know nothing about world politics and history. I've never said anything about Russia. Russia is worse than US. Green loves to judge

He's only here to defend his Zionist state, and he's bad at it.

[Nemra]

11 hours ago, zazen said:

The West is oriented around autonomy (individualistic) whilst the East is oriented around harmony (collectivistic).

Why do you picture non-westerners as intelligent, loving actors?

You should have said homogeneity instead of harmony.

Edited Tuesday at 12:03 AM by Nemra

[Alex4]

10 hours ago, Some dude on the net said:

This is why China can be considered more democratic than the US. The US conducted over 50 coups in South America. In Vietnam, they killed 3,200,000 people, 2,000,000 of whom were civilians. They dropped 80,000 tons of "Agent Orange" onto the jungle. The Vietnamese used booby traps with vipers tied to wooden stakes and buckets of scorpions that would fall on American troops. Agent Orange is a deadly substance that causes cancer. Even today, babies are born with deformities because of the 80,000 tons of toxic poison the US dropped over Vietnam. This has poisoned water supplies and crops. The media played a significant role in twisting the damage. "Who controls the media Controls the Mind" - Noam Chomsky. They reported how the US was wiping out entire Vietnamese cities, but from a framework of nationalism, which went like this: "Unfortunately, we need to wipe out entire towns to save them from the terrorists." There were no terrorists, no Russians, no Chinese just the US. The US were the Terrorists. But the media would never say that.
This is the exact same strategy being used today in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. "We need to bomb them to save them from the terrorists." "UN peacekeepers are Hezbollah shields, so we need to attack them." "We need to bomb their hospitals and kill their children to save them from the terrorists." This is the same playbook they used in Vietnam. People don't understand that democracy is also what's happening around your country not just in it. If your country is a heaven to live in but hell for others, then your country is pretty fucked. This is why many people here have a bias on the US and Mearsheimer. Because they live in the US. My country has always been a ping pong ball between 2 superpowers. I have no bias, I just look at the world from a birds eye view and compare what I see. And I also didn't like how Leo dismissed the 4.700.000 millions of people killed by the US after 9/11 as "Those were definitely wrong wars". No they were wars for oil, exactly like now. I'm not judging anyone, it's just the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AeAfFfTqMk You don't give a fuck about truth. You just want to defend you ideologies. Shame on you Leo. You are a green hippie. If you were yellow you would listen. Turquoise is out of the question. This the reason why the dudes over spiral dinamics took the Turquoise episode down. You don't know what your talking about. 

Look, the fact that the United States has attempted more coups and invaded more countries than Russia and China combined isn't because the latter have better morals or superior ethics. It's due to the economic and military dominance of the U.S., along with its cultural hegemony over the past 100 years through music, movies, and television. Opposition in third-world countries have repeatedly sought U.S. support because, deep down, they aspire to be like them. They believe they can replicate their success. No one wants to emulate a backwards dictatorship like Russia. Despite its flaws, limitations, and fanaticism, the United States is a much better place to live for most people.

The United States has simply been more successful in its imperialism. Putin and Xi Jinping in their wet dreams aspire to do the same the americans has done. 

Anti-imperialists in this forum should aspire to something better than whitewashing failed dictatorships. 

[zazen]

20 hours ago, Nemra said:

Why do you picture non-westerners as intelligent, loving actors?

You should have said homogeneity instead of harmony.

Homogeneity is sameness, but theres plenty of diversity within eastern cultures.  When speaking of civilizations we're talking broad strokes to make general observations on a macro, geopolitical level. Not all non-westerners or westerners are intelligent loving actors. We're referring to the state level (you could say deep state), not necessarily the societal level. But there are many misconceptions about non-Western countries that could be dispelled. 

12 hours ago, Alex4 said:

Look, the fact that the United States has attempted more coups and invaded more countries than Russia and China combined isn't because the latter have better morals or superior ethics. It's due to the economic and military dominance of the U.S., along with its cultural hegemony over the past 100 years through music, movies, and television. Opposition in third-world countries have repeatedly sought U.S. support because, deep down, they aspire to be like them. They believe they can replicate their success. No one wants to emulate a backwards dictatorship like Russia. Despite its flaws, limitations, and fanaticism, the United States is a much better place to live for most people.

The United States has simply been more successful in its imperialism. Putin and Xi Jinping in their wet dreams aspire to do the same the americans has done. 

Anti-imperialists in this forum should aspire to something better than whitewashing failed dictatorships. 

 

There's an argument that goes, "If you or any other society were in our position, you'd act the same," but that's simply not true. I've seen many right wingers use this case of projection and universalizing of bad behavior as a way to excuse it because it's just a ''inevitability'' of human nature - an ''externality'' of a ''system of perverse incentives'' (moloch) that absolves any one party of blame.

Many civilizations throughout history, despite possessing the military and economic means to engage in aggressive territorial conquest, chose other pathways to spread their influence. Through religion, culture, trade, or diplomacy. Theirs a distinction to be made between colonialism, settler colonialism, imperialism and influence. The Islamic Golden Age, the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka, and the Tang Dynasty are just a few examples of civilizations (on different continents) that exercised restraint or focused on cultural diffusion rather than outright domination.

They demonstrate that violent conquest is not an inevitable result of power. It's a choice that's been resisted by some of the greatest empires in history. These civilizations recognized that expansion and influence don’t need to be built on the corpses of their enemies. The imperial mindset - that to be powerful means to dominate, is used by imperial apologists in the West to excuse the blood soaked history of their own empires. They conflate wealth with worth - any means that helps them to obtain and accumulate wealth/resources is glorified and justified. This is where the 'might makes right' mentality stems from. 

Watch the following and let me know what you think:

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:17 PM by zazen

[Nemra]

5 hours ago, zazen said:

But there are many misconceptions about non-Western countries that could be dispelled.

The same applies to Western countries. Non-westerners or Easterners have many misconceptions about Western countries.

Regarding homogeneity, I meant that they are oriented towards that and not that they are completely homogeneous.

5 hours ago, zazen said:

Homogeneity is sameness, but there's plenty of diversity within eastern cultures.

When you look from afar, there is diversity everywhere.

I'm talking about the mindset that Easterners have. They tolerate diversity less. Maybe a few cultures can tolerate.

Edited Tuesday at 08:45 PM by Nemra

[El Zapato]

On 10/13/2024 at 2:06 AM, Some dude on the net said:

"We lost in 100 years what we would  naturally lose in 10.000." 

 

Yes, we all know that...Another anti-American European, I would surmise?  Times change and so does the left.  The right is still stuck in 300 B.C.

[Alex4]

16 hours ago, zazen said:

Homogeneity is sameness, but theres plenty of diversity within eastern cultures.  When speaking of civilizations we're talking broad strokes to make general observations on a macro, geopolitical level. Not all non-westerners or westerners are intelligent loving actors. We're referring to the state level (you could say deep state), not necessarily the societal level. But there are many misconceptions about non-Western countries that could be dispelled. 

 

There's an argument that goes, "If you or any other society were in our position, you'd act the same," but that's simply not true. I've seen many right wingers use this case of projection and universalizing of bad behavior as a way to excuse it because it's just a ''inevitability'' of human nature - an ''externality'' of a ''system of perverse incentives'' (moloch) that absolves any one party of blame.

Many civilizations throughout history, despite possessing the military and economic means to engage in aggressive territorial conquest, chose other pathways to spread their influence. Through religion, culture, trade, or diplomacy. Theirs a distinction to be made between colonialism, settler colonialism, imperialism and influence. The Islamic Golden Age, the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka, and the Tang Dynasty are just a few examples of civilizations (on different continents) that exercised restraint or focused on cultural diffusion rather than outright domination.

They demonstrate that violent conquest is not an inevitable result of power. It's a choice that's been resisted by some of the greatest empires in history. These civilizations recognized that expansion and influence don’t need to be built on the corpses of their enemies. The imperial mindset - that to be powerful means to dominate, is used by imperial apologists in the West to excuse the blood soaked history of their own empires. They conflate wealth with worth - any means that helps them to obtain and accumulate wealth/resources is glorified and justified. This is where the 'might makes right' mentality stems from. 

Watch the following and let me know what you think:

 

The Islamic Golden Age, at least in Spain where I'm from and I know that part of the history relatively well,was spread through violence and agression.

[zazen]

6 hours ago, Alex4 said:

The Islamic Golden Age, at least in Spain where I'm from and I know that part of the history relatively well,was spread through violence and agression.

Conquest was normal but not all conquests were the same. Conquest has been the norm up until sovereign states and international law came into place. Before the pre-modern world - tribes, kingdoms and empires expanded as borders were fluid and determined by the strength to take and hold territory (which in todays world and by todays standards is completely wrong - no one should take what isn't theres).

The difference is in how that power and strength was used - how expansion was conducted, the conquered were treated and the new territory was administered. Of course the very nature of conquest means violent clashes are inevitable. With Spain, theres no dominant narrative of brutal conquest as compared to other empires. There was elements of pragmatism and diplomacy.  Beyond the the initial conquest and violent battles further expansion took place by making agreements with local rulers and even allowing local elites and nobility to keep their lands and status in exchange for loyalty and protection. Contrast this to Western colonialism which had genocide, plunder, exploitation and practiced a racially based form of the most degrading slavery. 

Viking raids were known for plundering and leaving, the Franks force converted the Saxons or they faced execution, the Byzantines expelled Orthodox Christians and Jews - I haven't even got into detailing colonial times but I won't go there. Meanwhile, Islamic expansion allowed for diversity of faiths, they didn't raid places into destruction, and they allowed a degree of autonomy to local cultures without expelling or erasing them from existence.

Expanding to Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahel which were huge regions was done largely through merchants trading and sufis spreading Islam. The point is they operated differently and not everyone acts the same way when in the same position.

Edited Wednesday at 02:06 PM by zazen