Bottom line in the ME

The bottom line is that the US and Europe simply want their oil and their oil money. And to use the ME for strategic purposes, such as putting our bases and forces there because it straddles Europe, Africa and Asia. And because it is apparently easy as fuck to take people who believe in an imaginary friend and have a brutal history of medieval tribal religious warfare and turn them against each other in a "divide and conquer" tactic. They don't even fight back, they just take it.

If I were living or raised in the ME I would hate the west with incredible passion for what they have done to the ME. It is surprising that more ME'ers do not truly despise the west with virulent hatred; the fact that many of them seem indifferent or even some like the west only shows how much self-loathing these people must have for their own region, their own history of culture and religion.

The US and European approach to the ME is not enlightened or rational, it is simply based on pure and calculating (and very short-term) self-interest. An enlightened and rational first-world society would look at the ME and say, "no", and walk away. But we can't do that, because the west has been taken over by "deep state" actors and cabal groups bent on only more money and more power, and world domination of course.

The connection between the US/European attitude toward the ME and the growing specter of globalism must be noted, in particular the deep irrationality and immorality that these two paradigms share. ME people are slaves to the west. It is no wonder that some of them get quite upset about that. All that was needed was for the CIA to sow seeds of dissent and trigger some mobs and "revolutionaries" and it spiraled out from there into "Arab Spring" and ISIS. The deep discontent, anger, and confusion of ME people cannot, apparently, be overstated.

This whole situation reveals and touches on something very, very important.

What is the best condition for people to live under, of the following two possibilities? 1) that the individual's success, freedom and power in life is granted by someone else and is dependent upon his maintaining fidelity to this other person/group, or 2) that the individual's success, freedom and power in life is not granted by someone else and is not dependent upon maintaining fidelity to another person/group...?

The second condition is obviously the more rational and better condition for human beings to live under. This is not even up for debate. This is a foundational political/moral principle, and philosophy should take note of this.

So, what does it mean to actually enact this second condition, the one of independence of the individual and the individual's autonomy and self-success, self-freedom and self-power? We should be clear that what we are really saying is that either the individual owns himself, or the individual is utterly dependent on someone/something else for his success, freedom and power; namely in the latter is a slave. Is it better to be a slave or to be a free man? Again, this is not even a question, the answer is foundational and obvious to anyone who is not already deeply irrational and thus incapable of philosophizing anyway.

To enact this foundational principle means that the individual holds sway over his choices for determining the ways in which he engages his own poeisis in the world. I use poeisis in the way Parodites was using it when he was writing on economics here last year, namely that each individual person has a certain quality and quantity of "work-effort" power which includes physical and mental/emotional work-effort, energy, and that this is how we sustain ourselves in life. At least this is my understanding of the concept, Parodites can please correct me if I am missing something.

Each individual person has a poeisis corresponding to his specific quality and quantity of physical, mental and emotional reality. This is what we bring to the table at a job. So what does it mean to follow the foundational principle above, namely upholding a political-economic system that does not force people to be slaves? It means allowing the poeisis of the individual to center as much as possible and as freely as possible upon that individual him/herself, which means allowing that individual to be the final decider and cause of where, why, how, and if that poesis is applied in the world as work.

If the individual owns their own poeisis then they are necessarily responsible for it, and rationally they become bound to their own choices and possible ends. They parse these ends and make values decisions, and determine a course of action; the individual worker in this case is free to leave any job he wants to leave and instead seek other jobs, take his poeisis elsewhere if he wants to. He carries his own success, freedom and power with him. This is what makes him not a slave.

And this is why it is so important to have a free economy based on capitalist principles, where the worker owns himself and his decisions, and where the society at large is set up to allow and encourage the individual to better himself as much as possible through education and training, so as to make himself as potentially valuable as possible, so as to retain as much freedom as possible to decide to leave jobs when they no longer conform to his highest standard of value for himself; the more poesies-power an individual possesses then the more value the individual will carry with him out in the open marketplace of workers. And in a large and free-rational society there will be as many possible jobs and variety of jobs that a maximum number of people can end up being satisfied with how they choose to actualize their poeisis. Not everyone will end up being satisfied of course, but that is a remainder we must accept because the alternative is far worse, namely attempting to make a utopian society where there are no remainders... which ends in communism which simply means despair and slavery for everyone.


How does this connect to the discussion of the bottom line in the ME? The US/Europe is treating the ME people as slaves, by propping up regimes that treat them as slaves and by inserting manipulations into the tribal dynamics of the ME region. This reveals that the philosophical position of the US/Europe, or at least of those making the decisions in the US/Europe, are not rational because they are not following the foundational principle as I've outlined it above with regard to the two possible (mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive) conditions with regard to from where does the individual's success, freedom and power come... it either comes from oneself (namely we are free to choose where and how to work and acquire money, and no job or person can own us or absolutely cut off our supply of money if they choose to, because we can always go elsewhere to earn our living), or it comes from some specific person/group from whom we are unable to extricate ourselves freely without suffering catastrophic loss of personal success, freedom and power.

The US/Europe is forcing the ME people to be slaves (dependents) to super-religious statist and tyrannical, irrational regimes, which means is forcing them into living with the condition of failing to have onto-epistemo-psychological rational value and primacy in their lives. ME people do not have ownership over their own poeisis. They are living outside of reality in a kind of alternate reality, virtual slave-world maintained by force and strong illusions/delusions.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the US/Europe would be doing this, and that some in the west actually think it is a good thing that we are doing it. Using the ME for their resources, money, and for our own strategic and self-interested purposes is simply wrong, there can be no justification for it. We are no longer in a cold war where the fate of our entire society and the future of the world, and indeed of the civilizational task of freedom and truth, are in the balance. Russia is not our enemy. The ME no longer needs to be the pawn in our petty proxy wars, this is simply not justified. Continuing to use them as pawns in these proxy wars is actually making the world far more dangerous, so not only is our paradigm here not necessary but it is actually antithetical to its own ostensible aim and end, namely preventing a cold war from turning into a massive real (and nuclear) war.

Here is a hint: if wherever or whoever from you are getting your money is someone/something that you are not free to leave, you are a slave. But if wherever or whoever you are getting your money is someone/something that you are free to leave and go pursue a different 'wherever or whoever from you are getting your money', then you are a free man.

Well, reality is what it is. The wealthy and powerful rule the world. To rule as a Taoist Sage or a Buddhist is on no one mind right now. Therefore I don't expect any changes in the near future.

The point is that we don't need to concede to "might makes right". We aren't amoral animals in the wild anymore, we have reason and morality now. A higher, more comprehensive and consistent understanding. We can make things better than being "ruled by the rich".

Unless you just want to be a contented (for a while, anyway) slave. In which case you are not a human but a dumb amoral, arational animal.

Thrasymachus wrote:

The point is that we don't need to concede to "might makes right". We aren't amoral animals in the wild anymore, we have reason and morality now. A higher, more comprehensive and consistent understanding. We can make things better than being "ruled by the rich".

Unless you just want to be a contented (for a while, anyway) slave. In which case you are not a human but a dumb amoral, arational animal.

You nor I have the power to fight the establishment. I avoid it as much as I can. The wealthy and powerful will continue to do what they do and they are not listening to you at all.

So you just go ahead and be content being a slave because no matter how much you bitch about it you are not going to change anything.

I will not embrace Islamic terrorists regardless of where on this planet they are conducting their activities.

I will embrace any peace-loving people from anywhere on this planet.

“Do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Fixed Cross wrote:

“Do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Yes. However, what we are seeing now is the will of some to have power over others rather than having power over their own destiny. I don't think that what we are seeing today is what Nietzsche was talking about.

I doubt that - Nietzsche doesn't judge. He observes.
He observes the nature of the world as he sees it, and concludes it is will to power without beginning or end, beyond good and evil -
and then, suffering immensely from the cruel and often disgusting things in the world, he forces himself to "bite the head off the adder and laugh, "like no man has laughed before".
This is his affirmation. From this embrace of disgust comes the will or freedom to affirm the world as it is into all eternity, the ER.



Condemnation must always go hand in hand with the serious will to destroy that which is condemned - otherwise one only condemns oneself into a self-damned world.

Condemning that against which one does not fight with skill and immortal determination of the will to power, means to literally condemn oneself, to what N calls "slave morality".

"All things are born of war" - Heraklitus

This means that without one effort being pitted against another effort, nothing is ever born.
This evokes Nietzsche's idea "the war of the sexes" to my mind, the idea that love is a struggle, not for its own survival, but that thats its very essence. A lover is someone to struggle with, so as to reach greater chemistry with the world.

In the best sense, Trumps brash, straightforward engaging of Arabia allows for a struggle of such greater chemistry.

Not all war is love, but war with the entire heart in it always is.

Valid points. I have nothing to add at the moment.

Disgusting.

One word in defense is that the recruits for isl are no longer a steady flow.
the brutal campaign may still have the desired effect of wiping isl of the face of the earth.
It was clear to me that this was going to amount in some horrible civilian massacres from the moment he coined the phrase,
it was only slightly less aggressive than Cruz wondering if sand glows in the dark.

What Ive been proposing in terms of geostrategy does require a bit of refinement. I dont think some of the army are entirely capable.

Fixed Cross wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/389820-us-airstrike-syria-civilians-killed/

Yeah, that's a sad situation in Syria. I still believe that the US has no valid reason to be in Syria. Let the Syrians and the Russians take care of the problems.

Some research shows that Russian bombardments in Syria have cost far more civilian lives than the American ones including the powderkeg tragedy on the 17th of March - factor 5 or so - and destroyed far less isis.

Matthis says theyre moving into the annihilation stage of the campaign.
I believe that success is possible. And I know it is utterly and only USA responsibility to deal with isis - its own creation...

To create isis and then to leave, 'to keep hands clean' is like raping someone and then excusing oneself of the mess, saying 'sorry but this just isnt me, im uncomfortable by your bleeding vagina, get yourself together, life is what you make it.'

Causality is an important thing.

Destabilizing these areas is what led to ISIS, and of course the CIA destabilized and funded these groups on purpose. But it isn't so simple as to say "we did it so we can't leave", we need to look at the specific causes and make sure we stop doing that.

The CIA tried to do to Syria what it did to Iraq and Libya. It didn't work in Syria because of Russia's support for Assad. Therefore the answer is to... stop doing what we were doing. Stop the interventions an destabilizing the area, stop supporting "rebel" groups.

"I raped you therefore I need to keep raping you" isn't really a rational strategy. Unless rape was the goal all along.

If the US caused the problem then the US, as the cause of the problem, needs to remove itself to remove the cause. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

The US was attacked on 9/11 by a bunch of Saudi nationals, so we need to... invade Iraq?

The US destabilized the ME with funding proxy terrorist groups, creating power vacuums and fomenting unrest, leading to ISIS, so we need to... invade Syria?

I don't see the logic.

Yeah... I dont read the newspapers.... they have no logic.

I dont even consider these ideas you bring up. 9/11 Saudi? kek.

Its just a fact that isis is 100% US. So its 100% US who needs to clean it up.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Yeah... I dont read the newspapers.... they have no logic.

I dont even consider these ideas you bring up. 9/11 Saudi? kek.

Its just a fact that isis is 100% US. So its 100% US who needs to clean it up.

I'm not talking about newspapers either. And yes the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

What does "clean it up" mean, then? Remember that we need to do more than just say "ISIS is US made". We need to see the literal, tangible causes of ISIS and problems in the ME, and then the US has the responsibility to stop doing those things which are causing the problems.

If that specific action to stop the causes is for the US to walk away, or at least to not keep invading over there, then that is what we need to do.

I don't know what your ideas for solutions are, given what we know of the causes. Again, we need to be more specific about the causes. We can't just say "the US did it" and leave it at that, because then by your logic this could give the US unlimited options for intervening over there to "clean it up". We need instead to ask 1) what really, specifically, caused the problems, and 2) what really, specifically, can the US do to alleviate and fix those problems?

You seem to want the US to invade Syria, or at least I don't really know what you want the US to do about all this. If you can be more specific in your identification of the problems and how your proposed, specific solutions would work to address those problems, that would help me understand your position.

Well, every time I wrote strategy down here, a few days later, the adversary adapted to that. So I wont do that. But Ive already outlined my plans years ago, and Trump is echoing that now.

Essentially Syria needs to be economically westernized, along with the Palestinian territories.

I do not at all understand your idea that the US could responsibly leave isis to the Syrians and Iraqis. Isis s armed with us weapons, logistics, and money. Its US army. If the official US army doesnt clean it up, Syria will be under us occupation forever, and under that part of the US that likes to cook children alive.

The US needs to stop its isis activities. This is what Trump is taking care of.


As I mentioned, I think I go unread a lot recently, is that recruitments for isis have decreased immensely since Matthis' campaign.

All is well as far as Im concerned. Trump is great, keeps the promises I care about.
I dont give (as) much of a shit about the ACA personally, thats not ultimately my or the worlds problem. US global politics is my issue, and since Teddy Roosevelt there hasnt been a similarly sane person in the White House.

It surprises me you actually buy into the Saudi hijackers angle. That relies on the fable of Mohammed Atta, whose head and passport were found intact on the pile of molten mesh at ground zero.

The problem with this that I see is that the reason the US created ISIS is so the US has a pretext to invade where ISIS has taken over or has any influence. So obviously the idea that the US needs to invade, is just playing into the same reasons why the CIA and globalists created ISIS to begin with.

I don't believe in imposing "westernism" on the ME people. If they want it, that is fine. If not, that is fine too. But we do need to hold them to high standards of basic human regard and human rights, which would mean, among other things, that Trump would not have done the Saudi Arabian deal he just did.

The idea that the US could hold up anyone to any standards would be funny if it wasnt painfully offensive.

They created isis, possibly the worst evil in the history of man.

No, the US needs to work now. do something. Not pretend to hold up standards to others they never even remotely discerned as possible for themselves - least of all by allowing their rape machine to continue unhindered -

The US has been cowardly and vicious for 80 years - let it do something remotely responsible for one second.

But I am not saying that the US should just stop fighting ISIS. Of course the US should keep fighting ISIS. One of the best ways to do that is to stop attacking the states in which ISIS has ground, because those states are also fighting ISIS, even more than we are. Syria included. And we do not need to defend Assad to recognize that Syria is fighting ISIS, and if we attack Syria itself then we strengthen ISIS.

Nation building in the ME just does not work, and it never will.

So the US should work hard to cut off funding streams from ISIS, stop selling weapons to groups or state actors that will end up giving those weapons to ISIS (like Saudi Arabia, incidentally... Wahhabism), and keep doing tactical military strikes when we have the ability to seriously harm ISIS locations. But other than that, full invasions of ME nations is out of the question, unless that nation were to completely fall to ISIS, which, again, is what the CIA/globalists want.

Fixed Cross wrote:

The idea that the US could hold up anyone to any standards would be funny if it wasnt painfully offensive.

They created isis, possibly the worst evil in the history of man.

No, the CIA and the globalists did that. I am not going to take personal responsibility for that. Most Americans have nothing to do with it, and it was done in secret, for the most part.

Nor am I going to bash the US as if the US is just as morally bankrupt as these medieval Islamic autocracies. There are clear differences between the US and Saudi Arabia. If anyone disagrees they are free to go live in Saudi Arabia and raise their daughters there.

Quote :

No, the US needs to work now. do something. Not pretend to hold up standards to others they never even remotely discerned as possible for themselves - least of all by allowing their rape machine to continue unhindered -

The US has been cowardly and vicious for 80 years - let it do something remotely responsible for one second.

Like selling hundreds of billions to the Saudis, who tacitly support ISIS? Or like destabilizing the ME to the point where ISIS is able to take over? No, I cannot agree.

The US has its problems, just as the west in general is not perfect. But the main of these problems is that the US and western world has been co-oped by these deep state globalists and neocons/neolibs. If you want to blame things on someone, blame them. The US is working hard to try and throw off that oppression, namely, we elected Trump. At least that was a sign that we are trying, despite whether or not Trump is actually going to be helpful or hurtful of that.

So you think the idea of the US holding up higher moral standards to the ME is offensive? You must have a very low opinion of the US as a whole.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Some research shows that Russian bombardments in Syria have cost far more civilian lives than the American ones including the powderkeg tragedy on the 17th of March - factor 5 or so - and destroyed far less isis.

Matthis says theyre moving into the annihilation stage of the campaign.
I believe that success is possible. And I know it is utterly and only USA responsibility to deal with isis - its own creation...

To create isis and then to leave, 'to keep hands clean' is like raping someone and then excusing oneself of the mess, saying 'sorry but this just isnt me, im uncomfortable by your bleeding vagina, get yourself together, life is what you make it.'

Causality is an important thing.

I won't even attempt to justify what Russia and Assad are doing to Syria. Assad wants to destroy anyone who is a threat to his government. Russia is his ally.

While the US is there, it should take care of business, the terrorists, and then get out. Then perhaps Russia will get out and Israel will keep Syria in check.