BlueOak

Well let's take those two tragedies then. America built a coalition, got international support from other countries, got some legitimacy for its actions internally and externally, talked to the world about why it was going to do what it was going to do. Planned a complex operation. Used other countries' specialties where they could, and went in with a multi-national force with a clear goal of ridding the world of a dangerous terrorist group, using as much force as required, and no more than that. They were the victims of a horrific attack like Israel were, and they used that political capital to form an alliance. They spoke to any potential allies in the region itself, even tried to empower them as an alternative to the threat they were going after, and prosecuted any soldiers of theirs committing war crimes for example. - This is what's called using your mind, while not ignoring your emotion. Even if diplomacy had utterly failed to form a coalition response, ATTEMPTING IT, allows you a lot more leeway with other countries. To be clear I don't live in America i was a young adult and 100% behind their initial first few years in that country, to this day even after all that's happened I would be again in favor of America going into Afghanistan (not Iraq) Israel told people to get out, at least those that heard the message from a region with cut-off communications, gave a million people a couple of days to move down a road or two, then began to level an area and will now occupy/annex as part of their own country. Killing anyone or anything still in the region. Do you see the difference or the long-term effect or benefit of one over the other? Especially on the surrounding countries' relationships to Israel. America didn't have to remain bordered to Afghanistan either when it was all finished, they could just leave. Perhaps instead remembering the uncomfortable truth that America decided to leave Afghanistan because of how difficult such a task is, having different motives in nation-building, but the same end result to highlight. Israel is closer to the territory they wish to occupy, ethnic cleansing it of population, but surrounded by many more enemies, and reliant on an outside power to carry out these actions. They rely entirely on America to protect them from the results of any long occupation and ethnic cleansing from external powers like Iran. Which is a dumb idea long term if it wasn't clear from everything i've tried to highlight. My goal is honestly trying to make people think of the wider situation here, considering as much as they are willing to. Focusing entirely on the present/future also to keep it focused. *You added a bit more to the post but the overall message is the same. Its very true that my want for something to change barely ever affects the outcome of something, but 'we still keep trying like fools' as they say :). I also wanted to say the summary of why the bias is as strong as it is, was appreciated for understanding's sake.

Nothing in my post was saying Hamas had done anything positive for itself or its people. If you read it I said their leadership's actions in starting this wave of violence had led to their likely removal from Gaza. The entire post was reflecting on Israel, if you want my emotional response, it's to turn off the TV and let the situation play out. Withdraw all military support or intervention from either side, and let the region normalize entirely on its own. This is what is going to happen, as i've tried to warn above, for the reasons i've given above. Instead of reflecting on that, or even considering the end result, you looked at Hamas and said they are bad too. Well yes they are bad too. That won't help Israel. *And BTW to separate logic from emotion, you think through something. You don't go on your first emotional reaction. It is absolutely possible to engage logic over emotion, or with emotion as you suggest, or let emotion dictate logic. Part of the way you do this, is to get outside perspectives and listen to others.

Israel is dropping bombs on itself, in every way you'd like to imagine that word. It is causing violence for itself, and on itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism - Is no better than moral equivalency. When you go through tragedy, the worst possible thing you can do is act on that emotion immediately. You sit down, work through it and come up with a strategy that serves you not only now but in the future. Men call it domesticating their emotions, not ignoring them but not living under their thumb either. There were four or five options that were more logical than this, which I thought of in 5 minutes, let alone a group of intelligent people could do with time. Instead Israel chose the most extreme unilateral action from the get-go, and is now locked into a course. (Unless they finally engage their mind not emotion). Palestinians will likely no longer exist in Gaza because of the actions of their leadership. Look into the mirror and consider very carefully what being surrounded by enemies, while occupying Palestinian land in Gaza will do to Israel in the coming decades. Do it as logically as you can. Taking into account America keeps moving rightwing or at least isolationist, likely eventually aligning with autocracy. Iran is with BRICS, so your other potential partners can't back you in this act as you'd need them to. Regardless Russia's capacity to project power is diminished greatly for a couple of decades. Occupation cannot just go away. It remains a sticking issue permanently.

Traditional Western values are on the way out everywhere but Europe, and even there it isn't guaranteed anymore it'll hold. I think Russia, and Ukraine's defense of its government, managed to push those values back to the front of people's minds, but whether that will stick I have no idea. Trump has been praising dictators every other week, if the overton window shifts anymore right (which it has been gradually for 20 years), forget that concept entirely outside of Europe.

When I say 'not much changed' for America it was a bit dismissive. I think it brought together the Middle East against American interests more, into alignment with BRICS and Iran more. That should be recognized, but as America will be slowly becoming more isolationist, unless something major changes, ultimately the only people that will be affected is Israel. BRICS will by its nature take over the region into its sphere of interest again, like Russia used to. I don't think it'll ever stop someone from selling oil to their customers, just perhaps tipping the balance in economic wars more often. Like Saudia Arabia did in Russia vs Ukraine.

Yes. But don't worry it was pretty terrible anyway outside of Europe or the Pacific. As for neutral parties. Those that care about reputation will still care, those that don't won't. Nothing much changed. Biden just made Trumps victory more likely. Though when trump is in court all next year, he's broke financially from his civil trials, lawyer fees and constant losing, its not going to help him outside of his most infatuated supporters adoring the victim complex or anti-establishment chest beating. Rightwingers traditionally only back winners, and prefer strengthening institutions, especially ones responsible for law and order, but it'll be increasingly clear trumps losing repeatedly and running against these same institutions they want to preserve. It'll be a battle as to whether: Leftwing Populists want to support a corporate conservative in Biden, in an eternal cycle that kills all leftwing populism and encourages it on the right. Add to that now the ethnic cleansing guarded and supported by the American military which will deflate the democratic vote. OR Conservatives want to continue to burn down American institutions by electing a criminal, via Trumps continued attack on the FBI, the Courts, the Vote, the House, Homeland Security, even the military now, aka everyone who doesn't kiss his narcissistic behind. It is the epitome of both sides having to vote against their own innate interests, confronted with what they hate. Of course, there are people this serves, people who love corporations or people who love burning institutions down, rightwing anarchists for example, see Argentina for that result. On the extreme, I've heard some leftwing anarchists starting to lean towards Trump's rhetoric or at least to go third party, as don't forget you still have 4 potential people on the presidential ballot even when the primary is over with. If it was done right now, those two alternate candidates would pick up more of the voting share than America has perhaps ever seen happen before. Why do I care so much? Because England tends to copy America in some fashion, only with more supposed civility and less overt physical violence. That and the descent of America is the rise of the authoritarian replacement BRICS. If in any small way can slow that impending reality and disaster down till I am no longer on this Earth, it'd be useful. *Its Israel that this occupation will affect more than anyone. As the world becomes further and further right from this point, fewer people will care about what happens to anyone outside of their borders. Israel will be an occupying force entirely surrounded by enemies with a recent ethnic cleansing against Arabs to deal with.

If I had to reflect the counter to my own argument, it could be because of all these factors, Israel has decided now is the time they have to remove gaza from the equation as much as possible, as horrific a conclusion as that is. Long term though, all of this has pushed back any potential reconciliation of this issue in a broader sense so far forward in time, that I still feel unless something else majorly shifts in the region, it's going to present a tragic set of conclusions long term. Imagine a world where Israel was protecting Palestinians as members of their own country. Rather than expelling them they were welcoming them into one nation and making strong efforts to integrate both people into a state. Removing Hamas of course, as it has an incompatible worldview. No Arab nation would be the aggressor, because they would face the same wrath from other Arabs for attacking their own. A different world.

An ideology is not a virus it is an ideology. People are not a virus they are people. Of course there is a defense mechanism triggered in people against attacks. It's called survival instinct. Look in the mirror. You are doing the same. You are attempting manipulation right now, by using the terminology you are using rather than the word itself. Rather than discussing the flaws of the ideology in a practical manner, you are understandably running on emotion from the suffering you have endured. Rather than talk about how the Palestinian ideology has brought about the destruction of its own people, because that will force you to acknowledge the same from your own government, and the precarious nature of being surrounded by enemies. Enemies that you are further enraging while dealing with an increasingly isolationist American guardian, who probably won't hold the absolute power or the will to project it in the coming decades. This is a strategic blunder. Israel's occupation of this land will justify a 100 years of violence towards your own country, in the minds of people who think like that. That won't be able to be reversed by any amount of diplomacy while you occupy it. You either choose not to see this or can't see it yet. Russia or China might protect you, but so far their alliance with Iran has deepened significantly, almost to the point of bringing China and America into a naval battle. This is the last decade America will have significant naval dominance over China, and their aircraft carriers will no longer be able to offer an absolute shield so you can act on emotion rather than reason. I know I know I have a virus right? Sure, let's go with that.

Its the same thing. Things happen in a cyclic pattern. You choose. The pattern repeats slightly changed. Others are talking about a greater you controlling you, which is also true. There is no separation. You, the greater mind, the pattern, it's all the being you are. Much of life is realising whatever you are talking about is also you.

Man realises he can't change people's perspectives. Man demonizes them for demonizing others. Also because they wouldn't convert to his perspective on mass they are bad, and wrong, and just bad people. Conservative tries liberal art piece and it goes backwards. If he wants to do conservative art, he'd be better doing subtle and minimalist not expressive and creative. The video comes off like the cartoon creativity of a 5-year-old, because it's not his specialty, and he's going against the very things that make him who he is to create it. Eh. People have to learn though, and many only learn by doing. It'd be like me trying to be an engineer, and the bridge collapsing in the first five days because I tried to be creative with the supports. If he's got money just let AI do an average job at a video message for him.

Depends how identified with something someone is, and if you consider that identification useful to society as a whole or not. *Then you'd have to consider how useful everyone else sees it, and if what you are doing is helping or harming as best you were able. Which to me is too much to juggle or consider.

A one-state solution is a more bloodless way of achieving stability, as opposed to constant border friction fought out in physical expression of rockets or gunfights. You instead would get that same fighting in the government with the occasional bout of political violence, which is extremely preferable, as both parties are working on a larger structure of stability as opposed to their own narrower competing interests. At the moment in America for example, many people are pushing in the opposite direction, to rip the union apart. They are not working on a union or stability but instability and disorder. This will increase political-related violence as it's manifested not only in leaders coming from those communities that become divided, but in the social fabric and culture, such as differing school systems educating children to be further divided from others in differing states. Violence and suffering may be enough to stop it and bring people back to work on stability/balance, or it may go further into division. Ditto BRICS vs NATO, playing out in smaller border conflicts, becoming institutionalized competition, which leads to ingraining cultural competition/division now as opposed to a globalized move towards harmony. Ditto Anyone on this forum not speaking from a place of union but division.

Both sides need to Pick one. Either political union or division. Unions like a Federal republic or Confederation. Division as two recognized states with formal diplomatic relations. The middle ground is what both current governments thrive off. If they have an opponent they get to stay in power. It's the ultimate flaw with all states that have gone too far right. An opponent is necessary and to the extreme, an external opponent is required to maintain the military. Hatred towards immigrants, the poor, or gay people can no longer sustain the ruling parties identity. The need to feel morally superior is no longer enough, a direct military action and victory needs to be shown.

Political Money. - Threats to campaigns from special interest groups. Strategic Regional Interests. Convenient Moralizing. Good guys | Bad guys | Victims - That's why many votes are cast in elections, though victimhood has largely been seen as a negative in western society of late, it's trying to make a resurgence via Russian and Israel media outlets. American - Iranian relations. If you have poor relations with Iran you automatically get a better reaction from America. Ditto the reverse. Military Industrial Complex - One of their biggest customers. Oil Industries. - War feeds the oil industry but also strategic interests mentioned above, for the regional oil it requires partners in the region. *BRICS - BRICS has positioned itself as the competitor to the west, and thus the world is eternally to be divided into us vs them until that is resolved or changed. Anyone above saying my country doesn't do these things in some form is misguided or lying. There is no country that uses systematic thinking as a basis for its policies and works backward from that methodology or avoids closed-loop limited reasoning in how they reach their decisions.

As mentioned. I'd second martial arts and boxing etc. This gives you red/blue in a healthy balance if you have a good teacher. I'd pick defensive martial arts personally, as it tempers these aspects of you, I did this lifetime and I probably will the next. Writing characters that are warlords, or violent in stage red and see it as a natural part of life. Acting, filming etc these types of characters. Then bringing these characters into some blue structure (integration) during a character arc. You can do the same in any sort of art painting for example or crafting, if that's your type of expression. Picking something that stirs these aspects of you personally. What really gets you angry that you want to fight for? Then find a structure or institution that holds space or facilitates it.

Yes that's war, no win zero-sum games being played in an infinite universe. If we just got off Earth into a near-infinite space, we'd no longer consider a few KM's of land worth any notice at all. Re: Oh no AI's are going to take us over, yeah really in a universe so big the earth isn't even a grain of sand, i'm sure an intelligent creation would waste their time here. That's what all people in power do, often have a very limited perspective and play zero-sum games. Not so much populist sentiment, as that's built on predictable emotional responses. People in power have greater propaganda tools than ever to trigger that emotion, and a press that's entirely bought out, they use these tools to control how others at least 'feel' if not see the world. There is some observation bias in your words. There were huge protests over the second Iraq war for example. Anything where people are directly involved and civilian casualties happen in the West gets pushback. These days as the entire world has shifted so far to the right over my lifetime, there is less care all around. I railed against it for decades but I've realised my wanting that to be otherwise is utterly pointless. People have become more unsympathetic on mass, to the point where protest itself was not only vilified but suppressed for a time, that's why these things can happen with more ease. The populist left is utterly suppressed and dead, (except a glimmer of hope with unions), and all the anti-establishment sentiment or populism is on the right. Guess what that takes us further right in democracies, but hey ho I can't tell corporations or people in power because either they want it to happen or would rather ignore the obvious. However, you are looking at it with an unnecessarily limited perspective, if you think moralizing isn't many people's entire existence and the most important thing to them is to feel like the good guy. You dismissing that is robbing yourself of a more complete view, at least of past actions like Iraq, if not so much present ones where fewer people care, and the people in power really don't care about populist socialist or liberal sentiment

Both are true. They always have been and always will be. You are all those people at once, and yourself. The best way my logical mind could put it rationally was, to imagine jumping between a billion lifetimes every moment of every day. This all happens simultaneously in patterns that repeat, but if you want a logical way to put it, you could think of it like that to help model it. You are right now you, and me, the other poster, and everyone here. Individually and collectively. What you do to them, you do to yourself. In a complex and neverending pattern. You are in, and are nirvana. You are in, and are the most horrible circumstance you imagine. You are everything in between,

I don't understand intelligent people's obsessions with walls, I was reading mid way through and saw it brought up. They are not that secure, even if they are patrolled regularly, over a large area they are next to useless. You can go over them with a ladder or crane, under them with a shovel, or through them using a vehicle of enough weight. I understand that politically 'let's build a wall' in America makes people feel good, and gives them something to chant. I am talking to people who are not running on emotion, capable of some deductive reasoning, a wall doesn't stop much unless people with guns are walking along it, or close enough to respond and there is some sort of complicated motion sensor system checking under the earth, over the wall, and the wall itself. A block of concrete is not much, sure its something in the way of rapid transport like trucks or cars for an armed force (provided there isn't just a guy on the other side with a vehicle), but unless there are mines or something else with lethal consequences, it's not much to deter someone on foot or determined to get in.

Let's put all the labels together and make ourselves the ultimate victim, that way I can justify anything. No you are all my enemy, I can now say and do anything to you and if you say a word against it, your a nazi, or an anti-semite, or insert the worst label I can give you. So agree with me. You have to. I said so. Ignore everything else, do exactly what I say, and allow me to do whatever I want. No? You're a nazi then. This thinking has caused some of the worst behavior in my own life when I used it, and around the globe. From a purely Western perspective, his argument is flawed. Western countries were not supplying Russia with weapons or taking part in Russia's leveling of Chechnya. They give Israel the ability to carry out their actions, and they shield Israel from other countries' nearby natural response, which allows it to continue. If they weren't Israel would not be doing this, because 5 other countries around them would already be at war, and they would not have the weapons to fight it. He of course also underexaggerates all the protests over things like Iraq's urban areas being targeted, or the outrage over Russia bombing urban areas. He talks about Tibet? Plenty of people protested that, almost everything he talked about were protested but we had no power to change them. Here we do. Civilian casualties draw protests, but usually in greater numbers when we are involved somehow. Then he goes on about hundreds of years old banking, yes in feudal times people vilified everyone they could when it suited them. Religions, minorities, social classes, other kingdoms, not much has changed, it was just worse. Women brewing beer I believe were targeted by the church for example, so the monks and male brewers could take over the trade, that's where all the witch pointy hat nonsense came from. I can't speak for all the other Muslim countries' differing interests between Chechnya and Palestine, but proximity, relation to those being killed, the strain of refugees, and how much it destabilizes the nearby countries, as well as undermine the surrounding governments if they do nothing, are responsible for a larger push to do something. As it was with Europe and Ukraine. Many brothers, or families in Eastern Europe were being killed, and millions of refugees were pouring into nearby countries destabilizing them. As well as other factors unique to the conflict, food, energy, threats to expand further, etc. The best thing the west could do, would be to not shield Israel from the natural response of the surrounding states when they are on the offensive. This would be to bring a natural balance to keep the aggression in check. Coupled with of course taking out the Hamas leadership across the globe, and when Israel has moved to a logical approach, get as many hostages back as possible. Only to act when Israel's rank and file troops are inside its own borders and it's on the defensive. The current approach of occupying more land, I understand long term despite the brutality and horrific nature of it, that it will stop violence from that particular area. The occupation itself however adds another 50-100 years more justification for violence against Israel, in the minds of those who think that way. Its even got Iran and Saudia Arabia talking again. There is always a claim to be the victim, everyone wants to be the victim in any conflict, as it means you justify much more. Yes a lot of people died in a terrible brutal way. If he'd of just said we lost a lot of people, we needed to take action. I'd respect him a lot more and the argument you and he are making. Instead, you have to make up all this moralizing over hundreds of years to justify the death of children, and the extension of hatred toward Israel in the region for the next 50-100 years. Worse this could be the trigger of a much broader war, and some in Israel are calling for exactly that.

How do I stop identifying with an observed authority? So that I no longer mind when it changes? The authority or form it is in itself isn't important, only that I take authority, system, and structure into my identity, and then respond adversely when it changes. This can be a remote authority like watching a foreign government, it can be a regulatory body I operate under changing, a new manager at a job or company taking over a business I work for, it can be a conversation being censored. Finding out a system I am used to has altered. The structure I perceived or observed changing. I would like to stop doing this as much, because it's a common thread of suffering I bring on myself. I also believe it's holding back my personal and spiritual development. Thanks for any thoughts.

I think its the method and structure I am addicted to, the lingering enjoyment of resistance to a perceived 'other' external authority, and the analysis of it all. Running through a logical loop that is comfortable and certain, learning its ins and outs, then identifying what I perceive are external authorities that are trying to 'change' something and feeling good when they are stopped. I can swap one authority with another on a whim by focusing on something else, and I do it a dozen times a day. But when the perceived method I was observing alters, I resist it, because in taking the time to understand it I've taken that system or method as part of myself, which means things that are not 'it' are viewed in the moment as not 'me'. I struggle with perceiving my relationship with authority as clearly as I'd like. Thanks, I am reading through the book and i'll see what comes. @rachMiel

Meditative states are numerous and none of them is 'wrong'. This sort of thinking, makes people think they are doing something wrong when they sit down and close their eyes. Nothing after that point is wrong, whatever comes up or happens, happens. *Externally or internally, same thing. People call it cultivating a state of receptivity. Not passive or seeking, actively receiving.

This reasoning is split in two. Yes its all god. No it doesn't 'just happen'. 1) Everything except consciousness is a construct. A construct of one or more multiple patterns. Everything is god (you). 2) He's detaching from the physical so much he considers things like DNA 'not him'. Its all him. External and internal. 3) You can find many supporting patterns that explain or hold space for another. We can certainly observe personality traits from his examples. Sure we can generalize to save time, or reference many patterns at once, but for every generalized label he gave, there are detailed explanations also down to an infinite level of why a behavior occurs, because life/god/you is infinite. 4) The universe is not merely chaotic and random, if it were we would break apart into atoms. There is largely a predictable order to everything, and then there are random events that cause adaptation, or seemingly random events for which we don't have the full understanding of. He seems to fill gaps in his understanding of for example biological processes, psychology, or physics with 'that's god'. Yes that is god. It's also a lack of understanding of the supporting forces or patterns that allow for life to exist, behaviors to be predicted, or the universe to function. - ITS ALL GOD. ITS ALL YOU. All the seemingly random bits, all the bits you hate, all the orderly bits, all the bits you love. What do you think triggers mystical experiences? Aside from substances? Questioning is one route, self-inquiry is a common route intellectuals or people with a logical, or questioning mind take. Sure there are triggers that kick back, parts of identity that will immediately dismiss things they consider not themselves. Depends on how ready someone is to challenge their sense of identity. I mean we can say a big part of the population would only watch a video if it had violence, music, attractive people, and comedy, and that would be true also.

Strong men don't have to be completely overrun by stage red or blue thinking. Any man can be strong or show authority if stands his ground and has integrity. You are arguing that someone needs to be detached from critical thinking to be strong. That is not at all true. Forget the thousands of years of history disapproving this, that stage red or blue have wars all the time with each other. Forget that we've got two blue/red leaders in the Middle East going at it and Trump is as far right and in support of it as you can get. You think he would have said woah now and pulled it back? Do you think anyone in the middle east gives a damn at the moment who is in power in America? Sure he likes Putin more and Putin likes him more because it's convenient, it bolsters their own interests and pursuit of power. The second it doesn't assist them they are back to hating each other again or demonizing 'the other'. See Trump hating on China whenever it's convenient. Red needs an opponent. It always needs an opponent. That need doesn't go away until enough suffering is experienced. Blue needs to extend its authority over others, that need never goes away until the realization of its futility or the fragility of overextending something is understood. Internally. You can't put a square peg in a round hole either. There is going to be political violence in America to some degree during the election cycle. Because there was an attempt to put stage blue/red over orange/green, it doesn't work. It never will. America is now dividing itself further because of things like education diverging to generate two different societies from the ground up. Yes, I can see that in reverse too, exactly the same problem. Compromise and coalition is the better way forward in the world around us or within our own countries, not division. BRICKS vs NATO, different stages of development or points on the political compass claiming superiority over any issue, (you are doing it again here), all lead to imbalanced outcomes, pulling us apart rather than making a functioning whole that can last. We can touch on financial institutions (having more power than the average politician to resist or rule over them. The political upheaval of having authoritarian leaders everywhere trying to enforce narrower and narrower viewpoints. The breakdown of society a top-heavy country causes, the suffering in poverty many of its people experience. The utter stagnation a leader like that brings culturally, and decline across all fronts of society as a whole. (All Stages) Conspiracy theories are now mainstream, which completely wrecks the legitimacy of the rule of law, or institutions society requires to function. Any sense of perceived social contract or truth people share in a common reality to base their lives around. Talking about the most insane things people looked up online and then trying to reverse justify it. Elvis is not dead, prove me wrong, i'll just shout it loud enough and not care anyway. Let's teach in schools that denying reality is the path to success, while the bridges we stand on collapse around us, literally in some cases. There are many factors why what you are saying is out of balance. tl;dr If you are ever going to advocate for anything to solve a problem, look at all the stages in balance and draw from all of them. That way you get a balanced approach or answer.

Using one aspect of consciousness as an absolute for anything. Any one stage, or one part of the political compass in the driving seat is out of balance. What is a peaceful world in your eyes? Is it border conflicts, regional wars , and aggressive expansion? If so american isolationism will certainly encourage more of that. Look back through history for examples of authoritarian countries waging war against each other endlessly, or just recent history. The things keeping one authoritarian-biased country in check are factors such as money, a perceived sense of morality that has been empowered, social movements against losses, and another country's authority. In this case America's and Western versions of these things. If America had let Ukraine get overrun completely, then an emboldened Russia would be after parts of Europe next, and that's certainly an expanding regional conflict anything up to a world war. Putin before the war kept saying he wanted parts of Western Europe, they were rolling out the USSR flag. It was American and Western arms, financial, and social impetus that have checked Russia and have ground their capability to wage war down to nothing for anything up to a decade. It's not finished but Russia has been stopped for now. If China can just take over the ocean and keep expanding as they have been overrunning countries around them such as Tibet and Turkmenistan, then that's regional war(s) in the Pacific. Does the West have to support people attacking and committing war crimes to achieve peace? Hell no. In Israel right now that's generating another 20, 30, even 50 years of violence to come. It was the same when America went into Iraq and many of us were yelling it back then. Decisions that cost lives CANNOT, be made on emotion. At least we've pulled back the complete insanity of trying to grow the problem to include as many countries as possible, though the actions going on are creating some of that anyway. Look at it another way. Russia has managed to convince or socially engineer its population that the war is a good or necessary thing. Replicate that 200 times for all countries around the globe. Does that sound like a peaceful world to you? What happens when authoritarian-biased governments no longer have the current targets? They make more up because they require them to function that way. They need an enemy, a threat, some way to feel like the hero or savior, to establish control over something, or reaffirm their own organizational structures legitimacy or control. If it's not 'the west' it'll be X or Y that's the target. *When this is balanced by other values it can be useful to solve problems, focus attention, and establish control or maintain something, when its out of balance it becomes the problem.