The history speaks for itself.

The US intentionally sought to flip Ukraine, while a neutral Ukraine was the key to stability in eastern Europe and everybody from the administrations in Washington to the Kremlin knew it, and openly complained about it.

Well, they got what they wanted: war.

Vicky did her job.

Worse still, they always knew they were just going to prop up Ukraine until it eventually collapsed, to maintain at least some international credibility towards their other allies. Vicky taking the fall for this was probably established way beforehand.

Your definition is more like saying "Yep. Populists got it right!" :wink: — ssu

Well, yes. Kind of.

They often correctly sense there is something wrong with the political elite. Their methods and visions of "the way forward" can be wrong, of course.

Populism doesn't appear overnight. Usually years of neglect precede it, which is where all the anger and discontent comes from.

Corrupt political elites especially cause a lot of anger, because it makes people feel powerless. The political elite no longer have the best interest of the nation at heart, and they have usurped the mechanism by which the nation could correct that.

The people are right to feel that anger.

So if that is basically universal for all politicians, then what makes the populist different? In short, it's the antagonism, which is in the core message of populism: the culprits are the elite, who are against
the common honorable people. And if the populist has been part of the elite, that's absolutely no problem: he or she can just say: "Believe me, I know these people, I've been part of them!" And immediately the populist is made, by his or her own count, as a rebel and the enemy of this elite, who he or she has betrayed here when coming to the help of the common people.

A political ideology that has antagonism and starts from an inherent juxtaposition might not be the most helpful to create social cohesion, and can surely be abused.

Before anybody makes the remark here that "Isn't sometimes antagonism justified", it surely can be so. Revolutions do happen because of justified reasons. You can have a corrupt, out of touch elite that is ruining the country and when there is no other way to correct the system, then you can have in the end a revolution. But then it should be about the individuals in that elite, not about general hatred toward elites. It should be about correcting the culture of corruption and unlawfulness. It is abot the absolutely crucial question of how to solve the problems and what to build in the place of the old. When the ideology itself is antagonist from the start, it has the difficulty to then make the small fixes that are needed. There's the urge to just throw everything away and you can end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also when you have started from the idea of the "evil elite" that you have to oppose, it's quite logical to replace this with your "own elite" of the right-minded. It isn't that your objective is to listen to your opponents and try to get some consensus. The populist has the moral high ground: he or she is working for the people, the common man and woman. — ssu

If innocent people get targeted, that is of course regrettable. Personally, I don't see this as a problem particular to populism. "Guilty by association" is an altogether human phenomenon, and honestly populism is more of a "force of nature" than something truly rational. It's something that the corrupt (or neglectful) elite themselves create, and eventually it gets out of control, and is led by mankind's less sophisticated tendencies. I'm not even convinced people like Trump play a key role in it. I think they only serve as a vessel. That's why many people who don't like Trump still vote for him. Same goes for Wilders in the Netherlands.

There is a long history of "the people" supporting the centralization of power as a means of keeping recalcitrant elites in check. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is a wrong depiction.

Corrupt elites are often extremely powerful, since they have hollowed out the state (which formerly protected citizens) and put it infront of their own cart, leaving the citizen defenseless.

The only way to remove a corrupt elite is therefore by overpowering them, sometimes through mass voting, discontent/protests, sometimes through revolution and violence. This is something markedly different from "authoritarianism", since in one instance it is a means and in the other a goal.

But then the "people's" will often is to do some pretty nasty things. Massacre the Jews, again and again, disenfranchise and segregate African Americans, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're talking about constitutional/human rights, not the basic function of democracy.

Corrupt elites don't serve democracy - they undermine it and use it for their own gain. Yes, sometimes states do awful things, almost categorically enabled by the elites.

Many of this thread's participants seem to view "populism" as something negative, and therefore try to understand it in negative terms: "anti-democratic", "authoritarian", "truth-denying", etc.

I think this is fundamentally wrong.

"Populism" is a term that is used when a political elite continuously refuses to acknowledge problems that exist inside a society.

The person outside the political establishment who does acknowledge the problems (A Trump, a Wilders, etc.) is then called a populist.

The genesis of populism happens inside the political elite who, contrary to what their citizens believe, believe "there is no problem" (or have a vested interest in pretending there isn't).

This political elite forgets that it is there not to impose its opinions on its citizens, but to carry out the will of the people. Because this political elite does not want to carry out the will of the people, it attempts to persecute those who do as "populists".

It's a political elite who has somehow gotten it into their ant brains that they are the "rightful ruling class", and that what the people believe or want changed, solved, etc. is unimportant.

This usually goes hand-in-hand with a healthy dose of hubris and an inability to accept view points other than one's own (again, the current political climate is filled with this dogmatic "wrongthink" attitude).

It's indicative of a political elite that has gotten out of touch with reality, and with the people. The term "populism" is a symptom of a failing democratic system, and people who busy the term are probably part of the reason why the system is failing!

Queen Vicky has resigned.

The Ukraine debacle is slowly becoming complete.

Though, one may wonder why Vicky resigned, since the US approach to Ukraine has been mostly successful. 15 years of prodding the bear finally bore fruit and got them the conflict they were looking for.

Perhaps Washington is disappointed by the lack of enthousiasm for war in Europe?

Good that you point out this, because here lies one important reason why populism is in the end anti-democratic. — ssu

No, I think this is too much of a sweeping statement. The PVV in the Netherlands for example is both populist and not anti-democratic.

Sorry to interject, but are you still getting psychological help?

You mentioned it earlier in the thread, and judging by what I am reading you are in need of professional guidance.

I'd steer clear of a forum like this if you are sensitive to certain philosophies. Philosophy is maybe a part of the answer, but probably not in the stage you seem to be in right now. I'd sooner view some of the people here an actual hazard to your health.

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw? — Hanover

The former option sounds to me little different from propaganda, and I am convinced many major news outlets have degenerated into just that.

I find myself firmly in the second camp. The press should seek to provide objective coverage of events. Obviously perfectly objective coverage doesn't exist, but if a news agency genuinely pursues that goal, it will do a good enough job.

If journalism can be said to have a proper objective, it should be to scrutinize those in power through investigative journalism, and not to play as lackeys of the powerful.

Media are very powerful, and perverse incentives are everywhere. It is no coincidence that there is a 'press code', much like there is for example a hippocratic oath.

Corruption of the elite causes populism (basically, wide-spread discontent among the people), which causes a rejection of the system since it is deemed to be corrupt, though it isn't necessarily anti-democratic, but it can be.

The important factor here is the cause of populism. It doesn't appear out of nowhere. It's a symptom of an elite that is increasingly corrupt and losing touch with the people, and reality. This is for example readily apparent in the US and Europe.

A while back we discussed the danger posed by the Houthi missile attacks in the Red Sea.

It now seems the first vessel has sunk - the cargo ship Rubymar. Quite a large vessel as well.

This goes to show that the missiles used by the Houthi are a serious threat. They're weapons of war capable of sinking large vessels, and that includes military vessels if they are isolated and their defenses overwhelmed.

If the US would be such a Machiavellian player when it comes to Europe, why favor then the emergence of the EU? — ssu

That's easy. The EU is an undemocratic, untransparent, bureaucratic monster of an institution - inept and easily corruptable by design, which grants the US easy avenues of influence and saves it the hassle of having to deal with each European nation seperately.

Gee, thanks America!

I'm sorry, but this is just naive.

I fear what happens when the US can no longer keep Europe weak.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, there has been plenty of anti-American sentiment in Europe as a result of the various wars that have been fought.

Populism / nationalism are on the rise, and such movements are generally critical of participating in the US' geopolitical games (for example, PVV in the Netherlands, AfD in Germany).

We are soon approaching a point where populism takes over, and the muppets and puppets who have been shilling for the Americans will be ousted.

Moreover, the US will be forced sooner or later to address China, giving it less room to focus on Europe.

As I mentioned, at that point Europe will simply be seen as a potential rival, and there are a lot of buttons the Americans can press with which it can try to embroil Russia and Europe into a long-term war with each other, which I have no doubt they will try to do - in fact, I believe this is already the American strategy for Ukraine.

The fact that their goal is "to weaken Russia" is clear for all to see. Now it's time for the Europeans to realize that "to weaken Europe" is the other side of that coin.

Just reading through some of these passages has me reeling at how incriminating this stuff is.

To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. — Zbigniew Brzezinski

This once again proves one cannot be too cynical when analysing US foreign policy.

By the way, , you claim to have read The Grand Chessboard.

So how come you have failed to notice chapter 2 makes exactly my point?

Dishonesty? Illiteracy?

Again, you have wasted my time.

So learn how to use references, Tzeench. It's very sloppy and wrong (at least in academic circles) to say something and then refer to papers that don't say what you are saying! — ssu

They paint a clear picture. I could dig through them to find the exact quotes, but I have done that enough times to know you will handwave them simply because it's not something you want to hear.

It's this type of willful naivety towards US intentions that allows the US to get away with things like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine etc. (it's a very long list...), and Europe will be the next on that pile of nations ruined by the US.

If you think I'm going to conform myself to academic standards to educate people who don't want to be educated you are sadly mistaken.

Engage with my arguments instead. They are simple enough.

If after 500+ pages of discussion these thinkers and their works are still a mystery to you, I can't be bothered to educate you either. (I have mentioned, quoted and linked them many times) Do it yourself:

The Geographical Pivot of History (Mackinder, 1904)

Defense Planning: Guidance FY 1994-1999 (aka "The Wolfowitz Doctrine", Paul Wolfowitz, 1992)

The Grand Chessboard (Brzezinski, 1997)

But you don't need to read these works at all to understand that what I'm laying out is the basic formula for US dominance. It must keep the Eurasian mainland divided, or lose its dominant position. With strong powers on the Eurasian mainland, the US would simply be an island with a mere 300 million inhabitants, incapable of securing global dominance.

That's the basic strategy which has propelled US foreign policy since the 1900's, and with renewed intensity after the end of the Cold War. It's the basic strategy that one talks about when they talk about the Project of a New American Century (PNAC), 'neocons', etc.

The Anglosphere, consisting of all 'island nations' in practical terms, shares this basic strategic challenge, which is why the Anglosphere and the Five-Eyes alliance is the actual military alliance the US cares about. Europe simply represents temporary interests. When the US can no longer control Europe (and we are rapidly approaching that moment), it will seek its ruin. Just like the US cannot allow Russia or China to rise, it cannot allow Europe to rise either.

And this is what is propelling US strategy today. This is why the US is pursuing long-term war in Ukraine - with the express purpose of dragging Europe into long-term conflict with Russia.

Talking about "conspiracy" is just an admission of ignorance. All warfare is deception, and "conspiracy" is the rule, not the exception.

And the decision to join NATO was based on non-hypotheticals? — boethius

Even if it was a foolish decision, it was based on a very tangible perceived 'Russian threat'.

What the Finns missed is that they are only putting themselves in the line of fire while there's literally zero chance of the Americans coming to their rescue when they get into trouble with the Russians - trouble that they themselves brought closer by joining NATO.

Moreover they seem to have also failed to realize that they put themselves into prime position to be used as a pawn by the United States in the geopolitically tumultuous time we are heading into, in which the United States will view Europe as a potential rival to be kept down (destroyed even) rather than 'a friend'.

We are roughly in agreement on that, I gather. But what I'm taking issue with is making the discussion about nuclear war that will never happen.

The only correct answer to someone bringing up nuclear war and Finland is: Russia won't go to nuclear war over Finland, and the Americans won't go to nuclear war to defend it.

Simple as.

However, let's imagine the war in Ukraine comes to an end and a decade from now there's some entirely new crisis we can't really imagine now between the US and Russia.

Or then Macron makes good on his threat to send in ground forces, and tensions spiral out of control and Russia is risking conventional defeat.

By your own reasoning Russia would then use nuclear weapons. — boethius

That's piling hypotheticals upon hypotheticals.

Besides, Macron is a clown. France has no capable army and the people of France would probably have his head at la Place de la Révolution before going to war with Russia (again :lol:).

There's not much point in discussing nuclear war. If there is going to be nuclear war, it will be between the US and China (or their Pacific allies), and even then both sides will have nothing to gain and everything to lose, making the chance of it happening very slim.

The US would never go to nuclear war over Europe, and the Russians would only go nuclear if Russia itself is invaded by overwhelming military force.

The US will be forced to pivot sooner or later.

When that happens, NATO and American influence in Europe will be used to send Europe into chaos, the seeds for which have already been sown when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status which was the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

What is happening is that the US fears that Russia and/or Europe will become the laughing thirds when the US is sucked into a large-scale conflict in the Pacific. Provoking war between these two is the way it intends to stop that from happening.

People here are simply misunderstanding the US' central strategic challenge, which is to keep the Eurasian continent divided (as described by Mackinder, Wolfowitz, Brzezinski, etc.) in times of peace, and in utter chaos in times of war. (and also to stop any regional powers to arise in the Western Hemisphere, but that's another topic).

There is no other way for the US to protect its hegemony due to its limited population and relative inability to intervene on the Eurasian continent. (thousands of miles of ocean works both ways)

Finland made a critically short-sighted error when it jumped on the NATO bandwagon right as US power is waning. Not only is the US in no position to actually protect Finland in the case of a conflict, but Finland is actually ensuring it is first in line to suffer the consequences when the US pulls the plug on Europe with the intention of disabling it as a rival for the foreseeable future.

Europe is heading for absolute strategic disaster.

The situation is way worse than people realize, since they have been lulled to sleep over the last decades, foolishly believing that the Americans are our 'friends' when in fact they represent as much of a strategic threat as Russia or China.


Also, on the topic of the UK getting special treatment - it certainly does.

It is part of the Anglosphere and the Five-Eyes intelligence pact which is essentially the part of the US sphere of influence that the US actually cares about, because all nations within the Anglosphere share the US central strategic challenge, since they're all island nations.

This is why the UK should not be part of a functional European security structure either.

Note that it was the US and the UK who blocked the Istanbul agreements. Given what I just told you about the strategic challenges of island nations, it is no wonder why specifically it was these two nations who sought to block peace.

Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire. — Benkei

If we're not careful it's even worse - we'll be the ones sacrificed on the altar of American hegemony, since the US fears that Russia and Europe will become the laughing third once it becomes engaged in a security competition with China. To prevent that, the US endeavors to draw Russia and the EU into conflict with each other, which is why it intentionally undermined the key to stability in eastern Europe - a neutral Ukraine - and subsequently did everything in its power to prevent a peaceful and diplomatic solution.

I think that supposing that even if the main problems we as humanity face are not CAUSED by the ‘rulers’ and their allies (corporations, banks, governments, militaries), they are certainly AMPLIFIED by such agents.

As a whole, the system seems to be locked into a game that it can’t stop, even if willing.
(Not unlike the nuclear weapons escalations and potential global war in the past century). — 0 thru 9

The system is made up of individuals making their individual and mostly free choices.

One can say what they will about capitalism and the filthy rich multinationals, but who is it that gives a company like Amazon its power? It's the people who buy from Amazon. If the people stopped buying from Amazon today, Amazon would be gone tomorrow.

And apparently the individuals that make up society still believe buying their products a little cheaper is worth the trade-off.

Simple as.


Democracy works in much the same way. How is it that the most powerful nation on Earth cannot produce anything better than Trump or Biden?

Because the people have become ignorant, shallow and out of touch (Yin imbalance), and keep voting for these baboons instead of putting their foot down and demanding something better.


Yes, there might be a part of the system that seeks to keep people ignorant, but I'm not one for excuses. One cannot outsource one's responsibility to educate oneself. It's up to people themselves to learn to distinguish fact from fiction, to not be manipulated, not to accept comforting half-truths, etc.
If people refuse to do that, they end up with a wicked system of their own creation.


As such, the system will only change if the people change, and that will eventually result in individual people making different choices. They make different choices if their belief system (Yin) fundamentally changes. And just to clarify, I believe that can only happen genuinely and voluntarily. There are no shortcuts here. You can't fake it, and you can't force people into it.

Humanity's salvation will come about (if it ever does) one individual at a time. The same goes for positive change. Such is my view.

I'm not really interested in the whole "capitalism versus communism" debate.

Suffice to say, I think these are symptoms and not causes.

Concerning the above quote, I strongly agree with almost everything you said.

But I’m trying to understand why you now in this latest post seem to overlook (or exonerate? excuse?) that the total economic system that is playing a huge role in the society outside our window, and around the globe. — 0 thru 9

I see many problems with the system, but I think they do not originate from the system itself. Instead I believe they are a symptom of a deeper issue which I would tie into the Yin imbalance as I have explained it earlier.

The system is a human product, so without looking at the human flaws that create the flawed system, one cannot get to the root cause of the problems.


For example, some may argue that governments need to be given more power to curb "capitalism".

Why does this never seem to work in practice?

Because man is flawed, and flawed humans that run the government are subject to the same Yin imbalance as the ones that use and abuse the financial system. So it just shifts the problem into a different shape, which rarely solves anything and often makes things worse. (After all, 'capitalism' only controls capital, whereas governments hold the monopoly on violence - pick your poison, I suppose, but it's clear to me which is the more dangerous of the two.)


Attempts at bending flawed humans into a different shape through coercion often fail as well, which is why I believe these issues can only be solved via a voluntary philosophical transformation of the entire system - leading to my thoughts of the Yin / Water element imbalance.

The philosophical underpinnings of a civilization form the bedrock of everything, just like how all human behavior originates from the psyche.

Luckily, I believe this will eventually happen naturally, as the system threatens to implode and prompts society as a whole to reflect and come up with actual solutions.

Less luckily, things probably have to get much worse before they get better, unless this process of reflection can somehow be expediated (but I doubt it).

Personally I would link today's woes to a lack of philosophical and spiritual foundation (Yin / Water element imbalance), and not to economic systems.

Capitalism is ultimately nothing more than an idea of the relation between collectives and individuals, allowing for the existence of private property. That is a system that has been implicit in human civilization literally for millenia, and it has functioned more or less reasonably.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the human intuition of property ("this is mine, and that is yours") is natural and deeply ingrained in our psyche, which is why attempts at alternative systems have a tendency to fail - they go against human nature.

What I think is going on, is that in the past the economic motivations of "capitalism" were counterbalanced by other matters of value in the spiritual realm.

For example, there was the notion that if one blindly followed their greedy impulses, one would eventually pay a spiritual price for that. Christianity might claim you were sent to hell or limbo, or had to atone for sins committed, etc.

When Christianity, and really religion and spirituality as a whole, was discarded by western societies, only the earthly values remained - power, money, etc.

Western society has quite simply failed to fill the gap that religion has left behind, and demoralization has been the end result.

Blaming it on capitalism is a cop-out. Why did people in the past manage to find a better balance between the earthly and the heavenly, and why can't we?

The reason we as a society fear this question, is because it implies discarding religion as a whole maybe wasn't such a great idea.

Upon ruminating on the subject a little more, I think I have come up with a basic idea of how to capture "western" society's ailments in terms of Yinyang and Taoist thought.

There are, or so it seems to me, multiple imbalances.

_______________________________________

In terms of Yang, it appears to me western society is exhausting itself. It reminds me of how the Soviet Union eventually collapsed under its own weight, because the system was simply not sustainable.

As the period of western dominance nears its end, western societies have to continually ask more of its citizens in order to stay competitive with other systems. People must produce more, and rest less.

The event horizon for this system shrinks, becoming more and more based on the short-term while sacrificing it's long-term health. Where in the past people would have been thinking about how we can create a system that will continue to work decades into the future, now people are instead worried about how we keep the system from total collapse for another year.

This, obviously, cannot last forever, and even though the system continues to try and spur people on to work harder and be more 'productive', it will reach the limit of what the people can tolerate.

We are reaching that critical point, as more and more young people are suffering burnout and related psychological problems, even though the socialist structures of many western societies actually look to the younger generations to carry the old. They are the ones who are most exposed to, lets say, 'productivity propaganda' through social media and platforms like YouTube.

__________________________________________

But a Yang imbalance alone is not enough to critically imbalance a system, because if the Yin elements were in balance, those who ran into problems like burnout would be able to rest and restore themselves, and return healthily to society, or perhaps even return stronger.

In other words, there would be a self-correcting mechanism that looks a bit like:

Imbalanced Yang state > Overexertion > Burnout > Balanced Yin state > Rest & Reflection > Renewed Yang state.

A balanced Yin would ensure that not only can people return back into society stronger and with better insight, but also would propel the system as a whole to reflect upon itself and detect the unbalanced Yang state, and repair it.

___________________________________________

This doesn't happen, because the Yin is also imbalanced.

A typical Yin imbalance manifests itself not only as stagnation, but also as indecisiveness, worry, anxiety, overthink, fearfulness, etc. - creating a 'freeze' response.

This is often times associated with too much intellective thinking, which is something that in western society can be linked to an overly scientific world view; I have referred to in the past as the 'mechanistic' world view. (Which is a term I have gotten from Flemish professor Mattias Desmet)

It is essentially an almost religious faith in the power of science, rationality and reason, which has slowly but surely expelled from western society the spiritual, intuitive and emotional dimensions, all of which are important for balanced Yin.

Paradoxically it is also in the process of expelling reason and rationality (which isn't surprising, considering this fundamentally fearful state we are in), since despite the fact that science is showing us that many things are not explainable in rational terms, we still cling to science for the answer to all our problems.

Also note that fear and anxiety cause us to look for security - we will demand clear cut answers to difficult questions, usually (wrong-headedly) looking for them in places that cannot provide it, like science, governments, media, etc.

_____________________________________________

As we can see, it is not so easy to figure out where this cycle of imbalance starts or ends - perhaps it does neither - but a Taoist would probably first look at the Yin imbalance, since Yin is the root of all. Without the conservation of energy, there could be no action.

Therefore I would link the imbalance in western society primarily to a system of thought that has ran its course - the mechanistic world view ("man as machine"). The idolization of science has worked for a while, and now it no longer does, and must be replaced by something new - probably a synthesis of the previous science-based system with older (or new?), philosphically based systems that are more spiritual / intuitive (religious?) in nature.

My expectation is that this will be a slow and painful process, due to the degree to which this world view is rooted in every facet of our system.

Science and religion have been at each other's throat for centuries, and now we must conclude that both are needed for a balanced society, because it's becoming clear (at least to me) that a society that leans too much to either side will critically imbalance itself in one way or another.

Note that science can be seen as associated with the Chinese element of Metal, and religion/spirituality can be associated with the Chinese element of Water. Both are Yin.

Both are associated with deep thought, however the Metal element is more rational, while the Water element is more intuitive and creative. Hence the idea of a Yin imbalance.

I think it makes sense to see more western ciriticism of Zelensky, because they looked favorably on Zaluzhny.

Zaluzhny is also rumored to have been involved in talks with the Russians, whereas the West hasn't yet been able to pressure Zelensky into seeking for compromise.

This is likely because Zelensky was pushed into pursuing this "no negotiations" strategy, and now that the West is realizing its mistakes and pushing for compromise, it's basically asking Zelensky to take the fall, which he refuses to do.

Furthermore, there were a lot of rumors that Zelensky might appoint the head of intelligence (I forget the name) to replace Zaluzhny, which was seen by some as a clear signal that the Ukrainian strategy would be shifting to fighting an insurgency war. This is something the West probably wants, because that's what they have been counting on all this time would beat the Russians or at least make their life very difficult.

The fact that Zelensky didn't do that, and instead chose Syrskyi is basically a signal by the Ukrainians that they're still not done duking it out with the Russians on the battlefield.

Worrying too much about the world's problems is a trap, in my view. As you rightly say, we don't have control over it anyway, and dreamers who worry about humanity tend to have giant blind spots when it comes to themselves. (It almost becomes an excuse not to confront one's own faults)

By focusing on developing oneself positively, and conducting oneself in accordance to sensible principles one becomes the most positive force one possibly can be.

I personally find this a very empowering approach, echoed in many philosophies and even coming full-circle back to Nietzsche in a strange way.

Why are we told and taught and trained to hate the Yin?

Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.

For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
To be a ‘girl, fag, sissy, wimp’ (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.

We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
We are taught to hate ‘minorities’ because they are supposedly (at least partially) ‘primitive and animal’.

Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.

Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
In our ‘badass culture’, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim. — 0 thru 9

I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.

In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.


Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.


A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.


However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.

For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.

In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.


Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.


I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy.

Stoking the fears of the orange man getting into the Oval Office for a second time is sound, albeit cynical political strategy.

As a result, the Biden administration can get away with anything, and they have a lot they need to get away with.

The sooner the US disengages from Europe, the better (for Europe).

Every American president supports Israel, is "pro-Israel".

My impression of Trump is that he didn't cater particularly to Israel's hard line, since they were an obstacle to normalization of Middle-East relations, which is what is required for the US to dial back its military involvement in the region. Trump also pushed for a two-state solution, for example, showing that he was not a stooge for Likud.

Try…anything he’s ever said about Israel, [...] — Mikie

[...] and every policy decision he ever made re: Israel. — Mikie

Trump Peace Plan


So far, no genocide support.

If you've got something, please share it.

My first question would be: do they consider themselves a citizen voluntarily and do they support their nation?

If the answer is yes, then they share responsibility.

If the answer is no, then they are not responsible. After all, one doesn't choose the nation one is born into, and if one is made part of something abhorrent through forces outside of their control, they cannot be held responsible.


In general I would argue that people are only responsible for their own actions, however our actions can contribute to or enable crimes by others, at which point we may share responsibility.


For example, countries wage war with taxpayer's money.

Do those taxpayers pay taxes because they support their nation, or do they pay taxes because if they don't the state will use violence against them in order to force compliance?

The answer likely differs from person to person, and therefore the question of responsibility differs from person to person.

Trump also supports genocide. — Mikie

Source?

Over the course of the conflict, I have pointed out various times that the Russian operations surrounding Kiev were probably not what they were made to seem in Western media.

Given what we know now about the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022 in Istanbul, further questionmarks arise.

However, in the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin addressed this and said the following on the topic of the negotiations:

My counterparts in France and Germany said, ”How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev. ‘I said, ‘All right.’ We withdrew the troops from Kiev.

As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. — Vladimir Putin

Even though Putin clearly isn't a source that can be trusted at face value, this story is congruent with much of the factual information known to us, namely the intentional boycotting of the Istanbul negotiations by the West. Therefore I find Putin's story plausible.

It appears that not only did the West block negotiations, but that those negotiations were used in bad faith to get a concession out of the Russians which could be subsequently spun as a "great Ukrainian victory".


If this is true, and in my opinion it likely is, the clown car that is the European leadership is in a worse state than I thought.

Scholz and Macron spun a 'crafty' scheme at the expense of, first of all, the Ukrainians, and secondly at the expense of their own nations' welfare.

I'm not sure what these clowns were thinking, sacrificing all their diplomatic credibility and the chance of a peaceful settlement for the sake of spinning some meaningless propaganda. I bet they got headpats from Washington, though.

It begs the question, why is the West so disinterested in peace? Or dare I say, interested in prolonged war? Who benefits? Surely not the Europeans, so whose interests do Scholz and Macron represent? Uncle Sam's perhaps?

The full interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin with English translation.

Carlson did a pretty professional job. It's also worth noting how remarkable it is that Putin is willing to sit down for a two-hour, non-scripted interview with a foreign journalist. I don't think many western leaders would be prepared to do that under today's circumstances.

Europe is militarizing in response to the conflict in Ukraine, and Russia is militarizing in response to the Europeans.

Recently western media, especially in Europe, is filled with high-ranking officers claiming that "there could be a war with Russia within the next five years".

Fearmongering at its worst.

It's hard to say whether these people are bought and paid for, or are really that short-sighted. I find both options equally likely.

It's completely nonsensical, since the Europeans themselves helped to facilitate war in Ukraine and forced Russia to expand their military operations by refusing negotiations and arming Ukraine to the teeth, even stripping their own militaries in the process!

If Europe wanted, it could stop dancing to Uncle Sam's tune tomorrow and have a negotiated settlement after which things could return roughly to normal. The fact they are not doing that, and choosing to warmonger instead, is picked up by the Russians and interpreted as a desire for conflict.

Europe truly has the most bone-headed leadership imaginable, but they play the role of Uncle Sam's stooges so, so well.

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement. — Benkei

I don't think removing the illegal settlers is realistic, and this is the main problem. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands, many of whom are religious fanatics, and many of whom are armed - and they have used force against the IDF in the past.

Previous instances where Israel had to remove settlers, like in the Sinai and Gaza, were notoriously difficult and much smaller in scale.

How would you suggest this could be done?