BlueOak

I said these were better paths to take, if you want to know what I would personally support i'll make it clear at the bottom. 1) Air strikes on top of hostages is very stupid. Air strikes with the encompassing goal to clear the area to occupy is a possible death knell to israel long term, for every reason I've given. Its certainly 100 years more violence. 2) No. It didn't take too long with Afghanistan. It would have been even quicker here as the US was there in about 3 or 4 days with its aircraft carriers. 7 October 2001 was the start date in Afghanistan. Less than a month after the tragedy that led to it, there were 9 outside countries directly involved, With a lot more supporting from afar. 10 if you include the proxy in the country itself. Gaining diplomatic legitimacy in a crisis itself takes very little time at all, which is the important bit internationally, for now and for the future of the country. 3) That is why people make efforts to reach out to them. Otherwise, it will always be that way. Israel thinks of itself as alone and acts alone. Its understandable but unilateral action, not utilizing a giant amount of coalition resources, ultimately leads to more suffering for them. Besides which you are not doing it just for them, you are doing it to demonstrate Israel is a reasonable state at the most unreasonable of times. That you are in control, and politically seeking allies. They would have been pressured to help you, as opposed to pressured to now resist you. Sure maybe you just get the location of 3 Hamas officials and a few public messages of condemnation for terrorists, but that costs you nothing, maybe you get a heck of a lot more. 4) No you don't need young men's boots on the ground as i've just stated. This is flawed thinking when you have overwhelming air power, control over the borders, a wealth of special forces teams that could have hit them before they even knew they were there, control over aid, missile superiority, control over everything that enters that region, medical supplies, any money going in via jobs, water/power existing etc. In a crisis situation, the last thing you are supposed to do is act immediately on emotion. This is true in your personal life and it's even more true for a country. Taking the most extreme option first is irrational. Understandable emotion but irrational. 5) Yes its difficult work. Nobody said it'd be easy. None of this is easy. It'll be difficult work for 50 or 100 years but its work you wouldn't be alone in doing. Because a percentage of the Palestinian's own people would have been helping. The people earning money, the people who don't want war. Instead, if you've created just 10% more people willing to fight you, that's 200,000 more resistance fighters. You could have had that percentage at least helping you, and all the international support in the world doing so. Every large country has supported and run proxy governments before. It is possible and it does work. So what would I support? All of it. Why limit yourself. Why be so boxed in, and blinded to other options, that you can only try one strategy at once. This option to level Gaza was always there, it wasn't going to go away, but it was the first and only thing picked. Then a bunch of oh why don't you all support this extreme option. Which was incredibly short-sighted and limiting. It will lead to a great deal of pain and suffering for the people doing it, and alot less of the world caring (and in some cases now remotely supporting) the next response when it happens. Would i have airstriked Hamas targets outside of civilian population centers? Yes. Do I think its dumb to hit 30 civilians to get 2 Hamas fighters, when a delta force squad could have done it quietly? Yes. But instead, Israel put the blinders on, didn't consider all the international resources that were at its disposal, and now is desperately trying to argue that this was the only choice. When in reality it was one of many, and others would have come up with a lot more than this, this is just off the top of my head in a short time thinking about it.

One day we'll arrive at the place, where universally people on mass see countries as a collection of people in them. With a framework of laws and institutions over the top. Then one day we'll acknowledge that the concept of a country being bad or good is absurd. All you need do is look at your own city and see the many different people in it to understand this. The many different institutions trying to keep it running as best they can, and all the companies doing well or going broke etc. Countries are flawed because people, institutions, businesses, and the values in them are flawed and imperfect. This is not an east or west thing, though there is always much to learn from the flaws and solutions others have or do. You are not better than them or worse, you just have different problems, different people etc.

'Full of neo nazi's.' You mean the few hundred that were in a militia unit, that was reformed before the war into a regular army unit? The leader of which left and got 2% of the vote in the elections? Those few hundred? I guess that'll be every country then, because EVERY COUNTRY has a far right, and now more than ever. Every country has shifted right and continues to do so unabated. 40 Million people. The far right being 2% was actually a very healthy amount at that time. You can be damn sure invading a country will create a lot more far-right individuals, so good job there Russia, creating what you say you don't want. Oh what's that, several far-right groups marching in your own country? I guess Russia will be invading itself next? The reason the world doesn't line up with what you are saying, is because its an ideological fantasy, the very thing you say you hate to see. One of the many bad faith pretexts, because the actual truth was a complicated set of calculations, internal/external pressures, and emotions to arrive at that particular choice. Not an absurd claim that a country of 40 million people, most of whom were minding their own business was overrun with extremists, and Russia just decided to play a moral wet nurse to 'save them' that day in another country. Most countries try to expand their sphere of influence, because they are playing zero-sum games. The fact you think this is limited to western nations while BRICS is ascendent, is willfully choosing a side and saying their bad, were good. Its okay when they do it, because I like how they operate more. Look down the street, into the nearest city, and tell me all the people there are good people, whatever that means. Because that's your country, not a construct in your head. BTW in war, the west prosecutes its low-ranking war criminals, most of the time. Because the public demanded they do so. Forget the decision-makers they've always been above the law. Even for the rank and file, I don't think they will care as much going forward, but then Russia promotes its war criminals, and pardons its actual criminals to fight so *shrug*. I guess it's a normalization and what people want or will tolerate these days.

B Complex is fine. Unless you have a specific diet or medical requirement to consider. Thanks for that, it's a fair choice. It jogged my memory with a bit of searching. Echinacea is what I was thinking of, and I personally used to always have it at home as a go-to. Both of those would make good picks, antioxidants, anti-inflammatories etc. For me it was one of the most blanket useful botanicals out there. Casual reading around the subject. https://www.verywellhealth.com/cytokine-storm-syndrome-4842383 Cytokine storm, can produce headaches and lethargy after an exaggerated immune response. Obviously, it's not that severe here, so don't overly worry, I reference it only to show the symptoms of why something happens. I don't want to reach above my level too much, but this COVID variant being somewhat unique or different could have caused that sort of over-immune response in people, which is why it was so severe at first. It also explains the wide variety of different symptoms people experience. Be interesting to see what they eventually come up with in their ongoing research.

If this was the case I'd try more anti-inflammatory foods and supplements than usual. Plenty of types out there to pick from. My initial thought was more water than usual, more meditation than usual, and vitamin B for circulation, I don't know if Alpha brain would help in this case but it's my usual go-to for things like memory issues or focus issues. Definitely Vitamin B though, a good dose of it. Obviously, if you've got anything that won't shift, hit it with a high-dose vitamin C supplement, Garlic/Tumeric/Ginger, a high-grade manuka honey and anything that oxygenates the system or increases immune response. For example, yoga with the hands at the chest together, pulling outward to stimulate the lymphatic glands, some people do that with a twist of the waist while sitting down. What I call the healing breath is probably the most useful breathing technique. That's 1 in, 4 hold, 2 out. To whatever count you are comfortable with, more useful for chest and regular colds, but I wouldn't rule it out to pump oxygen into the body and expel junk. So it can be 4 seconds of breath, 16 seconds hold, and 8 seconds of exhale as an example, try to do it in a place with good airflow or outside a few times a day. There is a herb that comes to mind for increasing blood flow to the brain but I can't recall it, perhaps someone else will. It's been a long time since I was in natural foods or medicine. I'd take a Purdey drink if you are in the UK and see if you get any noticeable difference (minor vitamin B shot).

We don't control who is gay or not directly. As i've tried to tell you, gender preference is a natural changing factor in mammals and other species that operate socially. A natural correction, due to environmental factors usually, competition, lack of resources, lack of food, shelter, whatever. We like to think of ourselves as above or separate from animals, but we aren't, we still have these biological drives and influences inside of us. People need companionship, they need sexual desires satisfied, they don't control what they are attracted to that's all biological/chemical, and to repeat it's the most natural thing in the world. The resources or space available are not sufficient for the people living there to have families. I made a very simple observation in Japan for example. Have you seen some of the spaces people live in? They can't fit one person in let alone a family. This is an easily demonstrated and direct example of what I am talking about. Sure i'm giving you an extreme example, but people are living in this. They live in cyber cafes too, or tiny hotels with just a computer or a bed. If you take this example and apply it to energy, food, competition over a ridiculously small 10% of partners over dating sites, work hours vs life balance being way out of wack, *insert everything I've already spoken about*, such as space in many countries you get the results we are talking about. @HMD

My point was that is the norm. It is exactly what is supposed to happen given the current social pressures. if more people could afford a family there would be more families for example. Gay or straight for that matter, but when more people are forced to consider food/energy prices just to survive then it's an obvious issue blocking childbirth or adoption. - Then a poster (not you) tells me ah they just don't want it enough, and I sit here and facepalm. Not to vilify that response as it's a common one, but it denies or ignores all the current data in front of them to fit an ideological view, which doesn't ultimately empower, or solve, because the same problems will still be in front of the person that were there before. If not that person then the hundred million others in that exact same circumstance, because we are talking a wide group of people deciding whether they will have a family or not. Picture the broad scale when you are considering this issue. If the answer you arrive at is you can't do anything anyway, I get it, maybe you can't. Plenty of things I observe every day I can do nothing about, except make them known or link X to Y in the hopes enough people say yeah I see that problem more clearly now. If the answer is you will focus on one aspect of all those factors I listed, then you can do something, if you have or can assemble the time/energy/resources and inclination to achieve something. Maybe you could form a website entirely dedicated to family and allow people to form, manage, and care for a family in the current climate. Pulling all these issues and pressures people face into the light and then giving solutions for them, rather than having people ignore and pretend they don't exist. Allow space for a family to exist and it will. If X is true Y happens. If you don't want so much Y, lessen X. As i've said before, personally, i'd like 52% of people to be gay, so population numbers are forced to reduce, because any method I could suggest to achieve that otherwise would not be palatable to anyone, and understandably so.

Gay people are essential. Mammals and many other animals change gender preference based on the availability of resources, mates, and room for having kids. The urge to have sex and for companionship through life never goes away, it just reforms. We have too many people on planet Earth fighting over too few resources, and finding a partner has become harder than ever, thanks to a hyperfocus on 80's styled almost materialism of the top 10%. Where looks, income, false videos, and a fake image is projected, expectations are raised far too high from reality. That and the isolation caused by the current division in culture played to by media forces for money, and technological forms of communication create isolation and the breakdown of relationships across the board (moreover they never form), meaning people just want sex as a passing release rather than a meaningful pairing or partnership. If the OP really wanted more men in families, he'd completely ignore looking at the symptoms of the effects of social pressures, and look at the social pressures. He'd work on ways to keep families together, have a frank conversation about population levels, nullify technological impacts on putting across unrealistic expectations from dating sites, show people how to do more with less, and socialize more which leads to more relationships naturally, encourage politicians and news media to not focus on division to making a living, and encourage people to live together in harmony rather than competition. But of course, nobody's going to do that. BTW all that would help people who were gay too, so this isn't an anti-gay post, as I said at the top, gay people are essential and the number of gay people increasing is a natural biological imperative.

This is a good idea for a budget. I've been having a couple of oat milk in the diet as it's got a lot of nutrition in for the price, but the porridge is going to give me more than cornflakes when I do have it. Sometimes I'll make cereal half the meal for carbs in place of potato, couscous, pasta, or rice. It's a good pick.

Where anarchy exists terrorism and might makes right flourishes.

1 - People raid to recover hostages all the time, Europe has had to do it over and over and over again. You don't hear about the SAS much for example, because they do it so well. Those resources were at your disposal initially, you were not alone, thinking you were/are is part of the problem. Its understandable given your geo-political location. Hopefully Biden for example risking his political future, to stick with you, demonstrates otherwise. Heck every political party in the UK despite all the backlash is still with you. 6 - The heads of Hamas are safely in Qatar. At the start of this, when all the goodwill and sympathy was with Israel, they could have got the entire leadership. Either covertly without approval using international third parties, or with approval from Qatar. I think you all had that much sympathy and political capital because of what happened. I meant that about 2 and 3 as well. They are about using the geopolitical options you had/have. American special forces taking out Hamas in Gaza was a definite option before this started, that's not diplomatic to Palestine, I'm talking about the rest of the world. You could have got back most of your hostages and then done whatever afterward. Look at how America went into Afghanistan at the head of a coalition, it got real international support for the same understandable reason you could have had. It used all the expertise it could from around the world, in everything from intelligence, logistics, covert operatives, and firepower from every other country willing to contribute. - Israel could have had all of that, and that's not even talking about what you could have got from the locality as well. - Sure America stayed too long in Afghanistan but it achieved its initial objective. You say diplomacy has been tried. Not this kind. On the kinder end, you pick and support the most pro-Israeli arab you can find, you give them security, funding, and backing. Governments all over the globe have been doing this for decades, and sure at some point he's going to be targeted, but he's your man and you extend the best protection you can to him, he gets the aid, he gets the backing of the IDF when needs it. He improves Palestinian life and yes you are making that happen, restoring control, because that undermines the extremists while maintaining stability. An unstable anarchy leads to terrorism like this. On the extreme end of this, its going in with a peacekeeping force, taking out Hamas, and installing a friendly government. I think you would have five or six countries willing to go that far with you at the very start of this, and that would have been a better option than what you could currently have. Those countries would have been partially responsible for maintaining that government and keeping it safe from outside threats. Even trying that and having it fail was a better option, because you could show the world, look we did all this with all your help, and look they still tore it down. Sure it would have got pushback but it was one possibility. Part of diplomacy is making the effort anyway, even when you know its going to fail. With all these enemies around you, just reach out, make the effort and when it fails you turn around and say to the world, we tried, it didn't fail because of us. When Zelensky offered to come over, you should've grabbed that man and put him front and center. I know you might be gambling on the Russians instead, so if not him, get someone else there, but trying to do this alone is part of the problem you are facing and will face. People made trips to you and tried to do the political part for you, but it was all after the fact and lukewarm at best. 4) What's an example of pressure you can ratchet up? A, No aid is coming in next week. B, Three Hamas locations will be rubble by the end of the day. Increased as needed. C, Next week you will be cut off from any water, then power, then communications, then whatever. D, We are taking the north next week for ourselves. You can have 15 steps in this list, that gradually increase the pressure. Then yes, there is the danger a terrorist executing a hostage, but that is a danger anyway, and hostages have been lost with this current approach. It also means the population has an opportunity, a real opportunity, with an incentive to give up Hamas entirely. You can then use the carrot, give us these Hamas leaders and we'll double the aid next month, we'll send medical support, or someone to get your water running. Give us the top man and we'll give you free passage out of Gaza for the next two months, whatever the specifics are not important, just replace them as appropriate. Only the gradual approach is important, as it gives time for people to think and time for the pressure to work. 5, I know. It was working. The average Palestinian that was employed in Israel is not the Iran-backed extremist lunatic that caused this wave of violence. The people earning money, and feeding their families, are not the ones throwing rockets at you.

Thanks for the ideas. That was his recommendation for foods. Making it work. Don't feel hungry often. I have a coffee mid-day, and sometimes a slice of bread with it which gets me to about 2 pm, where I have a big meal. Real financial pinch at the minute and i've tried for 10 years unsuccessfully to lose weight, even at the height of my exercise 4 days a week, I never lost more than half a stone over the year, muscle gain is easier but the opposite is not so much for me. I want my food bill below 40 pounds a week, including any water I drink. So if anyone else has good ideas for cheap foods, i'd appreciate them. I've watched one guy on youtube try to eat for as little money as possible, and it seems a fun approach to try, but the more healthy foods I can get in that 40 quid the better.

The difference you both are referencing all depends on what you are putting in that needs purifying. along with of course the size of the person, the quality of their air, and their level of exercise etc.

Because Israel took the most extreme position first, which in any crisis is an indication of acting on emotion. Israel spent no time thinking through the problem, they acted immediately. If America hadn't got to delay them for a few days, there was a very real chance Israel's borders would have been overrun, or the death toll they experienced as a result of their actions would have been considerable. Then you assume things. I wouldn't have put young mens boots on the ground in the first place, tanks in urban areas suck. Here are five better options: 1) Professional special forces soldiers with air support, covert raids to get the hostages - THEN if they must do what they are doing. 2) International coalition forces acting together, bringing in as many countries as possible, so the resulting political fallout is diminished and buffered. America is world-class at special forces raids and would have bent over backwards to help. 3) A local diplomatic effort, when it fails you can say to the surrounding countries, well we tried. They might even get one or two helping or more willing to. 2) and 3) give you political legitimacy which means the world when you are surrounded by hostile neighbors, even just consulting them makes you seem more reasonable. Acting Unilaterally does the opposite. 4) No negoation. A slow ratcheting up of controlled pressure. Release the hostages or X happens. X happens. Then you say okay, Now Y is going to happen, you show power and control, using as much force as required and no more. This makes you seem in control and more reasonable, and also very threatening to those who cross you. Excessive uncontrolled violence just makes you seem irrational. 5) Occupation, without annihilation. Israel take the Palestinian people into their state and protect them. You give them a position in a federal or confederate form of government. Showing the complete opposite response, in a time they are very likely to want to cooperate given the insanity of what happened. Any Arab country that threatens you would then be threatening its own, and it wouldn't have the same danger or popular support. Using this period you completely eliminate Hamas's influence, with the help of those inside Palestine who would have supported getting to be part of 'their' and your state. - BTW I don't see a country on earth that wouldn't have bent over backward to help with this in many different ways, or condemned anyone opposing it given the situation. 6) *Add this to any of them. The political capital to eliminate Hamas's leadership was there. They could have used it and gotten rid of the head of the snake entirely either overtly or covertly. Instead, Israel chose the most extreme action with no heed to what happens next. This option was always available if all else failed, but Israel picked it first. When it could have picked it any time. What happens next is this. Israel occupies a territory. Gives all Arab nations in the region a reason to want to destroy them over the next 100 years, as the occupation won't end, and the memory of this will last generations. Even if just 10% of those in Gaza radicalize to violence, they've created 200,000 people ready to fight them. Iran stays aligned with BRICS. Russia has diminished anyway for the next 2 decades thanks to being crippled in Ukraine and stuck there on the border now, perhaps forever. This means Israel are reliant on America or a Hail Mary save from China in the coming decades. America is moving more isolationist, and China will be able to challenge its naval dominance directly. However I don't think either country has the stomach to really fight Iran on the ground now, miles away from their own homelands, let alone as governments move more rightwing, and they have been for the last 2 decades. So they either pay China a heap of money/influence and get their backing, or Israel is going to be in a considerably worse position at the end of all this. The violence from one direction will be gone, but all the rest will be increased for certainly my and your lifetime. war forced upon them. - No, wrong, they picked this response, entirely so. The action that happens after this is largely of their making, just like this action was largely of Hamas's making. Hamas's actions led to this, but the fallout of what happens next is Israel's choice. Israel making their living space into a prison led to Hamas carrying out this attack. The continued extremist rhetoric and violence action from Palestine and Iran led to that prison camp. In this case, each person acting in a way that brings division and violence is largely or has shared responsibility for the resulting effect.

Individuals are vulnerable. A genuine want from the general public rarely goes away, even if it's misdirected for a time to hating someone/something or its ringleaders suppressed. That only lasts a while, then they run a patriotic let's back the homeland because we need to go bomb someone. In times of growth people can get away with making things look better, putting lipstick on the pig because people get some crumbs, but when things naturally go the opposite way, all they can do is lie or say oh well there is nothing we can do, and by the way lets give the rich some tax cuts. They are doing a great job these days though saying 'oh don't worry things are great', 'Forget the higher prices you are paying for X', the mortgage to earnings bubble being higher than last time it went bang, prices are not higher at all, that energy and food price is nothing. Putting a dumb smile on a talking head with their thumbs up. Then we end up with Argentina and everyone losing their minds, because their sense of reality was grounded in a fictional reality to begin with - Eh whatever.

Failing to tax people an appropriate amount is not a solution to helping anyone. It's made the world so lopsided its starting to tilt over. That percentage the general public has shrinks every year. It's unsustainable by the nature of corporations to always need to take more. It has been for a long time and it has caused a great deal of suffering for a long time. For the rest, no shareholder is thinking how to make the world a better place. They think the company isn't making 10%, fire the director. Then the man at the top, is at their whims in decision making, just as much as any idealized character you want to assign to these personalities. Which are just people at the end of the day, who are very good at running a business or making/maintaining wealth. Not some great example of moral character to put on a pedastool necessarily making the world a better place, heck that's a stage green argument right there! As for method. Its not hard to design something that accounts for relatively few corporate giants. Obviously income level and profitability are the prerequisites. Taking into account b2b / business-to-business trading, fees for physical commercial rates (someone needs to do this before we have no high street left), service or product pricing, and commercial fees or payouts for selling/marketing online - amazon/YouTube, using outsourced cheap foreign labor etc The reason it's not hard to track how these costs are handled or who pays for them, is because the number of corporations to consider is relatively small, but it takes regulation and bureaucracy, the only thing that keeps power in check. It also takes a want from people for these things to exist, and that's only going to happen on mass when we hit absolute rock bottom suffering and pain. At this point its going to need to get really ugly.

Then they don't get their product purchased. We are not quite in monopolies for industries yet.

I made a self-indulgent single-line statement, to offer another reason people are not having kids. Economic pressure is a very real thing right now, it seems pointless to rail against that easily observed reality, are you trying to argue that everyone in those circumstances just isn't wanting money enough or doing enough to get it? To keep it more broadly focused and more useful, rather than about me personally: Your premise is flawed. It is a physical impossibility to do what you are suggesting across a large enough group. There is a finite supply of money, when there isn't it's all devalued. To get ahead financially of the average mean value, you have to deprive someone else, or cause an imbalance somewhere. If you were aiming for the exact average across the spectrum maybe, if enough other people were too, then it'd be committing the least harm, but nobody is, which means you are taking from somewhere that needs it more most of the time. Control is an illusion in this context. You no more control what the human population on mass is going to do next than I do. All you can do is be willing to change with it or not, and then master what's in demand at the current time, whether it's helpful or harmful has to take a secondary backseat. Sure there are a few careers that become obvious they are clearly helping others according to almost any set of value systems or beliefs. That number is quite small.

In life there are a lot of different value systems, skill sets, personality types, and environmental factors that dictate different end results for how much you can financially earn.

@Leo Gura I certainly can imagine it leo I lived through part of it, i'm middle-aged. Especially as I was close to that reality of 60's 70's and a child of the 80's, interacting with people from that time period growing up. We can do social issues if you like but you know that it'd 50 social issues one side that are better, and 50 that are worse. Isolation. Purely Cerebral communication leads to increasing divergence rather than a coming together. If we were in the same room our conversation would be mitigated by a lot more than the intellectual or logical part of our minds. Declining masculinity. Family breakdown continued not abated. Religious fundamentalism on the rise. Pure fantasy and conspiracy are being used as the basis of policy or social change. The objectivation of men and women coming back from the 80s leads to unrealistic expectations from partners. People don't see what others actually look like or behave, its all fake unrealistic standards. Public transportation is worse. Medical services are worse. Social movements for change are diminished or relegated to how they make someone feel over substantive change. Climate change and all the resulting effects such as food/water price and migration is getting worse. Protests are vilified or suppressed. Colonialism from eastern powers was reborn. Journalism is now completely unobjective, it's entirely owned by political interests and widens social divides as a way to earn income. Etc etc. If we want to be balanced I can do the positives. Racial integration is much more harmonious, we don't vilify skin tone or religion nearly as much. Gay rights have improved significantly. Free Movement in Europe existed for a time (but is likely to be significantly challenged by rightwing governments), travel is generally easier but is predicted to change globally. Physical crime is down, but scams are up. Corruption is down in England at least. The police are no longer hated but supported for the most part. Overly biased Anarchism was reversed (but seems to be coming back). Companies can no longer just dump waste on populations, for example, meaning bureaucracy was strengthened across the board but that looks under threat. The tools we have at our disposal to shape our own lives are 100 times greater, but again these are being corporatized gradually to reverse some of that. The amount of treatments we have for diseases increased even if the ability to obtain them decreased for many. Homelessness and general poverty levels I've already covered increasing, but at least we don't hate homeless people and drug users as much as we used to. People are more aware of their own actions, and of mental health issues even if conspiracy theories are threatening to reverse it. Education is being threatened now by political and religious ideology but overall the standards are higher in those institutions that are still free of it. Generally, divorce is down, even if it doesn't feel like it, because people are more capable of working through their own problems, understanding each other, and relating to their partners more. That's off the top of my head and I won't drag it out but we could both add 50 things into these columns. Sticking with economic issues, because that's how most people think. We are worse off. And we are worse off for many factors, not least of which is because socialism is suppressed. Liberalism will be suppressed in the coming decade or two if the overall patterns I see, and widespread social dissatisfaction with the status quo is anything to go by.

You are objectively wrong for Western Countries. Its all well and good saying 500 years ago life was worse. Yes it was, but that is so far out of relatable experience, that you'd be better off with a fairytale, movie, or story explaining why. My generation had it better than the current generation. My parent's generation had it better than I did. From the 60's to the 2000's quality of life was improving, from the 2000's to now, the quality of life has been decreasing. War and violence are on the rise, tension is at an all-time high, and competition between global powers is on a dangerous path. Day-to-day things cost a hell of a lot more, Homes cost a hell of a lot more relative to income so starting a family is harder, energy bills take a huge chunk out of your wage now. Jobs require more of you for less money. Supervisors do what assistant managers did for a fraction of the income. Shop workers are doing what three people did previously. You have to work to a later age and get less retirement. Commercial rates are so high businesses are shutting down left and right. Education went from being free to costing a fortune, healthcare here is going more private and costing more. That's just demonstrable economics and security. Not touching on social issues, climate issues, etc. Sure from the 80's to the 2000's there was a large jump in what you could achieve with your life with the resources available to you for example, but in everything I've seen or studied that has been or is being reversed. @Hardkill There is no hope for them to have it as easy as previous generations of recent memory. That's not democracy's fault. Far-right corporate-ruled countries WILL NOT change this, they are THE REASON it's happening.

Maybe we'll get a few trains fast enough for commuting over borders, and filling jobs, without the need for permanent residence. Though England's has just gone over budget and been canned.

The right traditionally requires corporate approval, and corporations require workers from somewhere. This is more true of the left these days also. Because we've shifted the overton window so far capitalist and right globally. Whatever anyone says in a speech or to camera, unless the numbers of migrants go down significantly it makes no difference to anything. They almost certainly won't as economic pressure still trumps anyone's idealogy, cultural preferences or feelings. Why, because a single mega corporation has more financial power than a smaller country. They could just shift their operations elsewhere, which is sometimes a possibility, but that just takes jobs out of the economy and reduces the quality of life for people living there. The left is just idealistic? What left? Liberal, well yeah it's a liberal ideology to have a push toward open borders. If you mean socialism, no that can be completely closed borders, depending on the type of policy best required for society as a whole. Rightwing Capitalism loves economic migration, to fill gaps in the workforce as quickly as possible. Again we take out socialism, we demonize it, and don't achieve any popular social change that lasts. It's not rocket science. Take any one of the four political pressures or compass points out, and the system operates in a flawed way: Socialism, Authoritarianism, Liberalism, and Capitalism. Can they tolerate a recession, not living to the standards they are accustomed, or being out of a job? I agree with you that's the motivation. A significant part of the population wants a similar culture to theirs near to where they live. If we analyzed why most people say this it'd be: Because those 'other' people are causing my life to be worse than it is. When they are gone who is it next? Its the poor, or the gay people, or the muslims, or them or them or them. Those people over the border, are to blame too. I know how about a war. That's how it goes. Its not everyone, sometimes you get a reason that holds up, like wanting laws that represent their own interests, rather than a different culture for example. But for most people, it's taking their economic situation and blaming another person for it. Rather than the complex set of circumstances that brought it about: Poor people carrying rich people on their backs, globalization breaking down, and the need for all countries to ineffectively try to do more themselves, an increase in other spending sectors like the military instead of social programs, resource shortages, trading routes being riskier now due to more hostile shipping lanes, climate pressures forcing migration, hostilities forcing migration, overpopulation and people's willingness to do anything about it or even talk about it. Climate pressures and war increasing food prices. Worker shortages from migrants being discouraged, a lack of investment in fundamentals like infrastructure, schools going backward in their level of education due to a focus on dogmatic targets vs practical education, creating stupider people. Politicians themselves listen to conspiracy theories and try to base policy on it, rather than the real world. This focus on fantasy not reality is because of spending time forever online, rather than in real life. Social media burying important issues in meaningless personal drama. We could talk about aging populations, more cramped conditions, causing stress, or more frequent illness. Isolation is brought on by technology so people can't or don't want to even relate to each other, it's all cerebral not practical, let alone creating a want to cooperate to fix problems, whereas with in-person communication they are much more likely to reach a consensus. I could go on listing reasons all day. Heck fresh water, something I never thought in my lifetime would become a competitive resource, now is. It's causing the death of countries like iraq, which causes migration, and that's not going to change as the planet dries up further, and more countries industrialize using dirty fuels. With people putting their hands in their ears and saying it's not happening, if I just close my eyes climate change, war, corporate greed, the demonization of socialism, and the 50 reasons I just listed, all the resulting conditions go away if I just blame someone else. Let's blame migrants instead. Let's vote for a man who will ban migration. Great. Then what, we'll all feel better with the new enemy to focus on. Doing nothing whatsoever about the problems themselves.

I am neither gay nor want children. Big shocker though, I liked sex. You can't tell me there are not a ton of straight guys who have that exact perspective, because I grew up with them. Some start wanting to settle down as they age, some have accidental families because they were careless, and others don't do either. I don't buy for a second that somewhere deep in every man's soul is a desire to father children. Not historically and not presently. Often historically it just came about from the physical act not by design, and often historically in some societies, it was a limited number of powerful or successful men who fathered most of the children. I am barely attracted to anyone though these days and that's another set of people, and another conversation. Oh and if you are wondering. I can't afford a family, which is the main reason for me personally during my lifetime.

Just sad that corporations have screwed things up so much, and left people with so little, that the economy matters less, than wrecking the economy by removing economic migration to feel like you are 'winning', to then go on and blame the government for not magically filling these new jobs immediately as soon as they appear, in a dynamic marketplace. Training takes time as problems arise, and you can't replace manual jobs with an aging local workforce either. Aka Brexit in Britain. This was achievable because socialism was successfully demonized as the enemy giving corporations no pushback, and all the clowns on TV don't realise (or want to ignore) you can't make a retired person go pick potatoes in a field on mass. So there goes one of many industries the country can no longer staff or run, along with many of the others by leaving the common market to increase bureacratic costs, which is what a lot of these further right governments want. It's not just immigration, that's the go-to rightwing blame feel good fest, like gay people, the poor, the homeless, other religions, etc. When you go far enough right, the enemy has to be external as well. There has to be a war to justify the external 'threat' that galvanizes an extreme-right government, fear essentially requiring a strong man protector to keep people safe. That's where we are headed on mass, smaller countries can also be used as proxy's for economic war, political influence peddling by Russia for example, or just outright conflict when they are located in the right place. I am just sorry I resisted Teal Swan telling me WW3 was coming ten years ago. What hyperbole, cooler heads, nobodies that psychotic I said, well we are certainly stacking the deck with people who will shoot first, (and are doing) then not worry about the fallout later. In fact, they'll now not only target civilian populations as a war strategy (Russia) but censor and fire you for talking about it (Israel).