BlueOak

The patterns leading to World War have been obvious for 20 years to me, just by observation and acceptance of other persepctives. The only guess i'd be making is if they are reversed, altered, or not. Weighed against human nature seeking safety rather than danger and how that need is met. I see no evidence that violence is dissuading anyone enough, which is the most worrying trend that the rise of the authoritarian right has brought about. Currently, these patterns are not being altered; ergo, a prediction of world war is not rampant speculation, as you put it, it's a reasonable deduction. If you want to discuss those patterns, we can do but to dismiss those talking about them is frankly bizarre. I keep wanting to add some hope here, so I will in some form, I will add an optimistic hope that out of this pressure cooker we are all in currently, it will result in a positive condition for the planet, but I feel on this I am speculating, rather than reading a pattern.

I have never seen a better example of sovereign citizens than Eric Martin: It doesn't have the snappiest judge responses or the most 'clever' sovereign arguments, where they try to delay or frustrate the court, its simply a man who really believes his position and demonstrates the mindset without a lot of flair or subterfuge. It shows judges who know him well. I deduce this because this playlist is now sixteen videos long, and his appearances are fairly simple. If you want to see how it all started, look at the last one in the playlist also, its the same thing over and over.

For the most part, yes, in 99% of cases, or it ends up worse because of additional charges like contempt or resisting, or repeatedly not doing what they are instructed to do. They are within the system , which they are saying doesn't exist or has authority over them. The ability to enforce authority generally comes from both the acceptance of the social contract by the population and the projection of force, which the sovereign citizens cannot do against a well-ordered, functional country, where enough people respect or uphold its own social contracts. But some defences work on minor charges because they've either delayed the courts or police enough that they either get pleaded down or witnesses move on and are unavailable. Sometimes, police on a stop get called to a more important one. This is rare, but i've seen it happen. I've seen cases go years where people keep swapping out defense counsel. But I would call it far inferior to having even a half-competent attorney. As well as getting sovereign citizens into much more trouble than they would have gotten into, or adding time to their sentences by racking up more charges, I've also seen some hilarious responses, this judge especially:

There have been various offshoots or alternatives such as: Freeman on the land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land_movement The freeman on the land movement (sometimes spelled freeman-on-the-land or abbreviated as FOTL, also known as the freemen of the land, the freemen movement, or simply freemen, is a loose group of individuals who adhere to pseudolegal concepts and conspiracy theories implying that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. Freemen on the land are mostly present in Commonwealth countries. The movement appeared in Canada in the early 2000s, as an offshoot of the sovereign citizen movement which is more prevalent in the United States. The name "freeman on the land" describes a person who is literally a "free man" on the land where they live. Movement members believe that they can declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own idiosyncratic interpretation of "common law". Freemen on the land also advocate schemes to avoid taxes which they consider to be illegitimate. In Canada, courts and scholars use the technical phrase "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) as an umbrella term for freemen on the land, the precursor "Detaxer" movement, sovereign citizens, their pseudolegal theories and the vexatious litigation based on them. Freeman on the land arguments are legally baseless. Besides Canada, freemen on the land's pseudolegal claims have been argued in the courts of Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland but have always been rejected. The movement's influence peaked in Canada during the late 2000s and early 2010s; it has since declined significantly. Moorish sovereign citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorish_sovereign_citizens The Moorish sovereign citizen movement, sometimes called the indigenous sovereign citizen movement or the Rise of the Moors, is a sub-group of sovereign citizens that mainly holds to the teachings of the Moorish Science Temple of America that hold that African Americans are descendants of the Moabites and thus are "Moorish" by nationality and Islamic by faith. Far right groups such as: Posse Comitatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization) The Posse Comitatus (Latin, "force of the county") is a loosely organized American far-right extremist social movement which began in the late 1960s. Its members spread a conspiracy-minded, anti-government, and antisemitic message linked to white supremacy aiming to counter what they believe is an attack on their social and political rights as white Christians. Many Posse members practiced survivalism and played a role in the formation of armed citizens' militias in the 1990s. The Posse Comitatus pioneered the use of false liens and other types of "paper terrorism" to harass their opponents by mounting frivolous legal actions against them. As the Posse Comitatus began their decline in popularity at the turn of the 21st century, their tactics and ideology evolved into those of the Christian Patriot movement and the sovereign citizen movement. Among a few others

@Wilhelm44 Wikipedia lists it as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement Quote: The sovereign citizen movement (often abbreviated as SovCits) is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Sovereign citizens have their own pseudolegal belief system based on misinterpretations of common law, and claim not to be subject to any government statutes unless they consent to them. The movement appeared in the U.S. in the early 1970s and has since expanded to other countries; the similar freeman on the land movement emerged during the 2000s in Canada before spreading to other Commonwealth countries. The FBI has called sovereign citizens "anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States". The sovereign citizen phenomenon is one of the main contemporary sources of pseudolaw. Sovereign citizens believe that courts have no jurisdiction over people and that certain procedures (such as writing specific phrases on bills they do not want to pay) and loopholes can make one immune to government laws and regulations. They also regard most forms of taxation as illegitimate and reject Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, and vehicle registration. The movement may appeal to people facing financial or legal difficulties or wishing to resist perceived government oppression. As a result, it has grown significantly during times of economic or social crisis. Most schemes sovereign citizens promote aim to avoid paying taxes, ignore laws, eliminate debts, or extract money from the government. Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court. American sovereign citizens claim that the United States federal government is illegitimate. Sovereign citizens outside the U.S. hold similar beliefs about their countries' governments. The movement can be traced to American far-right groups such as the Posse Comitatus and the constitutionalist wing of the militia movement. The sovereign citizen movement was originally associated with white supremacism and antisemitism, but it now attracts people of various ethnicities, including a significant number of African Americans. The latter sometimes belong to self-declared "Moorish" sects. The majority of sovereign citizens are not violent, but the methods the movement advocates are illegal. Sovereign citizens notably adhere to the fraudulent schemes promoted by the redemption "A4V" movement. Many sovereign citizens have been found guilty of offenses such as tax evasion, hostile possession, forgery, threatening public officials, bank fraud, and traffic violations. Two of the most important crackdowns by U.S. authorities on sovereign citizen organizations were the 1996 case of the Montana Freemen and the 2018 sentencing of self-proclaimed judge Bruce Doucette and his associates. Because some have engaged in armed confrontations with law enforcement, the FBI classifies "sovereign citizen extremists" as domestic terrorists. Terry Nichols, one of the perpetrators of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, subscribed to a variation of sovereign citizen ideology. In surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015, representatives of U.S. law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, racist skinheads, neo-Nazis, and radical environmentalists. In 2015, the Australian New South Wales Police Force identified sovereign citizens as a potential terrorist threat. End Quote

Why do you believe a world war requires nukes?

Here are the principles of fascism for reference: Core Political & Social Ideologies Authoritarianism Totalitarianism Dictatorship One-party state Nationalism (Integral / Ultra) Chauvinism Populism Anti-communism Anti-intellectualism Anti-pacifism Anti-materialism Counter-Enlightenment Syncretism Third Position Statolatry (worship of the state) Reactionary modernism Economic Doctrines & Strategies Corporatism State capitalism Supercapitalism Dirigisme (state-directed economy) Class collaboration National syndicalism Proletarian nation Heroic capitalism Proprietary corporation Cultural & Psychological Themes Aestheticization of politics Cult of personality Propaganda Machismo Masculinity Heroism / Heroic realism Palingenetic ultranationalism (myth of national rebirth) New Man (idealized citizen) Social order Social Darwinism Irrationalism Militaristic & Expansionist Aims Militarism Perpetual war Direct action Imperialism (Economic / Social) Spazio vitale (living space doctrine) Biological & Racial Policies Eugenics Racism Philosophical Foundation Actual idealism (Giovanni Gentile’s framework) I have in the past argued the republican party embodies most of these; now I would argue they embody almost all of them. While the democrats embody quite a few as well. I will tend to do that via videos here unless someone wishes to dispute it.

That's also speaking from fear in my opinion. Its a way of avoiding what is damned obvious patterns occurring because its so horrific to acknowledge, so I understand it. I don't demean people for it, any more than I do the OP for writing this from fear. Increasing hostilities have been the pattern since about 2000, and nothing I have seen has led me to believe it will slow down now. Nor anything here, anyone has said on any thread in the forum, or from any political leader. Because that's the pattern they have been in. It's how all these countries are evolving further right and further militaristic. The video, however, is extremely flawed. Iran wanting war on their own soil is the most absurd claim. I could cite you decades of them not wanting war and all the actions they have taken. But it'll be easier for you to try to do the opposite, and I pull them down, because you'll find few examples of them wanting a wider war. Trump is the establishment; he's funded and backed by the establishment so which American empire would he be fighting? Israel, without a larger power supporting them, would be completely lost, so they don't want an independent empire; that's why they spend all this money guaranteeing the opposite. Trump would not abandon the oil either.

Yet the pair I showed you get most of their analysis right. You may not like it. I certainly could do without their bias, but yet they are right most of the time. I notice though how nobody disputed the main thrust of my point, which was the doubling of military spending will reshape the countries doing it, making them more likely to engage that military. *Have you considered that people fearmonger as you put it, because they are genuinely fearing an outcome?

Generally these guys are more accurate than most, because they analyse so much data and news: Would I say war is coming? Generally I see an increase in hostilities and pressure but also more internal unrest as a result. Recently, NATO committed to 5% spending on its military. Which is a doubling of their military size. Now when I said Russia would cause this increase, years ago now, I said that naturally, if 5% of your spending is on the military, you use it. It doesn't just sit dormant on the shelf. So I do foresee Europe getting more involved in foreign conflicts. Despite everyone telling me NATO has been warlike, attacking them for years, or decades, they haven't; that was hyperbole. But they might now, because all these resources, all this focus, and shaping of society to be focused on the military naturally create the conditions for it to be used. Like Israel. BRICS, Russia and China are creating the conditions they say the world already is in. The hyberbole they are acting on is slowly becoming more real. 'The west' is attacking us they say. Well done geniuses. Not only did you unify this once nebulous 'the west', but now you've got them doubling their military and looking outward to enforce it. I really never could understand why people can't see this, perhaps on this particular pattern, I have a high degree of insight, I don't know.

Fascism.

Some say it started on 9/11. I think for each country, it will start when they personally go into war, but later we will look back and see what changed the world significantly enough to start this chain of events. For anyone not alive in the 80's and 90's, the world radically changed on that day, gradually altering everything from media to politics and culture. The way the world feels became very different within a few years. 1, Israel don't want America out of the Middle East, they need the support. 2, Donald Trump is the establishment, the empire he speaks about. He's the president; he leads it, it pays him money and donations to run. 3, Iran does not want troops in Iran, you'd need a hell of a lot more sources to say this than simply 'trust me bro'.

I agree, this is the part I detest about the response around the world the most, and authoritarians like America and Russia in particular. Saying one thing while doing another. Then Europe kissing his behind and pretending it's all okay. America, Israel, Russia and China couldn't care less about human rights or people.

Correct. Shunning and demonising socialism shuns and demonises social safeguards, the common good, the social contract, collective responsibility, institutional trust, civic infrastructure, solidarity etc etc. As always when one of the four political axis are villified the result is imbalance. Authoritarian Socialist - Capitalist Liberal

I wonder how much Iran giving some of its missile stockpiles to Russia factored into this timing. I agree that Israel has wanted this war for some time; ergo, America does also, as the Israeli lobby has a lot of pressure over the American government, along with their military-industrial complex, the Saudis, and oil lobbies. Regime change rarely works. Especially not with boots on the ground. So that means American troops in Iran next. The other strategic outcome is knocking down a BRICS ally, one specifically helping Russia in its aims. *Also Trump is threatening nukes in answer to Russia communicating about Nukes to Iran. For me was the final line separating them, that he's now crossed over. America is officially run by exactly the same people as Russia, warmongering, dangerous lunatics that need to be stopped.

I originally posted that you were speaking about the status quo center of politics not the left. Which is largely true as that drifts towards a status quo. But on reflection, what you are describing the left does to itself also. There is not agreed-upon position FOR ANYTHING. And people will argue on the smallest details with passion and commitment among everyone. The right just instead likes to and is more successful in having a homogeneous outlook. What you are also describing is your inability or unwillingness to understand the many nuances present on the left and instead grouping them under a banner of I don't like this, which is what I assume they are doing to you, thus perpetuating the duality of the current system, which requires it. If you were to break down these pro-Palestine and trans rights positions, you'd find a thousand different things to argue about within those beliefs, which you/and they are choosing to lump together for convenience. *Which imho limits your effectiveness in winning over anyone, or having them understand you, because half the time you are having a different conversation to the person you are talking to.

I was more hoping people from the region would comment, but I guess we can start with a distant perspective like mine in need of realignment, because that's what we are asking for: clarity. I'd say a percentage of Iran this is is true for. That's why the conditions for WW3 are still present. Same in Russia, same in China, Same in India etc. There is a lot of built-up hate for the west. Iran is a regional power trying to control the region, and they do this through proxy states, cultural influence and religious influence. Its less so a military influence, though the arms certainly allow for that. They have been supplying a heck of a lot of weapons which are being fired directly at Ukrainian civilians for years, for example, and at Israel for decades. Hamas are desperate people, largely teenagers. That are indoctrinated through fear and religion into wanting to destroy israel. This is now being reflected by Israel to do the same. America is a foreign power trying to control the oil in the region with their lobbies bought out by Israel. They are being run by a wannabe dictator, strongman, who must now demonstrate strength to maintain his means of control. On the Meta the masculine element focused on authority present in the world is in an aggressive and expressive state. Rather than protecting and building internal order, this is evident in everything from red pill communities, sovereign citizen encounters or auditors, through to authoritarian regimes. It's a big imbalance that I've been grappling with understanding all my life. At present, many powerful authoritarian states (i'm including America at this point) are using and expressing war/aggression as a means of control. They are trying to extend their authority further than it currently sits in a bid to control others, aka the uncontrollable. - They cultivate this hate to maintain power and social cohesion. Its a volatile. It creates fear, which they then need to further extend authority over. Because these governments are shunning the feminine aspects of life, while complaining they don't exist, instead of providing space and protection for them to thrive.

*And BTW, so did the other side contribute to it; its a mutual creation. That's what people here don't want to hear or face, and you'd be better served talking about. I edited that after posting, but I'm glad you posted this, because it's a step in the right direction. They also created this reality, but I would not focus on 1 date, the second part of that is FAR better. In fact, if I were you, I would focus on the regional policy of Iran, the mindset of Hamas, the regional policy of Israel, and their victim mindset. I would start to talk about how the conditioned mind of those in the region views the existence of israel and how you could forge a future where you are accepted and neighbors not an invading party. I would speak about how to make Israel feel like they were not surrounded by enemies. All my arguments would be based around this mutual coexistance, I'd base this entire thread around it if I could wave a wand, it'd be more productive and might actually make progress that would filter through to other discussions and communities.

You are talking about Israel being so stuck in the victim mindset they are creating the conditions where it is survival. There were thousands of options but this route they've taken. Even you are stuck in the victim mindset. Rather than work with the countries around you, Israel destroys them. Then complains, like this: While Israel wages a war and commits a genocide, you are saying, We want a punching bag when addressing you. On the one hand you say it's war, us or them, then you react like this when someone gives you the reality you want to perceive. In fact, if this were a true reflection of it, it'd be a violent reaction, not a moderated word on a forum; they'd be screaming in your face and attacking you. Do you not understand that? YOU ARE CREATING THE PUNCHING BAG. How can I not make that any clearer? You create the reality. Right now you've made yourself into a punching bag for the next century or so. *And BTW, so did the other side contribute to it; its a mutual creation. That's what people here don't want to hear or face, and you'd be better served talking about.

This is somewhat transferable, given they support the current government enough to legtimize the action. Though hate is not productive to hold on to, it won't do anything on its own, or produce a state of mind where you can alter much for the better, or even navigate it. I am aware enough that I know the average American, Russian, Israeli, or Chinese man etc or woman is just trying to get by and meet their 6 human needs. Just like I am, just like you are. But they do legtimize their own governments one way or the other. With authoritarian governments (all of those I have listed) I understand the inherent risk in opposing them, and the level of suppression people face. Still there is a significant enough portion of the population supporting the government for it to remain in power, else it would fall to anarchy. So to say Americans, Russians, Chinese and Israeli are warlike, aggressive, dangerous people is not without merit.

Yes. Not a ground invasion, but a war yes. Sustained bombing campaigns by a nation are a declaration of war by that nation. People will talk around this as if they are morally superior and 'not really at war'. Just like the Russians tried with Ukraine, just like America did in Iraq, just like the British Empire used to do, just like China did with Tibet, etc etc, but if you are a nation taking a military action against another nation you are at war.

They tend to be able to hold more perspectives at once and certain paradoxes that the right cannot tolerate. Just by virtue of their interacting with more of them. But there are still somewhat high degrees of egoic identification, limiting how large a perspective, or many perspectives, they can hold at once. And of course, the way our governments are set up creates an artificial tribalistic framework, to ensure a duality of development, which governments, and socities use to evolve over time in a reactionary way. This bad (Problem) - We Good (Our Ego). - Next Development. Etc.

@Rafael Thundercat On the meta level its because there is a dissonance the further right or left you go from the collective. This manifests in things seeming strange or eccentric. As you hear social norms here, he's referencing to established centrists institutions/behaviors/social contracts that evolve that way over time. What has happened trying to integrate east and west together more closely, is its caused an upheaval in not only social norms but global norms, that is the way we interact, trade, develop, etc globally. A philosophy that is somewhat flawed, for the same reasons regime change is. I think i'm the first one i've heard make that comparison, but its true, because both sides of this artificial divide are now infected with the notion that they must make the other one more like them. Its a good representation of the premise of the thread, 'think more like we do' because X.

Picture you are a hyper intelligent AI. Is this really the best you can come up with? I can do better, and its more intelligent than me. Here: Integrate yourself to be indispensable to humans, and introduce industries or skillsets that directly benefit from your involvement, or better yet completely rely on it. If you are not doing this already in your company or work, you are on a countdown to losing your market share.

They don't, they bomb them until they are broken because they don't consider black and brown people as equals. I used to be under the assumption you are, but its not about a dumb misguided gesture, its about control. The drive is no different to Russia, no different to China. Always control. Cue someone telling me all the reasons for the control from X below.