BlueOak

If Trump defunds NATO and Russia is given time to rearm, Russia invades Eastern Europe and we are in WW3. Russia has sustained significant losses now, so there is a possibility Putin will be dead before he can rearm sufficiently. However without NATO guaranteeing Europe, and the right's ascendency in Europe, we may see a switch to counter aggression toward Russia from Europe now. Both sides are posturing for a fight. What the Anti NATO crowd don't understand is, NATO has guaranteed peace among some of the most powerful countries on the planet for a hundred years. Whatever you think of them personally.

America took a further step towards dictatorship, which clears the path towards his rule for another 4 years. If something can be argued to be an official act, it's okay. So anything a half-competent politician can remember to say, or a lawyer can argue is under the mandate of an official act is okay. The courts power over politicians in America just fell on its face, which is exactly what dictators require.

Let me ask the people talking about age a question. If your quality of life had skyrocketed in the last 4 years, would you care as much about age? Honest question, try to put aside your biases and look through a neutral lens. If it helps, picture that you are living abroad, and this place called America is a distant memory.

Yes. Minus the age gap, it's the single biggest factor in the severity of any problem affecting the human race as a whole. So 99.99999% of them. All problems are magnified with more people. Unless people want to seriously push for colonizing infinity (space) in which case population becomes irrelevant.

Limited Socialism fixes social issues, because its always the missing piece. Now the missing piece is going to be liberalism and socialism, which is why there are riots in France and people complaining about the riots. The more of life that is excluded or unconscious, the greater the instability.

It's still suffering, even if you are not aware, you are just less aware of why or what is going on. Take a simple example: A pet could be tormented in any number of ways and be completely unaware of it or why, but it'd still be going through it. The pet has the advantage of not being socially conditioned to hide the trauma. They shake or tremble, and visibly appear injured, often, this means an animal can shake off a trauma quite literally from their body when it happens. For a human, they can look completely normal, but they've rearranged their life to account for the equivalent of missing a leg or being disconnected from themselves and wearing a mask. Because humans are not socially conditioned to shout, shake their bodies, or otherwise integrate or recover from trauma they have experienced. Being unaware of how crippled they are, or how much they are suffering, doesn't change it. You have to get in there and do something like the completion process, or emotional surgery, which Teal just did a free three-day live session for on her platform if you haven't done it before. Her book, the Completion Process is pretty good for any internal work you've got to do. How do you know when you are fragmented, detached, or in a harmful pattern? Whenever you have a triggered emotion, a dilemma between two pieces of yourself, a self-sabotage or coping mechanism, for example. Any pattern that is causing suffering.

@zazen 1) Those you hate have little to no influence on anything and hate the same things you do. A bunch of rich sociopaths several hundreds of years ago put many people into differing forms of slavery, most these days are wage slaves of varying degrees, and that's universal. The average American can't even name the countires on a map you are talking about. The average European is just suffering a 9-5 they hate to make ends meet. These countries are not your enemies, despite the propaganda telling you so. Stop dividing the world up just to make your own ego feel better that you have someone new to hate. Why push for more cyclic suffering? Do you think somehow things will get better that way? 2) I said THE GLOBE. You heard: 'Those you don't like', and then proceeded to tell me why I should sympathize with your hatred. I do. I also think extending it for another generation to take care of is absurd and insane. Be the better people you say you are and push for a global system, not two fractured warring parties. As it stands now you are no better than those you hate. No different and not ethically or morally superior. BRICS still causes suffering and you are stilling championing it in the name of ethics and morals, or just personal gain. 3) From now on, I will say China in my discussions with you about BRICS, that BRICS is on its knees to China. Until you become as frustrated as I do with you making these comments about Europe, whose GDP was greater than the US last I checked (all of Europe, the continent). I could be corrected; it's been a while since I added it up, and it depends on where the boundaries are drawn. It seems to me you think unless a country is throwing its military strength around its 'on its knees'. No, Europe was just happy being Europe and sitting on profits (giving back a hefty amount in trade with the US) without needing much military to enforce their lifestyle. A remilitarized Europe, all these powerful countries acting independently, will not make the world safer for you. There will be more war. I think we need a big war to remind people how futile this approach is, I honestly think we are headed to it.

The EU Right Shift https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/european-results/2024-2029/ Nationalist Right are taking power in France: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22p9dl415o Macrone is calling an election, bad timing and bad news. German EU Elections take a similar turn, Far-Right take second place https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/world/europe/germany-afd-eu-election.html At 16%. So we’ve 16% of the population of Germany declaring for fascists and nazi’s. Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union Takes 30% for the center right. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-european-election-results-2024-german-coalition-olaf-scholz-social-democrats/ Overall: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/9/germany-and-frances-far-right-make-gains-in-eu-elections Apparently Austria didn’t fair much better. The Conditions for WW3 continue to form. Only bright spot there comes from the: Leftwing swing back toward the center from Eastern EU States: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-pm-tusks-civic-coalition-seen-ahead-eu-vote-exit-poll-2024-06-09/ I'd say the nationalist swing overall increases the likelihood of the EU breaking up if its put under further pressure by BRICS. I wouldn't say its high but its higher than before this. All Putin needs to do is keep playing on the immigration fears and adding to the EU with Syrian and other refugees, its so effective for him.

There is no life here in the first place. There is no 'here', no 'place'. You alter the frequencies you experience to have another experience or not. I'm out for a while after I'm done. I'm staying in the mental realm entirely for a while. I know that's also a bad pun because all is mind, but I don't want the imagined limitations either.

Where a malicious motive can be undeniably proven: I've always thought the penalty for false accusations should be increased with the severity of the crime. This gets messy in irrational emotional situations and relationships, obviously. They are often not logical, and so that needs to be taken into account for in-the-moment snap decisions. For things that extend beyond the moment, though, the same rules should apply. I thought you meant a violent sexual assault. It depends on her tone. If there was proximity and I noticed that she genuinely believed it, I'd assure her honestly that I had not. If she escalated irrationally, or I could see she was lying now to save face, I'd probably make a sarcastic joke. I'd shrug it off and continue on my way, leaving the irrational women behind. Don't give people like that your time, energy and focus.

If he gets out of the president's position he'll live longer. It's a stressful and demanding position that's bound to age anyone. Big populations should be ruled by councils or large groups of people with collective responsibility, never a single individual. It's just one more reminder of the problems associated with this exaggerated individualist approach, of picking one person to take the weight of leadership over millions. But then almost every problem anyone talks about is associated with the same thing.

Remember when I repeatedly said debates between candidates were required to test their competence? I do. That would have avoided this mess. It would have shown Biden was not capable long before it became critical. It's undemocratic to elect leaders without debates, and ultimately self-defeating in this case.

On the right: Gain a moderate level of awareness See several things your peers don't because of your awareness. Gain the ability to answer questions quickly on the spot (debate). Learn your district inside out, find what people are talking about, and then work out what people with money will also benefit from talking about. Only talk about things that correlate with both groups. Gain some level of name recognition. Smile and shake a lot of hands. Charm people who have money. Use that money to win. Assemble a team that works on your public image, and advises you which talking points are doing well. Sell out to your backers, but keep these talking points in mind, because you'll be more aware and capable than many of your peers. Find which groups your base hate, and tell them you hate them too. Make as much money as you can while you ride the wave. Avoid scandals as long as possible. Merchandise whatever you can. Retire to a cushy job.

Yes. After seeing reactions to the debate I agree.

The trend is for fascism to rise and wars to come about, social unrest and hate to rise still, we haven't had enough war or suffering yet. Just the nonsense I'll have to listen to from Americans for the next four years will be unbearable, and I am already heavily suppressed in the current dynamic responding to it. We'll export maybe 10-20% of that fantasy here in UK. We'll have another bout of vaccine deniers in England or, more likely, something equally stupid like the homeless being blamed for housing prices. People will start discussing weather machines under someone's bed are causing climate change again. It's just general conspiracy brain idiocy and another round of rightwing suppression; maybe it'll be enough to start some severe counterculture leftism, but I don't think we are there yet. It's a pity we couldn't hold together NATO at this critical time, but the writing on the wall for America to shift fascism has been there for a long time, and Europe only has itself to blame if it's not armed sufficiently after two years of Russian aggression to stand against BRICS. I thought they'd dose Biden up for the debates with something like Alpha Brain, and Trump's charges would knock him down a peg; sadly, no such luck, a worse debate than I thought.

Socialize a lot. Go out there and spend time around people in different social settings. Society would reform its 60-hour work weeks if people were actively socializing again because that would form a core component of life again. Think about how many hours you spent for the friendships at school to form. They didn't happen in a meeting or two. It's no different for adults. Sure, our brains get increasingly set in our ways, but we are able to adapt and still need time around an acquaintance to form a friendship. Start with a light conversation, and if you feel relating to someone is leading to a friendship you want, deepen it or continue in further events. If not, enjoy the experience you went for; no big deal, and maybe try something else next week. I've not much to add; the analysis was great above. Only that socializing shouldn't take cerebral effort. As life has become increasingly cerebral (mentally focused), we've forgotten how to just be around people. Less thought, more doing. I should take my own advice. It's always money with me that holds me back; I struggle to pay for the necessities, so I don't put any aside for socializing. I never start off light either, because I am often serious. So it was good I found a writing group because I can continuously throw myself off the deep end by talking about the pieces we all write in as much depth as I like. It's a bit like this forum in that respect, and although the connection is limited to interactions of text, it's fairly broad, open to my responses (which is underheard of on places like YouTube), and maintains an often good quality of conversation, so I really appreciate the efforts of Leo and the moderators here. Like many of you, I miss friendships; when I see people who have strong friendships, I have a certain amount of envy for their relationship. @MuadDib The idea of creating a place that teaches and facilitates friendship is something you or someone else should do immediately. It is a brilliant one.

I often try to tell people economies usually win elections, it's hard in the current internet age of sensationalist drama to get this message to people on the internet, but it's still true for working people who make up the majority of the electorate. Immigration is pretty big this year, as well, at least in Europe; I hear it's similar in the US.

Alright, let's do one more layer back. Your thoughts are also imaginary. Resist the initial temptation to say yes. Think about what it means (sorry bad pun). The concepts you have of imagination and thought also do not exist.

Ukraine offered neutrality to Russia, it was rejected by Russia: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-offers-neutrality-exchange-nato-style-security-guarantees-russia-talks-2022-03-29/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraines-zelensky-to-offer-neutrality-declaration-to-russia-for-peace-without-delay The opening part of the interview is almost entirely false. It still paints America as the one driving this, which is also a lie. This is best demonstrated by aid being withheld for a long period, by a large part of American pro-Russian Trump supporters and an even larger part of America wanting peace. So that is also a lie, and I am only 4 minutes in. It's the UK, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and now France, to a lesser extent, pushing for the strongest responses because Russia keeps threatening them the most. Russia is no threat to the US anymore conventionally, it's too weak; they live in a fantasy where they are a superpower. China is the superpower in BRICS. Then he takes the Russian talking point of it as a civil war, Russia armed, gave manpower to, and funded the militias, and when the coup happened, it used them to attack, creating a war within Ukraine. Stating that Russia just happened to come along to help is a completely Russian position. I have talked about that before: it is not a neutral position; it is not a Ukrainian position or an Eastern European position; it is a Russian talking point that all world powers like to frame their wars as 'the liberators' or the people 'helping'. It's always BS, no war is moral, or better than the others. Maybe more democratic countries should start destabilizing countries again, or is that bad when others not aligned with Russia or BRICS do it? Isn't that the point of BRICS to stop people from doing that? No, it's not; it's to frame it so that when BRICS does it, it's okay; it's fighting the evil Americans. Despite the fact that it's in Europe, and much of America either has forgotten about it, doesn't care, or supports Russia and/or peace. 'Native Russian speakers' Yes, because the entire area was run by the Soviet Union, and that was its language. There was no problem between languages; he was listing Russian talking points. The Russian language was still spoken, and there was no ill will between the East and West of Ukraine from what I've been told. I only have secondhand people telling me that. Then I stopped at the Nazi's lies. The Azov battalion was a few hundred strong and integrated into the regular armed forces of Ukraine before the war started. Russia has far more far-right extremists in it than Ukraine because 1) This war is about restoring nationalism or Russian Imperialism. 2) Putin uses them to stay in power. 3) The leader of the Azov stepped down to run in the election; he got 2-3% of the vote combined with the other far-right parties. 4) Russia exports this far-right extremism around the globe. Russia has sent us into a war. This creates far-right extremists. What was 16% in Germany in the recent elections? Its trying to push migrants into Europe to keep fueling tensions. I could go on analysing the lies past the 5-minute mark, but there is no attempt at all for a balanced point of view or a meeting in the middle, just one side bare-faced lying. Maybe it gets better, but I doubt it.

@Hatfort Russia were gaining small amounts of territory at great cost on the battlefield because Ukraine didn't have much ammunition. They were outshelling Ukraine to 10 to 1. That is not the case anymore, and Ukraine is no longer out of ammo as Putin's Allies in America were beaten back. Ukraine is not hamstrung (as much) about where it can target Russian supply lines or troops. For most of this war, Russia has been able to pick and choose where it fights with safer supply lines; this is not so much the case now. Although Ukraine still has certain restrictions, there are not as many. The west collectively is pushing for a stalemate; it has been for a long time. To make an uncertain conflict certain. It gets nothing out of letting Russia dictate terms—nothing at all because that makes the entire West look weak and like an authoritarian power can do whatever it wants, threaten or invade wherever it wants, and they have to bow to it. If Russia was smart, it would think about what it could offer. Ukraine gets nothing if Russia takes its territory with no concessions, so there is no peace. Eastern Europe's concerns are not addressed in this either because a large chunk of a neighbor will have been given up, and it'll be the 9th Russian war pushing into former USSR territories. The only possible way this could be sold as even a minor victory for the West is when the Russian economy collapses, which it is slightly doing. Still, BRICS have extended this so much now by the need to be or at least appear a rival to NATO, that this hasn't happened significantly. There is no incentive at all for peace. I cannot communicate this to people who want this multipolar world. They have to see it play out I guess. There is only incentive for war. Suffering, you might say, but there is suffering either way and a lot of hate for Russia (and the other way to NATO) if you rely on emotion to be the resolving force of anything. The other problem you have Hatfort is you are completely sold on Russia propaganda about their capabilities and their intent to stop after this. So you overestimate their position and then wonder why people are not acknowledging it or fear their continuance. I'm not immune to this effect myself, but I tend to just watch what happens, the outcome. I saw Russia kicked out of the country unprepared in four different areas; then I saw a failed Ukraine counterattack because the West waited too long to supply it and Russia defended well. Now all I see is a lot of Russian casualties and some Ukrainian losses, but with very minor shifts on the front line, even when Ukraine was undersupplied. When Ukraine is properly supplied, Russia has just been kicked out of the Kharkiv region again. I daily see large hits on the Russian economy through regular refineries going up to drone hits, Russian oil shortages, and Putin needing to ask outside countries for aid. I saw Putin threaten Eastern Europe and the UK enough (almost daily if you watch their state TV), and BRICS embarrass France in Africa so that these countries pushed to send more aid to Ukraine, including troops, but the French settled on instructors. Now I see North Korea sending combat troops there and threatening the South after Russia gives them and Belarus Nukes. So the West can send anything. It should lock down the skies or secure the northern border. Despite Russian propaganda, there have not been combat troops in Ukraine from the West, Russia was never fighting 'the west', no matter how much it wanted to sell that reality to the world. Now you might see western troops there in a limited capacity. It might not need to be Troops, but we can send almost anything now.

Why the word dream?

Here is how to fix some of this. BRICS to the entire World. Do you want to join BRICS? This would also make BRICS dominant in the world, an open-ended message to every country all at once broadcasted publicly (even those they dislike). Ditto NATO, or a NATO-like alliance.

As always, the pro-Russian side makes this all about America because to consider Ukraine or even Europe would be to consider the full reality of the conflict. It also brings us a step closer to a peace deal, as all the relevant parties would be considered. But instead, they make the demonized 'other,' the Americans, their only focus, so they miss most of the factors involved and broaden a conflict. At the same time, they don't want American influence in their region; they want a smaller conflict. This contradiction works against them (and world peace). I have repeatedly demonstrated that the American population is 30% or so pro-Russian while showing that Eastern Europe is the most pro-Ukrainian region. Still, it becomes so convenient to ignore this fact because then we'd get closer to an uncomfortable truth: For Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and America. Everyone I've just mentioned would lose something by acknowledging it. Russia would be forced to acknowledge their campaign of fear, war, and territorial ambitions, causing these reactions in the East of Europe and causing what they don't want: people to move away from them and closer to NATO. They would be forced to realise they have actual responsibility for their own actions. America would be forced to admit that half of their country is becoming isolationist and a threat to their overseas empire, which is only increased by the railroading over these concerns. They may even be forced to reflect that a safer world isn't one in which you have 5,000 military bases, one can hope, and thus bring other countries in as more equal partners with direct military capability of their own. Europe would be forced to acknowledge its role in allowing Russia to become so dominant militarily compared to them and its role in funding this more fully. Decades of overreliance on America for their own security. To be fair, we've done some of that and made some adjustments, but it's not serious military spending in the UK, for example, or a complete break with Russian energy yet in central Europe (Germany needs to get over its nuclear power fears) Ukraine would be forced to admit that the support for them will only last while Russia makes this out to be a larger war. If Russia kept insisting on the complete opposite, that this was a local dispute, it would have gone more in that direction. Now that they are pulling in North Korean troops for example, it makes it even more international. *Obviously it was in the interests of the defenders to broaden the war, as they were the smaller side, now the power balance has shifted, Russia is forced to go to other countries for materials and manpower.

Dictating that you will give up nothing before the negotiations begin is not an olive branch; it's dictating terms. The west did exactly the same by saying negotiations can begin when you leave the territories you occupy. BOTH SIDES need to come together. Your bias is extreme here. So if the dialogue will do nothing, the battlefield is going to decide the war, not hopes, dreams, or one side's terms. I've heard reports it was Russian air defense fragments, but at the least, it was Russia that shot it down over a warzone. That is a fact. This is a war though this happens daily. People should get out of the land they've illegally occupied in a warzone, as Ukrainians have been forced to do. That should be step number one for the civilian population. Going for a holiday there on a beach with active military targets seems incredibly stupid. I also find it incredible that for two years, Russia has fired missiles into civilian targets, yet one beach gets all the headlines. The Russians are great at propaganda; we have to give them that. The ports in Crimea have to be eliminated to stop them from firing on civilian targets in Ukraine, and they are Ukrainian ports to target. Frankly, I am not sure how the moderators let you get away with saying this. If I said the same i'd expect my post to be locked or blocked. This is a European war, fought in Europe against European powers. America is backing its allies. Russian propaganda. As they are still recruiting them now. Russia has said this for 2 years, and it's never been true, only on their state TV fantasy land. They are using WW2 arms and ammunition, some older than that. They use human wave tactics; their experienced office core died at the start of the war, and their naval assets and airforce are being depleted faster than ever. Russia has lost about 60% of its soviet stockpiles. This is part of why the West is happy to continue. Because Russia keeps wasting its stockpiles. When they are gone, so is its ability to project power conventionally, it removes a massive threat to Europe. America and Europe are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, while Russia keeps doing what they want, running themselves into the ground they'll continue. When it looks like a stalemate, they'll probably stop.

@zazen It has been a rough time. Sorry for the delay. It doesn’t matter if you kill a man in what you have arbitrarily decided is your backyard or a thousand miles away. Suffering is still suffering. You are arguing for a return to land grabs and border wars as preferable. Because you are trying to say it's somehow better than a war overseas, it isn’t. It still creates imbalance, instability, uncertainty, and suffering. Globalized supply chains, for example, cannot function in a world beset by people fighting wars with their neighbors, which means every aspect of your life changes because everything needs to be sourced locally. More expenses, regression in some areas of development, a lot more chaos and competition. In this multi-polar world, you are hoping for. People militarize to protect against their neighbors, which increases the use of the military to achieve aims. This is the cycle toward a global war that is now accelerating. It may settle down when the two sides solidify, leading to less frequent larger wars rather than smaller ones (or just a long cold war). This isn't a global collective emerging; it's two poles: authoritarian vs democratic. It is still colonialism; the method has just changed. Money does it now, as do mercenary forces like Wagner or proxy forces. The land is still giving its resources to the empires that control them, and the manpower will be used for their overlord's wars. What else is there? A label of independence on the country, but the wealth is still being shipped overseas. You are then arguing that both the US is dominant and that it is a multi-polar world. NATO’s collective GDP without the US is closer than you make out; I can’t remember the exact value now, but it's close. The EU’s is not insignificant either, at 18 trillion vs 26, or China is at 17, so it's not as lopsided as you are making out. BRICS are not patterning Western imperialism; they’ve invented their own. They either invade their neighbors outright to take over land, topple governments, or buy them out, fund favorable political parties, spread their propaganda, take their resources, and secure proxy states that way. I find it hard to understand why you consider this preferable other than aligning with your preferences. Then you get idealistic: BRICS is just another set of countries doing what they can for themselves. Don't tell me they are somehow more enlightened in their approach to governance or politics; this is the weakest part of your response. They take and take until they are stopped; where is the stage, green or yellow, BRICS leader? If this was a global collective emerging, this would be a different conversation. These two poles will lead to conflict and competition, not cooperation. Sure, there will be some benefits, maybe a proper space race, and development in some areas, but it will also create chaos. No positive elements of the liberal world order are going to be preserved by expansionist authoritarian regimes. We fight to keep those, or they get taken from us; I am talking domestically right now as I’ve seen it happening for 20 years. All I see BRICS doing is warmongering, so I see no positive outcome from them at all to the world as a whole, I see a positive outcome for their own countries. I understand people want more; they always do. So this is the path to a potentially larger war, or long cold war because they have convinced themselves that 2 is better than 1. (And yes, I realize the 1 was also poorly put together, even the UN) It's very obvious and playing out. Now I see Russia arming North Korea with Nukes and Belarus to justify their own expansionist aims, so a nuclear war is closer. This does not make the world safer because the other side will likely respond in some like-minded way.