Jesus lived the life of an ascetic by largely renouncing the indulgences of the material world, as was commonly emphasized in Eastern religions at the time. He would step away into nature for clarity and self reflection similar to the vision quests of Indigineous communities.

He was undoubtedly a pacifist.

The state and church have always worked in coordination to carefully shape the Christian narrative out of concern that, if it were truly embraced by the people, from where would they get their imperial cannon fodder?

This is why movements like “muscular Christianity” were necessary. There was a period in the late 19th century when church going was seen as a largely feminine activity and this movement helped restore male attendance. Depictions of Jesus were made to emphasize more “masculine” chacteristics (prominent cheekbones, chin, more cut physique). This movement also brought about the YMCA, as motivation for men to attend.

Christianity, Islam and monotheism in general are incredibly useful political tools for imperialism and empire building. They indoctrinate one to accept top down authoritarianism and hierarchy, often unquestioningly, from childhood.

Portraying Jesus in a biblically accurate sense is counterproductive for empire building. Which is why Christians so unlike Christ. It’s ever apparent proof that relgion is a tool of the state.

I would politely add The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey.

Unfortunately you can’t kill an idea. The West dabbled in white supremacy for most of modern history (see race based caste in America and South Africa, race based chattel slavery, phrenology etc) and still does to some degree so Nazism was inevitable in many ways.

Leopold Amery, the empire’s secretary of state for India appealed Churchill for aid as British engineered famines devestated Bengal (such famines killed 100 million people during the colonial era). The great hero of the West responded by calling Indians a beastly people, blaming them for “breeding like rabbits”, saying the diverted grain was better kept for “sturdy greeks” and wished death upon Gandhi.

Amery wrote in his diary: “Naturally I lost patience, and couldn’t help telling him that I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s, which annoyed him no little.”

If these are the people we venerate and we continue to teach incomplete histories, is killing every Nazi going to be enough?

It’s a very optimistic outlook. I hope you’re right.

What’s uncomfortable for countries in the Western hemisphere is that upon shifting to a multipolar or “spheres of influence” model of the world (which was the norm preglobalization), America will continue its imperialistic tendencies to claim some form of dominion over Canada Mexico and South America. The latest foreign policy strategy document from the Trump administration seems to harken to the Monroe Doctrine (which was a warning that colonization of any further territory in the Western hemisphere by European powers would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security). It seems like Trump sees the Western hemisphere as “belonging” to America on some level.

I also don’t see the US competely discarding neoliberalism when it comes to tech / services, where it still dominates. That requires some type of openness to the world otherwise they won’t be able to continue to enforce their IP rights. When someone makes a Doordash order in Kathmandu, they want some portion of that transaction flowing through both Silicon Valley and their payment processors (Visa, Mastercard etc). How will the US respond when socialism spreads and those countries make their own versions of these services? Hard to imagine they would respond reasonably, especially since their approach to any resistance up until now has been to stage a coup. Old habits die hard.

Is it though? People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. No one wants to believe that their privileges are predicated on suffering elsewhere.

Westerners in particularly have always been very “heads in the sand” when it comes to modern history but it’s not surprising. Every nation struggles with the darker aspects of their history.

We call that extortion in our part of the world. I assume the British call it that today too.

Where I’d say Friedman is arguing in bad faith is that the obvious goal of colonialism is value extraction by force or coercion. He may argue that due to inefficiency or resistance it didn’t actually produce significant wealth for Britain but the evidence shows otherwise.

That or he may argue that the East India Company (the origin of multinational capitalism) was not colonialism which would be divergent from historical consensus.

There are several estimates. Some as high as $45 trillion.

Friedman’s take has been repeated in many Western circles.

As you’ve mentioned there were multiple members of Parliament who were directly invested in the EIC and made sizable profits. The EIC managed to extract explotative taxation during the Bengal famine of 1770 (promoting starvation) while shareholders increased their dividend from 10 to 12.5%. The massive transfer of wealth from India, the Atlantic slave trade and Opium sales to China essentially built Britain during this era. It was the seed capital of the industrial revolution.

The British Raj took over after the failed sepoy mutiny in mid 1800s. It was at this point Britain introduced the strategy of the ‘civilizing mission’, denigrating Indian culture as a justification to the British public to continue colonization. The British public accepted this. It was the independence movement in India that ultimately secured freedom (along with Nazi destruction of British infrastructure).

As we watch power and wealth slowly drift back from West to East and South, African, Indian and many other voices that speak truth on this matter will be heard more clearly.

Often times Westerners are not open to accepting voices from the global south on these matters and portray them as biased. I usual refer to the writings of historian William Dalrymple (the self admitted descendant of colonists) as a starting point to those that feel morally threatened by this history but want to learn more from someone who doesn’t feel too foreign.

For those that are open to Indian voices, Sashi Tharoor’s writings or his YouTube series ‘Imperial Receipts’ does a good job capturing the history and scale of extraction.

Didn’t know much about the guy except that he’s a Nobel laureate. Happened to come across a YouTube video where a curious college student asks him about how slavery and colonialism contributed to Western wealth. He had an elaborate answer but within it he actually said Britain did not have slaves and America did not have colonies (for the most part).

Nevermind the fact that America absolutely had slaves and Britain certainly had colonies (he was selective on who didn’t have what), Britain absolutely did profit from slavery also.

He added on that Britain spent more on administering colonies than it gained extracting their resources which may be one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard. How can someone that worships at the altar of capitalism not understand that greed was the obvious motivator? Or is it only the motivator when it fits his narrative?

If this is the messaging we get from our intellectuals, what hope does truth have?

Women absolutely have a role to play in toxic masculinity. Not to take accountability away from the social conditions that men ultimately created and propagated.

Stoicism teaches us to focus on what’s in our control by either reframing or accepting our emotions based on rational judgment. The goal is emotional resilience, not emotional suppression. Pop culture has redefined it as you describe.

So I’m old and greying now (in my late 30s), have no major stake in this but I’d like to reframe something you’ve said from a different perspective based on life experience.

I disagree that women like men who are decisive. It’s going to sound like pedantry but I think that’s too broad. That’s not a message that helps young men find a good way.

In my experience, women like it when men are thoughtfully and respectfully decisive. Men are complex, sophisticated, have good days, bad days, strong days, days when they feel weak. Days when they’re decisive and days when they are not. I don’t think we can split men into two camps - decisive and indecisive - without oversimplifying. A man can be decisive one day and indecisive the next.

The messaging that reached me as a young man, which I detested, was to be decisive above all else (at the expense of thoughtfulness and consideration) because indecisiveness would repel women even more than being a bad person. That’s not the message that I’d like young men to hear. I’d like the world to be a better place than when I was growing up.

This comment is not so much directed at you as it is to others who may come across it and have had a similar experience. Be decisive but if and only when you’ve taken her and others into account. This is how you earn the respect of your contemporaries.

Not formally criminalized but socially stigmatized Im sure.

But I’m also sure theres a Hrithik Roshan jerk off channel somewhere on there too, dont worry.

I feel the commentary on relative privilege here is meaningful. I think bringing up race in the meme can be off putting to some but the overall message of how relative privilege allows one to approach problems with a more hopeful worldview is accurate.

The relative privileges being invoked here being race, gender and financial security, though the messaging would still convey relatable meaning even if they had only chosen one.

It can be done tastefully if there is a desire to humanize the non Americans. The problem is that desire is often what’s lacking.

If you being democracy to a country against the will of the people, is that reqlly democratic? This sounds like putting lipstick on the pig that is imperialism.

Somehow I can’t relate to that all. No amount of economic desperation would bring many people to that.

Now with the right amount of indoctrination and lack of education I can definitely see things playing out that way.

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” - MLK Jr

Yeah I think the wording needs work. Both Democrats and Republicans wanted segregation to continue, it was only after immense pressure domestically and internationally that Democrats changed their tune. The Soviets were pumping out “I thought y’all said all men are created equal in your founding documents” as part of the propaganda machine (which was a legitimate call out).

Its only after getting called out over and over again that these changes happened. That doesn’t mean the people who allowed that progress to happen deserve no credit but I would give primary credit for woman’s suffrage to women and the end of the American race based caste system known as segregation to African Americans. With some of them being liberals themselves and others being supporters who believed in a message of universal humanity.

Agreed. I’d add that I don’t think experiencing a diaspora culture in the US is the same as going to another country and experiencing a culture on it’s home turf. The latter requires a sense of humility that I think the vast majority of Americans struggle with (or shy away from for other reasons). Overcoming those holdups leads to oppurtunities to have a more complete sense of the world and self.

I genuinely think many in America (also generally the West and wealthy people) see the world as a commodity that should offer a degree of “user/customer experience” which leads to some problematic world views and is part of why they may treat travel as a checklist. They want to go as far as possible without actually leaving home and wear it as a status symbol.

Its certainly better than nothing. But leaving your home country, especially to see and try to understand a culture different from yours, requires a type of humility that helps make a person more complete. I know many Americans struggle with work life balance which makes it not so feasible so I agree that exploring other cultures at home is a reasonable compromise. But a compromise nonetheless.