Are the Israel-America supporters merely "bought off" by fancy military equipment, foreign investment and trade deals?
I don't buy it's Islamic sect differences in today's world though perhaps that mattered 100 years ago.
I feel like the middle-eastern countries siding with Israel-America are making a fatel mistake that will lead to the destruction of their countries and their countries' sovereignty in the future.
Does anyone know if the people in these countries actually support Israel-America or is it just their governments that do because their government is bought off?
I have a feeling the bought off government fans the blame of the Islamic sect differences to the commoners to try to get them to dislike Iran but I'm not sure how they justify being friends with the USA and allowing the USA to conduct military operations against Iran in their countries.
Anyone have any knowledge in this?
Yes. You have to realize these gulf arab shits are essentially nobodies. They were still riding camels around ~50 years ago, and suddenly upgraded to ferraris and range rovers because of western oil deals. They're a bunch of desert nomads that know fuck all about fuck all. All jews and the west had to do was just dangle shiny things and money in front of them and they did their bidding.
They all secretly hate jews, but love money and luxury more. There are rumors that the house of saud (saudi arabia's rulers) are actually crypto jews pretending to be muslim.
That crypto jew argument is basically a foregone conclusion at this point. And ive been slowly redpilling Normie's about the JQ using it.
The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Hmmmmmm
Persia is pretty much the only place in the Middle East aside from Turkey that hasn’t been an irrelevant backwater since Alexander the Great. Even the large Caliphates pretty much had their control limited to the Middle East + Pakistan and Egypt and those were often either Persia or Turkey themselves. If Jerusalem was in, say, South America, the entire region would be ignored as a Sandy place with only oil.
All of "islam's contribution to math and science" was just persians btw, funny fact to bring up to make arabs mad.
Nailed it.
Nooo, Algebra is Arab!!! Oh wait, Al-Khwarizmi was an Indo-European Persian from Central Asia.
Noooo, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) is an Arab and the father of modern medicine! Nope, he was ALSO a Persian from Central Asia.
Noooo, Maimonides was an Arab who lived in Spain before the barbarian Europeans ruined Spain!! Nope, he was a Jew.
Noooo, Saladin the Arab was one of the most amazing soldiers and honorable men of all the time! Nope--Kurdish (relatives of the Persians).
I could keep going. And, to be fair, there were some noted Arab scholars, but one should also keep in mind that the Arabs were basically backwater desert nomads who exploded from ARabia and conquered from Spain to India. They imposed Islam (and heavy taxes on non-Muslims) and made Arabic the language of poetry, religion, and rulership. Many of the people who might be called "Arab" today were actually ethnically Greek. Coptic. Pre-Islamic North Africans. Persians. Etc.
Basically look at your averge Moroccan or Tunisian or Syrian or Lebanese and compare to a Yemeni or Saudi Arabian. Very different.
Gulf countries are led by despots, what their people do or don't think - and the civilian population is not immune from short-sighted retardation - doesn't matter.
Very few actually side with Iran despite outward speeches. Look at their geopolitical and economic dealings instead, where they willingly signed the Abraham accords and barter goods for shekels.
It comes down to a matter of greed and over-confidence. For example, many of the GCC were warned of Western entanglements given the Zionist agenda, but they felt they were special due to Nvidia chips, etc. Seriously.
Cause Iranians are Persian and not Arab. Arabs hate Persians as much as they hate Jews, "the armies of Rome" and anybody not Arabic.
I tried to look up what Arab actually meant, and it said Arab speaking. Not that I'm arguing with you.
Arab is a race, not just a language. Go ask the Arabs in Saudi Arabia if Black people who speak Arab are deemed arabic. Furthermore, Iranians don't even speak Arab as a native language, they speak Farsi.
I will try to look for more details on "Arab.". Yeah I knew that Iranians are (mostly) Persian not Arab and don't speak Arabic.
Reasoning implies one side against the other...few suggest sides to tempt many to reason against each other.
Buying implies taking into possession...the more possessions one holds onto; the harder it becomes to support self. Only nature supports being...any support bought from one another sells self out.
Islam implies "submission"; sect implies "to follow"...differences need to resist the wanted temptation of submitting or following, which by joining together destroys differences.
Few suggest middle-east to distract many from discerning self at the center of north; east; south; west. Few manipulate feelings to tempt one off-center and into a like-minded consensus among many.
Resisting the temptation of emotion (feeling) sustains ones differences from one another. Falling for the temptation of emotion...clashes differences together.
Country implies "to count; enumerate"...doing that permits another to hold onto accountable. Few suggest countries to trick many into giving up accountability, hence becoming a common wealth under a sovereign.
Nature represents the only actual support for each reacting division of being within.
Govern (to control) ment (mind) implies selling self out to another. There's no such thing as the "government"...only ones mind willingly permitting control by another.
All implies knowledge; each one within implies at the ledge of known...others tempt ones perception with suggested knowledge to incline towards a side, hence off the edge of knowing.
One cannot get knowledge from another, only from all moving through each one. Knowledge is not a sharable commodity for buying and selling (information), but the animation of being (inspiration).
OK, this is the psycho log that broke the camel's back
I thought I was having a stroke there for a second.
This text is written in a highly philosophical, almost esoteric style. The author relies on creative wordplay—breaking words apart to find hidden meanings—to argue for extreme self-reliance and against group conformity. While the author makes some thought-provoking points about individualism, it is worth noting that they use "false etymologies" (invented word histories) to make their case. For example, "government" does not actually mean "mind control" (it comes from Latin words meaning "the act of steering or directing"), and "country" is not rooted in the word "count."
However, looking past the literal definitions, here is a plain-English translation of the core ideas the author is trying to communicate:
Plain English Translation
1. On taking sides ("reason for siding") The Translation: When we argue and pick sides, we divide ourselves. A powerful few use the concept of "taking sides" to distract the masses and trick us into fighting one another.
2. On buying influence ("are supporters bought off") The Translation: True support cannot be bought. Accumulating possessions or relying on others weighs you down and weakens your independence. Real support comes from nature and within yourself; buying loyalty from others just compromises your integrity.
3. On religious divisions ("Islamic sect differences") The Translation: Blindly joining a group destroys what makes you unique. Instead of conforming or submitting to a collective identity (like a religious sect), you should protect your individuality and resist the urge to just follow the crowd.
4. On geographic labels and emotions ("I feel like the middle-eastern") The Translation: Geographic labels (like "Middle East") are distractions that pull your focus outward. You should remain grounded in your own center. Similarly, when you get swept up in group emotions, you lose your unique perspective and end up clashing with others. Staying perfectly centered and logical protects your individuality.
5. On nations and power ("the destruction of their countries and their countries' sovereignty") The Translation: Nations exist to manage and control people. By identifying with a "country," people surrender their personal accountability and independence, turning themselves into the property of a ruling authority.
6. On true support ("if the people...actually support") The Translation: The only genuine foundation we have is the natural world and our own inner awareness.
7. On political power ("is government bought off") The Translation: Government is just an illusion of control. There is no physical thing called "the government"—it only exists because individuals willingly surrender their own minds and give others permission to control them.
8. On seeking the truth ("Anyone have any knowledge") The Translation: True knowledge comes from within, not from others. People will try to sell you their version of the "truth" to manipulate you onto their side. However, true knowledge isn't a commodity or a piece of information you can trade; it is a deeply personal realization that you can only experience for yourself.
Summary of the Author's Philosophy The author believes that all external systems—governments, religions, countries, and even shared knowledge—are traps designed by a powerful few to control the masses. To be truly free, they argue that you must reject group emotions, rely only on nature, and look entirely inward for truth and guidance.
Amazing that a literal chatbot can better comprehend this man than many of the posters on this site lol.
Also government absolutely has the etymological roots of “mind control”:
Government = gubernare + mentis = govern/control/steer + mind = mind control
Interpreting words is what these chatbots are best at. Humans can do it too but it would take more time and brain power most people wouldn't want to bother on this guy.
His take on knowledge reminds me of Julius Evola's take. This guy reads esoteric stuff.
I think he’s a serious contender for “best commenter on the entire site”, so when I see people calling him a bot I just laugh at how stupid such people must be
Thanks for the citations, always interested in metaphysics/ontology/etc
I enjoy the same but one doesn't have to speak like he does to convey a point. He's taking on a persona that hinders others from interpreting his point which seems counter-productive to me. Even the great UR Group I quoted from didn't speak in riddles to convey their point when they were writing to people they knew wouldn't readily be able to easily interpret such riddles. His posting seems a little too theatrical for me.
I don’t think it’s a persona really, I think he’s basically mentally ascended and posts direct transcripts of his thoughts, but it can for sure be hard to follow sometimes lol
Gay and low-iq
Shia vs Sunni but most don't actually give two shits about Iran
Wherever there are shi'a minorities, Iran sends weapons to the "freedom fighters" which tends to piss that country off.