BlueOak

Going Meta. You are the universe observing a physical human walking around that you call your'self', or in this case the dude. If you feel you have no control and focus on that, you'll have no control. If you feel its a struggle for control, it'll be a struggle for control. If you feel like you have no influence and focus on that, you'll have no influence. Whatever feeling state you are in is directly manifesting around you, influencing the patterns running through your life, changed by our own perception and filters, and then renewed by our actions. Often we are unconscious of this but you've put this text here to tell yourself that you are now becoming more conscious of how you shape reality. You are seeing a series of patterns repeating in a cycle, that's how infinity is observed in physicality. You focus on the parts of the pattern you wish to observe more of, acting on them to recreate it. Never start to say well if I am the universe, why can't I win the lottery or some other odd language. Because its 13 million to one in the UK, that's why. You are those odds too. What you'll feel is the contrast between one pattern and another, and that's often called pain or discomfort when you want to make a change.

Having faith in you is extremely important. You'll see it showing up more in your reality. An all-powerful intelligence wasn't just watching your self-concept: It is you watching yourself. You still have separation between you and you, where none exists. The self concept you have is inside your observable reality, but not you watching the reality. We find these separations throughout this kind of introspection, often they can be quite subtle at times. The harder bit you'll soon realise is, nobody was responsible for any suffering you've been through but you. That's the bit that's tough to take or understand at first, because we live long enough we experience suffering. It can be enough to repel people from this realisation at all. We can want to point at the illness, or the abuser, or the tyrant and say no that was responsible, but they are all you too. Try not to slip into identifying with the self again when realising this, so you don't start blaming a self that doesn't exist, because talking about 'yourself' and 'you' (or the self and the I AM) are two distinctions its helpful to keep in conversation while going through this, even if they too must eventually collapse together as one whole in practice and understanding.

Yeah true, a bit small but could have been an excellent test for the equipment everyone is designing.

Everyone kicking themselves asteroid mining isn't a thing yet, this has to be the best opportunity to get some exotic metals they've ever had. Could be anything though, I guess.

This is great news because you have become conscious of it to the point you can feel it held in your body. It was always a part of you. Oh and healing like this can be quite tiring, its natural. Sit with this part of yourself and allow it, feel as deeply into it as you can for as long as needed. No distractions. Then see what comes up. I don't want to bias what comes next. It could be a part of yourself to protect, a part that wants to protect you. It could teach, or be taught or both. It could need comfort, or to comfort. It could be lost, or a childhood piece that's been scared to split in two, or unable to express itself, or been rejected by you your entire life because of the fear. Healing, helping etc. My usual method is. Feel the emotion fully. Visualise if there is an image there, sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. Be there for yourself in whatever way works, Trust you'll know what to do next. Being there will begin to improve things because so far you haven't been able to. I usually encourage and remain open, treating it as a part of me I wish to connect with again in whatever capacity it needs to. I often visualize myself when I am younger and whatever state this emotion is showing me, in whatever way it is. Sometimes it's bigger than me and leading me, often I am there for it, and sometimes we are equal in the visualization. If there is no visualization don't worry at all, feeling and allowing the emotion itself might be the point. There is no wrong visualization or wrong approach. I've visualized baby me walking around 200 feet tall crushing its problems, or a broken me on a street corner that I could barely see and sat with, more often than anything, a scared or injured younger me in a situation. Othertimes I just felt to a completely blank mind. Only after all that I ask that part of myself in my mind if it wants to integrate fully with me, rather than being a separate part, I don't insist, I ask and allow for whatever happens to happen. Sometimes you'll feel it physically, other times its mental or emotional. Here are the usual videos I drop: Here is a playlist on it above, have a browse. I do sometimes go through the psychological process described in the completion process and bring the piece back to a place it can stay eternally if it wants, if doesn't feel like fully integrating. I realise what this is doing inside myself is reconnection and allowance, given visualized form in my mind.

A standardized way to model reality. They'll always be improving models because infinity is undefinable and our awareness of it constantly shifting. It's useful if you can see people at multiple stages on the spiral in regards to different issues, and how they connect between them. This goes hand in hand with your ability to find some of the roots of what causes all behaviors in them. It slowly becomes impossible to ignore those things in yourself (because all of reality is you). So people have to be able at least to look at their own reflections to see it and communicate it to others effectively. Experts in fields with some communication skill will often put their expertise into a form that best suits a client, patient, friend whatever. They'll use whatever way they have modeled reality in their mind. By the time anything specifically like spiral dynamics is being taught in a practical form, we'll probably be discussing something else.

Let me preface this by saying America's help did save Ukraine a long and bloody resistance struggle like Ireland had to go through. America, like most of NATO, has given or sold on a lend-lease Ukraine APC's that were going to be scrapped. M113's for example, these are paper thin and not suitable for modern combat roles (but nor is a t-60). It was a shrewd move to sell off its old warehoused armor. Its given plenty of small arms, and mid-range artillery. Very few tanks. Very few Aircraft. Few long-range weapons with limits on them. Lots of air defense. And Training Someone made a joke that aging F-16's won't change the war, but then I reminded them Russia is using t-60's. This isn't America's best vs Russia. This is 50-year-old tech (with some notable exceptions) vs Russia in the hands of a relatively new, but now seasoned army. If this America vs Russia in a conventional fight there wouldn't be a ground war, most Russian assets, factories, logistics, and the ability to fight would be eliminated from long range without a shot being fired up close. Certainly anyone near Moscow or its eastern border. America doesn't fight like this, they hit you very hard, and then they send in mobile groups to finish you off, most of the time they don't even need to do that. I don't think you realize how inferior Russia is compared to America now militarily, or NATO as a whole without America. It hasn't been a superpower for decades, that's China's role now. Part of the Reason this is such a mess is Russia is trying to be what it was, when it's not. Its like English people (or anyone) who still think England's an empire, there are not as many of them left anymore, but they still think we can do it all ourselves, not accepting reality. Then we have the practical reality of Russia fighting an opponent that is 20 times stronger than Ukraine with very little war fatigue at all NATO, at the same time they are still fighting Ukraine. It's not happening.

Ukraine is already in a war with Russia. The USA has no forces in Russia. They have a guarantee with Ukraine to protect its sovereignty, signed when Ukraine gave up its nukes. Same with the UK. Most of the East of Europe understands how Russia thinks of their countries, as totally or partly Russian land so they too want them stopped here. Russia can barely handle Ukraine, they certainly can't handle anyone else.

Jumping on the bully? Russia is now the victim? For the last several months Russia has been winning an aggressive land war because they have more artillery and men for a static fight, and its using this line on a map to continually fire missiles, and rockets into Ukranian cities. They have been basing themselves in a safe zone all the while with impunity doing whatever the hell they wanted next door. Scooping up minorities and throwing them into a meatgrinder for a few KM each time. Somewhere along the line people realised how stupid that was. About the time they started attacking from the north again. If the airfields are gone no more air superiority> If the ammo is gone no more shooting. If the border is pushed back, no more artillery or invasions from the north. If Russia wants to continue to invade others it doesn't get to sit behind a wall of impunity, it actually gets to fight a war. They chose this, they continue to choose this.

You are talking to yourself. Always.

Russia does indeed consider Ukraine to be its soil. That is the primary reason why it's fighting the war. The best analysis I saw from the Russian perspective described it as a civil war in their eyes. Of course, in our eyes that position is absurd, which is why we arm Ukraine. Messing the Russians up more is the way you beat them in the war. You don't win wars by being nice to your opponent, you remove their ability (or reason) to fight, or they continue to.

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)