BlueOak

There is a significantly easier way for this to be more generally understood, at least in part. Bearing in mind I just argued for the death penalty to be applied previously, so you do not misread this line, because nobody has countered with data that would change my mind. That is the acceptance of youth being attractive to men and women. I understand this doesn't cover all pedophiles who have harmed younger children, but it does allow you to understand why a man or woman might cross a line that varies country to country for example, showing us that the ethics of communities on the appropriate age differs country to country let alone person to person. I would guess that most pedophilia is in that grouping of teenage years. It is also the understanding of maturity, which is even less talked about. Talking exclusively about consenting adults as it is more palatable and communicable. We do define youth differently. For some it's an abundance of health, for some fertility, their responses to common problems or challenges you yourself have faced, awareness of themselves and life, energy levels, career stability, etc etc. What this leads me to understand is maturity is defined differently by each person, before even considering that maturity isn't even sought out by some people, and I see cases where pair bonding is argued to be easier without maturity or defined behavioral responses to intimacy, for example. It's a difficult subject that needs a lot more open discourse, but you have to preface the discussion with how horrific it is for all concerned. Having suffered a fair degree of abuse as a kid (none sexual), I can see why it provokes a strong response from individuals beyond the biological imperative of the species to protect children, especially when this isn't stated clearly.

Russia considers Ukraine their soil. It was triggered by Russia attacking Kharkiv again, and setting their artillery, aircraft, and supplies just out of reach. You can't fight a war with an arbitrary border that the enemy can sit over safely destroying your country, while not being able to hit back. Especially not when their large landmass is their biggest weakness, and your maneuverability is one of your biggest strengths. *As for 'destroying Russia by proxy' in your other comment, Russia can at any time pull back to Russia, and nobody is going to keep giving Ukraine weapons to fight them. They keep running like headless chickens into this themselves. It's like me making terrible choices in life and blaming you.

Another large ammo dump or two have gone up. Which is great because it's the best way to slow fighting.

Depends on the state of mind, the first time I did it with an actual spiritual hack, I altered the dream based on fears and trauma. Which is why while you have fears, they keep you at a lower density so you cannot. It's an inbuilt safeguard. As you come into acceptance/gratitude/joy/love for what is, the dream alters you and you it together (because there is no separation).

Morals are your individual view of how to treat life/others/yourself. Ethics are a more communal code of conduct. There are few ethical norms that hold true between continents, and morals distinctly differ. I do like this though: It is well put. Then you find yourself in the conundrum of: What is actually best for someone else (that part of you) and you back into the spiral of relativity and look outward for what's inside. Then you look inside and refine to project outward, then you are back to the collective again to apply and receive feedback etc. People operate inside out, and outside in.

Find their core issues, as simple as you can make them. Common themes or behavioral patterns. The simpler and more connected the better. Plot where they are on the spiral dynamics model, and where they are on an emotional scale privately in regards to each core issue. Then tailor your approach to that.

@Hatfort Ukraine took more ground in Kursk in a few days than Russia did in months. It doesn't matter if they go back forward or sideways inside of Russia, that's the point you seem to miss. Russia's push has stopped, and they are risking encirclement inside of Kursk now. You can't demonstrate neutrality while under attack. You can do it when the guns stop. As for manpower: Ukraine is also using new manpower, and Russia has not had a mobilization again, though we both know they pick up anyone they can from anywhere. They used conscripts from Russia, FSB units, security forces, pilots, foreign fighters, and whoever they could find which is why they are doing so poorly in some areas of Kursk. They did however, pull units off the front, which is why they stopped advancing at the front. Russia is apparently planning a new mobilization of 180,000 soldiers, but they are not yet here, and won't be without some instability. Ukraine playing Russia's game is dumb in static gun vs gun, and that's why they were losing because Russia had more. They are faster than Russia, they can move faster, think faster, and attack faster with better weaponry. Hitting strategic targets means they can't be fired at Ukraine, or used to defend Russia. The Iranian missiles are gone, which is great because Russia only usually fires them at civilians. Can Ukraine win. Yes, it can. It can blunt Russia to the point that it cannot continue. You look at land like the Russians do. Russia took a few fields and lost a thousand men. Ukraine took out 10% of the Russian ammo supply with a drone or two. This is not about one battle, nor a city; it's about a long bloody conflict over the future of a country, and the countries surrounding it. I said once this will last decades and it will in some form. (Unless something major shifts). Now onto these bizarre Nazi claims, which you keep repeating. Which quite honestly are lies used to give justification for a war. It's like me calling Putin a stupid man who had no reason to invade but did so out of spite—a sadistic love for war, or madness, for example. It's just as inane. The Azovs were a few hundred strong, they were reformed before the war into a larger regular National Guard unit. The leader left the unit and got 2% of the vote. So ' the most Nazi-Banderas fanatics' is nonsense, plain and simple. Let me make this crystal clear again, war and aggression create nationalists and far-right individuals in wartime, and those are the first people to volunteer to fight. The Russians in the proxy militia fighting the Azov would have been a direct mirror. Because of their hatred of each other, right now, both countries have far more far-right individuals than at any time in recent history. Putin cultivates them to stay in power, throwing their lives away in low-consciousness border expansion, and Ukraine will need patriots to stay fighting. If only they all knew they were everything they hated (and loved), they would laugh at themselves. Oh, and Ukraine was becoming a de facto western nation because of its development and prosperity, as well as Russia's refusal to adapt in its governance of Ukraine to suit that mold, which a less bloated and more dynamic country could have done. Shooting protestors was just the last straw in a long line of them.

This is difficult to unpack but i'll try to give two perspectives. Generally, as we are aligned with the authoritarian axis in the modern day, anti-establishment is considered to be. Anarchist or Libertarian. aka Left/Right. Often Anti-authoritarian or sometimes just socialist leaning. https://www.politicalcompass.org/ If we were more central, anti-establishment might be described as something else, perhaps radical centrism which still can be seen as it in some quarters. Radical tends to mean changing the status quo. Many different forms of anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism exist and are not represented in the modern day much at all, making this stance sometimes anti-authoritarian by ideology but certainly anti-establishment by their incompatibility with the limited political axis we allow for. I would personally bring up Utopianism for example, as an ideal always out of reach but a goal to strive for, various communes types for people wanting to grow their own food and be self-sufficient, and significant collective ownership in key areas that need it, such as homeless shelters. I'm also not against Green anarchism as a limited force to push, something younger people often do before they develop better ways and methods to contribute to more substantial change. Further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Anarchism Types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Libertarianism Types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Communism

That's the way political systems are weighted in the media and people's minds, around individual leaders. It's far inferior to a collective body or council in terms of conveying a practical reality. To do that we'd need a council system of at least 12 leaders sharing the spotlight, and bringing into focus more all the institutions of government, and the associated governing bodies that pass law or policy. Then to show people that the government is the people, it's hardest showing the parts of themselves they don't like or resist (often reflected in others). Only so much of that is possible in short spans of news or the passing of information, So a council, from my perspective, is the most sensible middle ground. It would also allow for more stability than either a democratic president or an authoritarian dictator could provide. One man or woman cannot adequately represent millions of people even in the people's own minds, they are forever trying to cultivate 'being liked' as opposed to being competent, while dictators are forever suppressing dissent instead. Aside from the practical reality of governing requiring a multitude of people which are heavily influenced by the public themselves. Then people get annoyed when they realize just how many people are involved in either a democracy or authoritarian state from what I can see, and complain about it, but that's how things function. *NB - Why 12? Can you name 12 senators? To be fair, it'd be easier if they were the joint leaders, but you get the point.

Although there has been some pushback, I feel TikTok is still popular enough, it'll still be someone who can put together 5-minute soundbites that go viral. As the population raised on that media ages, it depends how they feel about that type of media. It could be sentimental, it could be still engaged with it, or feeling like they've had enough. I do feel conspiracy is less powerful but still impactful enough to feed 30% of the population, the Republican base, but they are voting republican regardless. Anti-immigration is more powerful than ever, which is why they tried to marry the two, but doing so in a farcical way alienates many more Americans than they needed to. The rhetoric will be more based on housing, energy prices, global security, etc. For the party (not for the planet who needs to shed this) It's detrimental they ran Trump because it means everyone is reminded of this phase of the republican party, with all the current involved personalities, and the Democrats can still leverage this spectacle next time around. Had it been anyone else and they'd of lost, not only could Trump walk away shining up his ego saying see I was the better choice, the people who supported him would have solidified their positions. Also anyone BUT Trump could have better played the more conservative type of conservative role, all his past wouldn't be an issue, and those 30% that love him would STILL vote Republican, it's not as if they are switching parties as people seem to claim. Sure it fires them up but it also pushes others away. Trump is the worst person to win over independents. It's almost as if the Democrats need to lose them for the Republicans to win. Now if and when they lose, all those pro-Trump conspiratorial personalities are going to be further invalidated. So someone who can fire up the republican base without alienating everyone else is the ideal candidate for them.

If help is sought first I am conflicted. That will become obvious below as to why. Yes all things need to be discussed. Yes, this would help us not only track these individuals to prevent issues but also treat them before they inflict harm. The stigma, however unfortunate, is completely understandable, I'll explain. If help is not sought first: Harm toward children is one of the few instances where capital punishment is warranted. Reproduction is the primary function of Planet Earth. Children of all species are the highest thing this planet achieves. Whatever term you prefer: Sacred / Valued / Precious / The future / The continuance of the dream etc. Ergo, protecting them is paramount, above all other concerns. Please take into account 'all other concerns' when replying to this. I have yet to see evidence that pedophilia can be considered cured. Now I've typed all this, I don't demonize anyone. So there is zero need to make a moral argument here or restate the preference that all life is sacred or part of us. I only need to see reliable statistical data that shows pedophiles can be cured or healed. I can love a man or woman others loathe because they are part of our reality. But I also understand sometimes part of reality (us/me/you) needs to no longer be as it is. If this can be achieved medically, that is excellent, and that needs to be highlighted more often, but never at the expense of the primary reason this reality exists. So yes a stigma toward protecting children is not only fundamentally important to continue life as we know it, but also hinders the healing or at least observation/treatment of those that might do them harm.

Again: This was the 8th war for former USSR territory. Ukraine offered neutrality, and it was refused. Russia started the war. Russia has escalated the war. This is the SECOND invasion of Ukraine from Russia. Nobody believes or trusts this pattern will change while Russia can still continue on this path. Yes, the Russian proxy government was overthrown because they were trying to govern Ukraine as if it were Russia, when it was not. Then Russia's militias and Ukraine fought. Then Russia invaded. In the last thread, someone asked me to either cite the 8 wars or BRICS expansion. I can't remember who it was now, but if necessary, I can again. I meant to return to that thread, but I haven't had time. As for winning the war, the primary goal is to break Russia enough it cannot continue to invade. During Putin or his old KGB Fossils lifetime, nobody else cares to invade or expand Russia except that aging generation. As for old tech? You are comparing these F-16's to Russia's T60's now, so yes, it's plenty. Invading Kursk is SMART, it means you are fighting in Russia not Ukraine, and using their size against them for maneuver warfare. Not playing to their strength but your own.

Of course there will be, its the only card they can play. That and a war with Iran. (They'd stick to energy prices if they were smart, not sure what your fuel costs are in America?) They will have to do better than random nazi quoted cat eating though. That was just laziness at its best to pull that one and run with it.

Authoritarian leaders with larger egos listen to yes-men. Yes-men don't give good advice to strengthen your weaknesses / address your flaws, or let you grow with the natural course of events. Now we have Trump running on conspiracy, which the country is more tired of. I've said it before, but Kyle sums it up well here. Its the biggest flaw of authoritarians deep in egos, they make it about themselves at the expense of running a country. Not every single leader obviously, I'm sure there are authoritarians out there who genuinely listen to people telling them when something isn't working, but we only ever see the leaders that have huge egos because those egos like to get heard or seen. Equally for balance being a democratic leader doesn't negate this possibility either, it just makes less likely, because how you got to that point usually requires many people, not just a large wad of cash to buy your way in (usually)

Thank you and the others for helping me collapse this duality, its been a thing I've struggled with all my life I was shown the extremes in infinite love and infinite sorrow for perspective, but it's a thing I've been balancing forever. They are the same. Its the same energy. No need to avoid, or pick a preference, you just love. That's it.

Trump's policies depend on his ego and what he last heard someone say to him. Political and economic support for Russia Economic antagonism toward China Occasional Assassinations in Iran/Iraq/Syria when someone whispers the right thing in his ear. In the Middle East generally: even more guns to Israel and general bombing of Iranian Allies. On a political level only he'd try to appear to be doing more, not that there is much left to do practically speaking. Sadly Business as usual with the Saudis in Yemen no doubt. Further cooling of European relations with his backing Russia. Cooling of relations to a lesser extent with NATO generally. Not every country, but many of them behind the scenes. Defunding of NATO, he flip flops on everything, but with this you could flip a coin. Which to me leads us closer to WW3, unless Russia is so crippled it can't continue for a few decades. BRICS has sadly made that neutered outcome less likely, by funding and supplying them. Africa, No idea, I don't think he knows it exists. Probably the usual meddling all foreign powers do. South East Asia and the Pacific Generally, I can't predict this, he seems to want to be seen to be buddies with North Korea. I don't honestly think much would change, he may increase forces in the theater, but that's generally going to be down to China regardless. Asia generally ditto above, I don't think he knows much about central Asia or India for example. I don't think he'd improve relations much with his openly fascist and now touching on nazi rhetoric. I don't use those words as hyperbole, that's what he is moving toward in his rhetoric.

Maybe I am being too pessimistic, and people are finally tiring of it, I do see that as a distinct possibility.

Obviously political instability is not wanted, but that's what we've been pushed into by competing forces around the globe, some of which are trying (buying) to change America. I don't want political assassinations to be the norm. I don't want the Republicans echoing not just now fascist but nazi rhetoric, but they are. I worry that they will eventually turn against Europe I have made this concern known a few times. It looks like in part they already are with their support for Russia. This type of rhetoric will lead to violence, you preach hate get hate, and yes the dems are not immune. as I've said your parties are both toward the authoritarian right. It's just the Republicans are now openly fascistic, and still going right thanks to Russian and Chinese money pumped into your parties. The influence of certain groups online has contributed to sending them off the deep end. Taking him out at the polls is the best option and should allow for continued support for NATO and thus hopefully stop a WW3, but at the same time, it's not going to change the underlying dynamic of what is going on in your country. Though I see some light at the end of the tunnel finally, social media is not taken quite so literally and outlandish conspiracy is more openly mocked. I can't speak for China of course, they still might instigate it rather than exercise patience to get Taiwan, which they will obtain eventually anyway. Once the semiconductor industry has been formally moved, there is a fair likelihood that Taiwan will one day culturally integrate with China without a shot being fired.

The I AM: Everything is you. The self: You are unable to see value or expansion or X in suffering. I've seen tremendous value and expansion or X in suffering. The self: You see it as a negative, as counter to your potential. I see it as a necessary and loved part of life. I love suffering, I see tremendous potential in suffering, the healing of it, the exploration of it, the protection/learning/growth/humbling etc I love healing. I love the food I just ate. I love the shelter over my head. I love the computer, this forum, the stress I am receiving from work. I do not need to avoid these things or dissociate from them. Thank you for reminding me of the last one. They are not counter to my potential unless I decide they are, and I decide and define potential as avoidance or disassociation from these things. Neither of us is wrong or right from the perspective of the self. The I AM: I am already dreaming/imagining/thinking this reality to manifest it. I can't be less or more dreaming. I can't be less or more the absolute or the I AM. This is inside the self's imagined mind. Where you are creating the process of disassociation so you can experience it. The self can picture this person is more awake than this person etc, they can create hierarchies and structures out of the dream but it's just in their head. What they are saying to me usually is, this part (person) of me is less awake than this part of me, or sometimes I want to avoid this part of me (person), or I don't know how to elevate or put into context what they just said with my own reality. Its all you so *shrug* you are always judging yourself.

When part of you is suffering its suffering. Its literally trapped in your nervous system. We fracture ourselves into pieces through traumatic events, especially those in our childhood that were not equipped to deal with. Animals do it too, then they roar, bark, shake themselves, run around but humans don't do this, they hold onto it. Then they get emotional states or experiences that happen related to it that repeat for the rest of their life till they become aware of it. You can ignore it I suppose, but this is terrible advice because it will keep repeating and repeating and repeating until finally you do what you were supposed to do. This is true on the micro and macro. I used to be a master at evading my emotions, I was initially drawn to spirituality in the 2010's as yet another way to avoid pieces of myself that were suffering. I could bliss myself out and ignore everything. You are EVERYTHING. NOT JUST BLISS! Thank you for settling this for me once and for all, I needed that finality.

The most irresponsible thing you can do is walk around and feel happy - His reflection. If we are going meta: Responsibility is in his head. Miserable is in his chest. Happy is in his chest. He's not walking anywhere the universe is. He then assigns what that facial expression is, what that mood leads to, and what the result of that is going to be or at the very least what he focuses on. I've done some of the most enriching healing of my life in miserable states. Putting a happy face on when alone or depressed was the WORST ADVICE I was EVER GIVEN. I understand in public smiling can lift moods, but it also traps emotions inside your body that get stuck and then recreate the events that led to them until you go back into them.

For the first time today, I realized the self wasn't moving a body. I have attempted to just walk where infinity led me a few times, and that can be fun, but this was different. It is difficult to word accurately at this point. Doing a simple Yoga routine, I use the breath of fire on some exercises for the immune system. Somewhere twisting side to side, I realised that the self is controlling nothing because the self is a concept. It sends a request and the universe does the rest. I will have a better explanation or way of wording this in the future. I want to say there is distance or a sense of separation, but that isn't the exact word I want to use, just an understanding that the self focuses on things and the universe responds. As you are the universe, it's like the tree moving, or the car.

Infinite love and becoming it cannot be explained adequately. It's every happy memory and sensation you ever had all around you at once. You are it. You are everything and everything is love. I struggle here because I go through phases of saying to myself that was one more sensation or experience, and other times saying it was the culmination of all experiences and sensations. Other times, if I could pick anything to experience I would pick that, and as I am picking, that's what I would choose at least once a year (or once a month ). BUT so do people who chase chemical highs habitually (not for enlightenment), it's the same concept and I wonder if it's the same pitfall. I have the experience of my brother's struggle with narcotics as a backdrop. Receiving actively: Self-chasing something is less helpful when you can already be it. The self-seeking manifests the journey or the search, not the experience. I, the self don't change anything, the self doesn't find or seek out anything. The I AM dreams it, the self experiences and focuses on what it wants more of, and then I AM manifests it. It's all love anyway. I don't doubt some of you reading are looking for that infinite love state through chemical highs, but you don't need to go anywhere or do anything to experience it, being completely unconditional in loving everything is the key. Many others are in the journey or search, and so they create that, as with most spiritual teachers they create the process to teach. The student and the teacher both. Loving every word, every reflection, and every experience. Then just being open to receive actively. Not seeking, looking, or creating a journey unless the journey is what you want to experience. This is helpful: 🙏 Putting the Left/Right hemispheres of the brain/reality in unity and cultivating gratitude - joy and love.

Its whatever you decide, with your focus, choices, idea, beliefs etc You are the I am X *insert yourself here* Emptiness is a concept you have in your mind, the same as full would be. Nothing is a concept people are telling you, ditto many of these: Reality is a concept. Dreaming is a concept. Energy is a concept. Destroyed/Created is a concept. Goal is a concept. You are a concept. Your mind is a concept. I guess all that's left to collapse is the word concept...

Infinity probably picked that because we are very imaged-focused as a society right now. Beauty has always drawn attention to a subject or person but perhaps now most of all with the projection of tiktok and social media phase of our collective egoic development. This is until we heal collectively from our narcissism which I do happily see signs of around me.