From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


Recently, a subtle narrative has emerged in Western discourse, interpreting the recent flurry of visits to China by leaders of several Western nations as a form of "pleading for help," subtly reinforcing a binary mindset that suggests the West, having drifted from the US, must now cling to China. However, on the 21st, the British magazine *The Economist* jumped out to voice a dissenting opinion. It published an article arguing that the West should not count on China for assistance, stating, "China neither can nor will save America's allies from Trump." The logic behind its conclusion remains rooted in the same old Western ideological narrative: because China is "interest-oriented and indifferent to values," even if these American allies are being bullied by Trump, China is unworthy of standing alongside these "democracies."

It must be said that *The Economist*'s line of argument truly exposes the simplistic understanding of international politics held by certain so-called Western "elites": they have never genuinely considered self-reliance or standing on their own feet in the world, always feeling the need to find a "big brother" for protection. For Europe, this role has consistently been played by the United States. But due to historical inertia, once the United States becomes capricious and starts demanding exorbitant "protection fees," these Western mouthpieces reflexively distort their own leaders' normal diplomatic engagements with China into a mafia-style act of paying tribute: if Europe can bow to the US today, it can just as easily kowtow to China tomorrow, as if there were no third path for nations other than attaching themselves to a major power.

This mindset not only reveals *The Economist*'s contempt for the principle of sovereign equality but also reflects these Western media outlets' profound lack of confidence in their own strength.

However, it cannot be said that *The Economist*'s viewpoint is entirely nonsense. One point in its article does hit the mark: now that these Western nations are being bullied by Trump, China indeed will not come to their rescue, nor will it act as their "savior." But the reason is absolutely not what the article claimsrCo"China lacks the capability" or "China is unworthy of standing with democracies"rCobut rather that the actions these countries have taken toward China over many years have long since stripped them of any entitlement to sympathy. Now that it's Trump's turn to exploit these Western nations, so fond of moralizing from their supposed high ground, China naturally will not proactively extend a helping hand. Conversely, seeing these Western nations being pressured by Trump, some Chinese netizens have even openly mocked them: Didn't the West love to preach about a "rules-based international order"? Now that the rule-maker is applying that same framework to the West, why can't they accept it? For decades, Europe enjoyed the triple dividend of America's military umbrella, reliance on Russia's cheap energy supplies, and reaping substantial economic benefits from China's investments and market.

Relying on this "triple dividend," Europe managed to sustain its high welfare standards, talk about human rights and values, and lecture others from its perceived moral high ground, as if it were the beacon of world civilization.

But when Russia ceased its energy supplies, Trump shed the facade of American "decency," and China stopped endlessly accommodating certain capricious nations, EuroperCohaving lived in a greenhouse for so longrCofinally had to face the biting chill of the real world, only to find itself unable to stand firm.

---------------------------------------------
Commentary:

The metaphor of a "blood bag" piercingly strips away the veneer of warmth in transatlantic relations, revealing a core of unequal, parasitic symbiosis. For decades, Europe's security and prosperity were built on a simple bargain: ceding a portion of strategic autonomy to the United States in exchange for a security umbrella and access to an economic order. This indeed allowed Europe to enjoy the "leftovers" rCo maintaining a "hothouse prosperity" characterized by high welfare and a lofty moral stance at low cost.

However, the very nature of this "dependency-based existence" determined Europe's place in America's strategic ledger: not as an equal partner, but as a "strategic redundancy" or "buffer resource" to be tapped or even sacrificed. When the "overlord," the United States, was strong, it extracted global benefits by dominating the system, and Europe got its share. But when America itself is "bleeding" (facing internal crises or major strategic challenges), it does not hesitate to squeeze Europe, the closest "reservoir" rCo by creating regional crises to drive capital flight,o+|*ii demanding increased military spending, or engaging in outright plunder in energy and trade rCo to replenish itself.

The irony is that Europe's elites have long been aware of this, yet remained immersed in the self-hypnosis of a "values-based alliance," dressing up dependence as "solidarity" and the surrender of sovereignty as "division of labor." As the seasoned German statesman Egon Bahr once warned, "If America treats its allies as adversaries, then Europe must no longer be naive." The series of crises Europe now faces in energy, defense, and industrial policy is precisely the massive bill coming due for its long-term "strategic free-riding." When the "extraction" occurs, Europe finds itself powerless to resist and with nowhere to hide, because it has deeply embedded itself into the U.S.-led system and allowed its muscles for independent survival to atrophy.

This exposes a brutal geopolitical reality: The right to choose one's own path, once relinquished, ultimately leads to the loss of the ability to determine one's own destiny. Europe's fate as a "blood bag" is the result of its own choices combined with structural dependence. Now that the chill winds are blowing, the ultimate question Europe cannot avoid is this: Will it remain a farmed resource, or find the resolve to forge its own capacity to "generate blood"?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


Gree fan posted:

Recently, a subtle narrative has emerged ...

Selective perceptions work wonders.

Science, for example, selects causality.
As a tool, it's like a hammer. It works.

Paradigms work, at times.
To say they are dao is possible.

One is reminded of how Jesus appears
in the Hebrew bible for those with eyes
to see what is seen given a skewed view.

Some people know. They know their deity.

Epistemologies often vary. How does any
one know any so-called thing could be a
question among many quests one may go on.

For some people, their country, their flag
is like the gods were in ancient times.

To see a group as a group may occur.
Olympians or Three Pure Ones.
A pantheon of many sorts.

Now viewed as myths by those who
see the world a bit different.

Lots of people perhaps can't not see
their deity, their country nor many
other things which they other as
their minds only work and play
games of duality naturally.

Once upon a time there was a buddha
named Buddha and an old guy named Old
Sir, Old Tzu or Old Zi.

What any of the three would have thought
could be a wonder along with Zhuangzi.

Speaking of Daojia.

- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


one posted:

Selective perceptions work wonders.

Not to mention wars, lots of blood shed
fighting for and against imaginary creations.

Paradigms work, at times.
To say they are dao is possible.

Dysfunction is a common theme.
Take DDJ 46, again, as an example.
Blood-baths occur at times.

Epistemologies often vary. How does any
one know any so-called thing could be a
question among many quests one may go on.

Youngsters tend to be steered.

For some people, their country, their flag
is like the gods were in ancient times.

A saying was said about truths.
Some are called facts, like scientific truths.
Some are called myths which may be deeper.

Realities emerge from both types.
To fight for a deity, a country, a flag.
Youngsters may be willing and able.
Old people could grow tired.

Lao Tzu left a region.

He disappeared and a reason
was given as to why. He'd seen
what was and what couldn't be
given the myths of the land.

To see a group as a group may occur.

Lots of people perhaps can't not see ...

All too true. For many
what is impossible will remain.

Speaking of Daojia.

Going with a flow, to know
how to let go and let be.

- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


aye posted:

one posted:

Speaking of Daojia.

Going with a flow, to know
how to let go and let be.

An old guy named, Old Guy, left
his wisdom at the gate at Hanku Pass.

His intellectual understanding of how
to rule if a ruler was going to be,
given a variety of circumstances.

Having left them there, his
intellect and wisdom as it were,
perhaps he was free to be
more simply.

- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


eye posted:

aye posted:

one posted:

Speaking of Daojia.

Going with a flow, to know
how to let go and let be.

An old guy named, Old Guy, left
his wisdom at the gate at Hanku Pass.

His intellectual understanding of how
to rule if a ruler was going to be,
given a variety of circumstances.

Having left them there, his
intellect and wisdom as it were,
perhaps he was free to be
more simply.

Increasing knowledge is noted in the text.
What to do or not to do next may be as a well.

- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


aye posted a bout:

Increasing knowledge is noted in the text.
What to do or not to do next may be as a well.

Ah yes. Sum Ting about scholars
as compared with those who seek a dao.
Carving oxen, having an edge.

The dao that is a Dao, eh.

- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2