BlueOak

Yes the word is a pattern we created :D. From a cursory glance: From the 1580s, "to make a pattern for, design, plan" https://www.etymonline.com/word/pattern I am still gaining innerstanding of how the cycles of reincarnation are maintained while we are also an absolute being of everything at once. The pattern as I understand it is we relive these cycles perfecting them each time. There is no separation in lifetimes to consciousness, patterns just reoccur. Physics will tell you your body is an energetic pattern, a psychologist will tell you your behaviors are a pattern, an astronomist will tell you about the patterns of the stellar bodies, or a doctor the patterns going on inside you. Observed experiences are a pattern you experience in this life, you can see events and situations you encounter repeating in society around you and in yourself. If you have past life regressions you can see how these patterns were present previously, in different forms. I wonder if part of this is because we want to experience the same positive things we experienced in this lifetime again and again, and learn from the problems we face. To reality there is no separation between lifetimes, it's just another body(pattern) to observe these cycles of experience. When the pattern no longer serves us it is not run anymore.

Except consciosuness. There is nothing I can describe that isn't a pattern. Can you?

You are looking at an insular box with no way in or out, almost the entire population reduced to living off aid, cutting off all the history till that point and then saying. Ahah its nothing to do with Israel. It has something to do with every single nation that is in the region and has been in the region. Blame will never end this. Us vs them will never end this. This will never end unless isolationism and division ends, and cooperation begins. Right now more than ever it's time to humanize. Yes with the people you hate the most. That doesn't mean X, or telling israel to do Y. It does mean looking at another person and seeing them as human, a person. Even if they hate everything you are, doing this means you are using logic not emotion. Then you can effectively tackle the problem, rather than Israel blanket bomb two million people which is growing the problem far beyond their ability to perceive it. Yes it's a hell of an uphill struggle for anyone in that region to even start towards that goal, without getting themselves killed by those running on pure emotion. I have the luxury of sitting far away and telling you how other countries ended their conflicts or grew them. So this goes for all the outside actors in this too, every one of them across the world, and there are many now not one or two. I will also admit my first emotional reaction to seeing all this was Israel should occupy gaza, before my mind started to analyze my emotions, the variables, and the developing situation. So I understand Israel, and I understand Hamas's actions have consequences, Israel has to see that growing these consequences further than they need to go is foolish and will lead to their own suffering magnified. How would I have handled it. Covertly. Special forces. Seemed the best solution, professional soldiers working off intelligence. Would have been much easier to handle the political situation, probably recovered more hostages, and it doesn't take away further action if it's required. I know the perception of safety had to be upheld, and the violence answered, I get that, but this was using the most extreme approach first which was a mistake.

Date an aware spiritual woman. Who will call out any games, or see right through it. Create both. Why can you not be confident, bold and spiritual? You can create anything you want, this is you. One doesn't have to negate the other. I am certainly interested in far fewer people than I was, I think that's natural as you grow, it is also a function of age. When this pattern you are, or in, completes more fully, there is less and less need to have things reflected. There can still be want, that's part of you too. Love and joy in the company of another. Infinite love for all things, and with the right person that can scale up easier, two people seeking that would hold that field longer or more easily than one. Biological urge also exists but again lessens with age, part of the design and intersecting reason as you complete your life's purpose I would suppose. So yeah if you have a 'want' for companionship and spiritual growth, create both at once.

Events are cyclic throughout multiple lives. We are patterns that repeat.

Depends on what part of yourself you are pushing away, hating on, or don't have in balance. You can work that out from how you react to others, then work out why you are doing it, and try to integrate it into your life. 1, Sometimes it's as easy as acceptance. Just accept it for what it is. Accept them completely for who they (you) are. 2, Immersion in what you don't like, like moving to a place that embodies it, living with it day to day or interacting with it somehow. 3, Taking time each week to listen to a speaker saying something you are repelled by and finding commonalities or words from that speaker that don't repel you, this eases the divide. 4, Some use visualization or meditate on it and wait for the answers. 5, Others wait till they are feeling an emotion and sit with it treating it as the piece of yourself coming to your attention, that is feeling out of place or hurt. Do what feels natural in that case to accept it, let it express itself and integrate with you or your life. Everything you experience is you. You represent it, give it meaning and then react to the meaning you gave it. There are no people outside of yourself. Everything you are experiencing is coming from you. It takes fully stepping back and looking at it. Owning it completely.

I feel like you are giving me 3/4's of the perspective here and taking 1/4. But it was an interesting discussion nonetheless. Thank you for it. I usually lack a good authoritarian perspective because of my own remaining resistance to authority which is always lessening as I age.

@Danioover9000 We need AI because of an aging population and an increasing want inside society, fostered by authoritarian blame-shifting, to not hire foreign younger labor. We can’t get older people to do the work of twenty-year-olds, no amount of retraining will fix that. Beyond that a dynamic country to remain competitive requires foreign workers to fill skilled gaps as they appear, not five years later when the country has adjusted to retraining and then has new gaps to fill. That’s if we can even constantly incentivize young people to want to fill those gaps in the first place. The other option is AI, where we just make the workers., a third is we have a worse quality of life, where we lack in certain areas. The UK is going to lack for local doctors (GP’s), and waiting times are already terrible, if it doesn’t get over itself and hire more foreign medical staff or really boost funding. Resources are in fewer hands because capitalism is heavily favored and socialism is demonized. They are out of balance. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is the people in power preferring it that way, and the ‘enemy’ used as a lever or foil is socialism. Like in Russia and China the enemy is liberalism. It's always the socialists, the communists, the liberals. Them vs us. The capitalist influences and to a greater extent authoritarian policies get some pushback but not near as much. If you are going to use the stages as your frame. For acquiring or maintaining wealth, stage orange is critical. Adapting up the dynamics scale material things are of less importance for people. Orange is being seen as less favorable, we want to do things outside of maintaining wealth, more for others, or the planet. We are not wanting to slave away in a career just for material gain. You cover blue well, but for most of the Western societies the driving force was/is orange and that is what is dropping away currently. There is no avoiding green. You have to immerse yourself (and society) in stage green before you can bring all of these things into balance and realise all are necessary. Without green there is no care for others around for who and what they are. No harmony with others outside of your immediate experience. It is obviously introduced slowly and gradually, with pushback and adaptation, but that’s natural. What’s the answer to that, fostering a sense of community. That is not reliance on a god above your head telling you so, or hard rules enforced by fear. People do it because they care about the person next to them. Taking away the fear from people of each other and different perspectives, and allowing each to be heard. Then yes religion or spirituality can be introduced in an open and communal way. Not as a hammer or a leash. Imposing an authoritarian perspective over millions doesn’t work to create anything like an ideal society, that one man alone cannot possibly ever represent those millions, or lead over educated free thinking people. You can’t apply one aspect of the political compass and expect to cover all of them a fraction as well. The delay you see is a natural part of how true democracy works. Consensus takes effort and time. In a crisis you need someone to handle it without delay. That is the balance. It takes patience and compromise to run a democracy. Accepting others opinions. You can find data that says anything. Usually skewed from the perspective of the person collecting the data. If you have one source I can check it out, and see how many other factors they took into account during its collection, the way questions were asked, and the overall state of the world/countries at the time. Margaret thatcher did not decide alone for the UK there would be war. The government did and the Queen for that matter. Certainly authoritarian voices in positions of power help in wartime, as control has to be maintained. I don’t think the potential embarrassment of my country, their action to correct it, or wartime really relates to birth rate, war as a whole is BAD for birthrate. War is usually a result of two authorities over extending, like the period we have now Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_by_Great_Britain_and_the_United_Kingdom | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_military_action We have a labor shortage and a cost of living crisis. Women working helps fill these. It does have some impact on birth rate yes, but so would not being able to afford the family in the first place, or have the necessary jobs filled to maintain social cohesion. Also not everyone is suited to be a parent AT ALL, some are downright disruptive and harmful as parents to the community. - One aspect other stages of spiral dynamics had right is that children were raised by the tribe or community, not one individual with all the potential flaws or inadequacies they posses. Jobs don’t mess up women’s minds, any more than a building does, or a park bench. The dating scene is messed up because: People focus too much on the top 5% of perceived partners, and because they see it in front of them constantly they aim for it. Its like the 80s all over again, a weird hypermaterialism. Male and female alike. All the 'good' partners are taken and so they date the people playing around. People are dating for sex and instant gratification, yada yada we could do a whole 15 points on this too if you’d like. ‘Men sleep around then complain there are no women not sleeping around. - That’s half of the red pill problem in a nutshell. Women letting them do it, is the other half’ Women do have unrealistic expectations that they will magically find partners in their mid thirties and somehow fit a family in, or juggle career and family at once yes unless they get lucky. Mostly because we haven’t adapted working convention because of a perceived personal sense of necessary equality or egalitarianism, the thing you hate. Women should get more time off, to raise their kids. Simple as that. Women should have some inbuilt time in their careers for their family, and that should be the norm, if we want things to function effectively, but we are not there yet. Autocracy does not form all rights. You are looking at one part of a wall of a building and say ahah! That’s the wall where everything is built on. What part of authoritarianism is responsible for homeless shelters, a national health service, how about a liberal art festival. You’ll answer that 1/4 over there which gives it authority, and then I’ll say yes and the other 3/4’s arise from these other factors inherent throughout all of society. An institution is NOTHING but a pile of bricks or a mark on a paper if it doesn’t have popular support, financing, a social reason for its existence, and yes the authority to hold that space. Do I need to break down what created rights? Do you want all the social conditions, all the financing that goes on, all the necessity to create balance or perceived fairness, all the institutions, all the events that led up to it, the populist movements, the pressures that hold them there or give them legitimacy? This is long enough I’ll tackle the proposed autocracy you are wanting if we wrap it up, but the summary above is enough for now.

Here's the reflection of the male half of the red pill dynamic: Let's go have sex as soon as possible. We had sex and it was fun. Why am I not finding more from women than sex? Yes there is obviously a female half to that as well. I am pointing out the obvious male side of it. You have to go to a woman for more than sex, if you are looking for more than sex.

What about the relating of the relationship? The point of it. How do you relate to the other person, the world around you, and the interconnected experiences and life you both share? If you just want sex go get sex. The relating that is, are two bodies, maybe some fun or yes in some cases a building physical intimacy if it goes on a while. It's not a broad relationship, or one likely to last, because what are you related to in the other person? Their body, that is going to change or become understood in a short matter of time (if you are any good at sex). You can and many people do, have sex and still take the time or energy to relate to more than their body, or at least spend their lives trying.

@Javfly33 There is a lot of suffering in the animal world. If you really get into it, some animals have a horrifically painful existence.

Yeah that’s what I mean a link with a video in it, it’s a long one that I’ll try to watch tomorrow. Try considering the biological or physical influence across all things not just the part of it that supports what you are trying to say. It’s a primary driving force in all things. Both yes men being physically stronger and holding space for things to exist, but also why many cultural or societal trends happen in the first place. Where there is no space for a home. A home can’t exist. Have you seen the places a lot of Japanese people are living in, they look like boxes. No place to raise kids. I can see the UK being that way eventually and heading that way now. When you can’t afford to raise a family adequately because of fierce resource competition, then you can’t do that. This is a fundamental reason it doesn’t happen, or people work more hours than they want. People don’t like working excess hours. Look at the levels of poverty or the balance of resources people are working with, globally. It's in increasingly fewer hands. So a void is created, and something comes to fill it. Nothing ever goes away, the impulse just gets moved somewhere else. This creates a trend, and people look at the trend and say that trend is bad. A symptom. In 2022 I believe it was 22% in the UK after housing costs that live in poverty, so a quarter of the population. Poverty Data UK parliament link. That’s a huge amount of financial pressure against being able to raise a kid. There is almost no socialism in America that I have heard described correctly, and certainly no communism. Some government policies giving people things like welfare are socialist, keeping the police running, or keeping the roads from closing, but things like that are about it. There is more in Europe, in things like healthcare, education, and more support for those in worse circumstances but not a lot more. People use the word socialist when they don’t like something, to describe usually in my experience an authoritarian policy. I would say here you are using it to describe liberalism. I’d be happy to read any data that shows the career of a woman makes her unhappy. If you have any? What you might find is that cost of living, the approach of war, covid, and all the other pressures we talk about is making everyone unhappy. But regardless, that’s up to that person's perspective, not yours or mine, to decide. The stages are a part of you. You are putting down one stage and elevating another. If you really looked at them, you’d see a multitude of challenges and benefits of each. All within you right now. When they are in balance, we are in balance. Yes BTW there are good indications that things like feminism have taken authoritarian stances too far, (like almost anything liberal countries dislike). Egalitarianism or Equal rights have little to do with a lessening birth rate and even less to do with social breakdown. I assume charitably that you mean abortion, not the right of the man alone to choose when a woman will have a kid, which would be barbaric. Rights are structured by the state or inter-state agreement. There is nothing outside of it defining rights. It’d be difficult to argue the way society is constructed by the state, (in a purely equal society) and its people, for it being the reason that same structure is not working as intended. People doing this are usually assuming their perspective is superior. We could tackle abortion alone separately if that is your meaning, because most of the talking around it is incredibly lacking in any depth. Removing abortion without vastly increasing the welfare state is going to increase crime, drug use, broken homes, abuse, and social breakdown. I suggest your view of third-world countries being happier than someone living in comfort and security is completely wrong. Go visit those countries and talk to the people who can’t get enough to eat, or might be killed for walking down the street, and ask them if they’d like to swap places. Maybe you mean some of the more stable low-tech second-world countries? Which I can’t offhand name but I am sure exists. While autocracy was more widespread, democracy is not a new invention of government. The first democracy existed around 400 BC, with the longest still existing ones created in the 10th Century AD. Divorce rates lowered under Obama: US Divorce Rate statistics I am not sure why a centrist largely status-quo politician makes any difference. An elected politician in this context would again be a symptom. Increasing authoritarian influence: Removing or lessening democracy is replacing it with autocracy. Which is the point you keep making to solve issues. When that very line of thinking has caused, not just influenced, but caused much of the conflict and polarization in Western society and global relations we see today. One perspective cannot be overlayed upon another. Liberalism is the polar opposite of authoritarianism, so when people try and turn liberals into authoritarians it doesn’t work, the same as people doing this in reverse and all the problems that brought overseas. - It seems the world is going to go through this again. Look how that worked out in countries America has tried to do it in. Integration and balance tailored to the challenges are far more favorable and have less harsh conflicting points There is no way you could force someone to accept an internet rule that they want to get around purely by law. If they really cared enough. Unless every country on earth that I can access also accepted that rule. So unless a very high amount of suppression was applied, along with jail sentences it's not going to help. - This is applying purely authoritarian thinking to a liberal problem - it doesn’t work. Again it's easier to use authoritarianism in conjunction with liberalism, socialism, and capitalism. This is dragging on a bit, I’ll touch on the rest briefly. You are using extreme examples to justify taking positions against other perspectives like feminism. Which is usually what people do. They look at the worst situations or examples of them and then say that’s why they are bad. In this case, you are separating yourself from it to use it as a problem or lever for other perspectives you’d prefer. Yes China and Russia both used capitalism AND socialism to function effectively. To be completely in balance they’d use capitalism, liberalism, authoritarianism, and socialism in balance. That's the point. Democracy being indecisive is often beneficial. It means many perspectives are being considered and taken into account. Its less useful when in war or in a crisis. I’d need another post to talk about all the problems these ideologies have caused but trust me I know. If you were talking about how great they all were, I’d be saying well look at this X. Also I would design governance differently, as I suggest in that bold point above :). All the best.

Everything is connected and has influence on the whole. We have to focus on something. I will watch the video and have a comment there if I get time thank you. To add important points. The economic and biological factors should be mentioned. Living costs drive people to work. Men and Women both. Even beyond just surviving, we want things in our lives that cost money. Birthrates in Japan are also due to having no room to live. When a species gets to be too populated with insufficient space birthrates go down, especially when survival rates are high. This is increasingly true in a lot of Western societies. Further authoritarian influence will not go well for Western culture. It is not going well right now. It hasn't gone well for 20 years. It causes internal turmoil trying to put a square peg in a round hole. In simple terms it's trying to put stage green and majority orange personalities into another stage. The problems with trying to extend authority over a global platform such as the internet have long been shown, its very easy to find a way around any rules a single body enacts if another country doesn’t follow them. As it’s a global network. Socialism is one part of the whole, dealing with equality and provisions for others. Atheism is another part of the whole, the act of questioning a being outside of yourself ruling over you. Feminism as an advocacy group is useful to ensure that identity is represented collectively, as with any group. In this case positive feminism in a society that didn’t recognize their own concept of equality as absolutely essential could have a woman balance life and career, but fundamental changes would need to be made. For example, in europe we have much longer maternity leave. Basically stage green values and above would need to be integrated for a healthier career/home balance. When taken to ideological extremes they all have their problems, as with any identity or value system. Part of the eternal issue we have is vilifying part of ourselves over and over and over. Then wondering why we are not balanced. I did it with corporate monopolies, chaos causing and nihilism above, so I welcome the reflection. My perspective is not superior over another part of me, and all of these things are within me also. Thank you for reminding me to not push that part of me away.

Two sides clearly want control over the other's perspective. They are likely going to fight to exert that control. Some of us are trying to pull the western side back, I don't know if anyone is on the other side, I like to think there is a version of me in China, saying hey let's take it steady here. I don't know what the scale will be, wider overt regional conflicts are looking more probable. Stock up on food, water, and the basics. Get a big bag of rice, a couple of weeks' worth of tins of protein, and 40 liters of water for some piece of mind. If you haven't got blankets or a basic first aid kit get them. (And toilet paper remember covid) Don't make preparations or worry your life, but having two weeks' worth of food in stock has always been and will always be a good idea.

Getting angry at the symptoms alone, will not correct this. 1) Less parental discipline, breeds less parental discipline. I don't mean anger, I mean discipline. Not knowing the difference is half the problem. 2) Power and wealth is held in fewer and fewer hands, disempowering people and robbing them of opportunities. 3) Monopolies rule because of the way media is designed on the internet, and the inherent stranglehold it and they have over officiating bodies. Disempowering. 4) Social media means personal problems of the general public are sustained over a longer period, when they should be finished and moved on from. 5) More readily available distractions on your attention means a weaker focus. 6) Nihilism is a very strong influencing factor, We'd need 20 more points to break that down. People simply don't care. 7) Chaos and conspiracy is seen as the new alternative to nihilism or corporate monopoly. Chaos doesn't build anything internally or externally. 8) Failure is being seen as a bad thing again, due to integrating authoritarian influences who hide it. 9) Authoritarian influences keep people in a state of disempowerment. 10) Comfort is seen as a better state than discomfort. 11) No land to call your own, robs a lot of the basic drive that created the conditions he talks about. 12) When you are living in a square box, working in a small square box, looking at a small square box. Where is the impulse to create strength or depth of character? Its soul crushing for the large population that exist in that state. 13) Harsh economic conditions means survival is the main focus, more important than growth or character building outside of the basics. 14) We are close to WW3. No hyperbole. Survival is so far out of your personal control that it overwhelms any sense of it. Things like personal development are not high on the list of priorities. 15) A lot of things are falling away. What's left does not have any impulse to be like the old. That's a few that come to mind, you get the point.

I've seen some beautiful women with really ugly men. I've seen good data that shows a fair amount of women couldn't care less about appearance compared to other things. You are right about success, that's always been a constant. If you've got money, you've got a girl. The rest of us have to work at it. Confidence helps but it's in you, accept who and what you are, not what you think you should be. Really get comfortable with yourself. The bits you are resisting, or the emotions or situations that come up, work with them, accept them, integrate them, protect them, feel them, listen to them, and fight for them when necessary because that's all you. Whoever put 'should be' in your head was an idiot. Put the work in and you'll get a girl. Be rejected a lot, and get the girl. But if you are still thinking you 'should be' something you are not, every one of those rejections will hurt. If you've accepted who you are fully, and you've got your own back first. it probably won't bother you as much that someone else isn't interested in you romantically. When you get that inside straight, you could go so far to flip it and have fun with it, crazy things like aim to be rejected, and make it a game. Whatever you like, because externally seeking feelings from another will become completely unnecessary. Get that strong core, those muscles are worth more to you and your partner than physical ones. *Made the assumption here that you are a guy based on the above posts, but the main point getting right about yourself, that's universally true regardless of gender.

Colors get brighter. Energy feels less dense. Things have less weight on you, in you. These things I experience. You sound like you are closer to stabilizing what some call the 'white light reality'. Which i've experienced but didn't stabilise in. If you want closer to that, go from being grateful, and living joyfully to infinite love.

Realising and accepting you always are.

There is no one answer. Trust the full being of you has the answer, and go with it. My method requires a certain understanding that there are different personalities, influences or impulses within you, often fragmented or in conflict that pull you in different directions (or the same direction) and can cause or be the source of these emotions. These can be represented in a way that best fits your life. I prefer visual and emotional references. I tend toward sitting with the feeling and not distracting myself. Allowing feelings and images to come up, and then working with whatever I feel, want to do, or imagine happening. Internal thoughts that come up I work with, comfort, protection, acting out the emotion wanting to be expressed. There is a default nice picture in my head, which I can take the image representing the emotion I can go to, but only after being with it forever how long it needs. After a time, often I represent it as a part of myself, a younger me, but sometimes it's best to just leave it as an emotion if there is no image that appears in my mind. I do often take Teal Swans technique of visualizing the integration of a piece of myself, often a child me to an adult, but only when it feels appropriate and again after experiencing the emotion for however long. Internally I have an agreement with myself, that integrating a piece of myself is allowing its expression, not repressing it, the piece I am resisting becomes me, but only when that emotion or piece is ready. I am quite happy for it to reoccur separately for as long as that emotion wants to reflect, and to provide a space for it. 99% of the time though I'll feel a full-body integration of the emotion or piece into my life, with the understanding it's now a full part of me creating the experience I have.

Not 100% sure which part of the post you are asking about. Does an open streamer, mean you have an attraction to more people without the need to justify it in your mind or think about it, it's just there, possibly. I would probably say the more open you are romantically, the more inherent attraction you might have to more people without thinking. I mean the times you are standing there and you feel that tug, not looking at a picture or person and saying hmm they're attractive, it just happens energetically without you even realising. Complete guess on my part. It's very far from my experience of life, Maybe in its opposite, I can understand the reverse.

Naturally, populations limit their birth rate or population sizes depending on environmental factors, in mammals homosexuality is often used. If I cared less about the economy i'd want 52% of people to be gay, and no I'm not gay. Because you have to apply your argument in reverse for it to be true as well: So let's take attraction on a different personal level. I have no attraction to men at all. I have some attraction to a woman. There have been two women in the last ten years I have an attraction to that I didn't have to think about, it was just there, that's what I call attraction. Does this mean I am not able to extend love in any capacity to the other 8 billion people on this planet, or the male gender? No I can still love that part of myself, the masculine side and I do. I can pick it up when it's down, offer advice, protect or help where I can. I just don't want to partner on an intimate level with masculinity, I've already got most of that covered. I don't want to partner with the other 8 billion people on the planet either, just the ones I feel an attraction to that I don't have to intellectualize or justify in my mind, it's just there on an energetic level.

*edit Nevermind answering my own question again I will add, it is more difficult to live with a million voices and reflections of me calling for the death of another million voices and reflections of me. That is evident and heavier to deal with.

I won't use the term evil, because that is again you saying your perspective is greater than theirs. It's pushing that part of you away in judgment. When it's an individual in front of you that is being abused it's easy to say yes, step in, and get that person the hell out of there. (I have done this) You are looking at a mountain and speaking to it with an unrecognized concept of morality. That's quite a challenge. The entire fabric of that society, its collective development, institutions, values, it supports and is intertwined with what you don't like. The people there will continue to reinforce what you don't like because it's a reflection of who they are and has always been, their collective identity. So you make a value judgment from the perspective that who we are is better than who they are. It's not you going in and saving that one woman from her husband beating her, it's you reaching into the entire country of millions of people, thousands or tens of thousands of years of social development, and saying hey, stop that because I know better and it's wrong, or worse funding a part of it to imbalance the rest of it. Worse yet other people in different states of mind just bomb it, or kill the other perspectives because it's not theirs. I mean name calling or judging can serve a purpose too, shame while horrid has a purpose, but it's also likely to elicit a purely egoic defense, conflicts etc because nobody likes shame. It's less likely to meet conflict to just highlight a way of life that has less suffering it in. Show them how it can be achieved to benefit their own way of life, and the suffering that can be avoided by its adoption, You can't do that from a place of thinking I am better than you in any way. You have to really own that part of yourself, see how you could be just like them if you lived there, if you were brought up there. You can't demonize whatever is in you that hates this and expect to see an external change of reflection.

Very true. There are two ways of doing this blending the cultures or letting them reach parity and these are not exclusive to each other. That parity or blending approach will then create a genesis in the next generations that embody it, or so goes the theory. Never as simple as that but that's where laws come in, conversations, debates, and social change. *edit because this is a more whole view and less divided.

@zazen Thank you for the perspective I'll do some analysis here, which will be limited in scope given how many points he touched on. Firstly I see his 'authority is causing this bias' rather than the liberal 'this has come about on its own' bias. He's very much an ideologue, meaning he starts with a premise and works backward to justify it. He takes each point, finds one reason he can try to demonstrate its true, and moves on, rather than taking many facets of each point he makes and trying to find the best (or most helpful) view of it possible. Here is what I listened to for a while till I was tired of it. He sees failure as a problem. He sees contrast as a problem. Both are absolutely required, 100% necessary for growth at least in Western societies that embrace and use failure. Which has been a big push in the last two decades, learning from failures rather than fearing them. I assume learning from failure is universal even if it may be repressed and not exposed in other countries. That lack of reporting on flaws or open transparency brings me to the next point: His case about Sweden is odd. How many people report rapes in 3rd world countries? Or do anything about it legally? It's a false equivalency. South Africa which does seem to report these statistics is very high on that table too, I wouldn't equate South Africa and Sweden in many ways. For the medications yes it's an industry that is overused. If you extended it across the world and gave people enough money for it, they'd be on them too. If we incentivized doctors to give as many medications as possible. I wouldn't doubt rich enough people in some of the countries he prefers are exactly the same way. While that is true, he makes it seem its pressures within the society itself that is the sole or unique driving factor of the way this natural problem manifests. Not the availability of medicine and the want to sell it. - People self-medicate everywhere when it's available, if they don't they find other outlets. Body image yes, that's hyperfocused here, it's the leftovers of objectification inherent in the country he likely lives in, a flaw easily seen and we are going some way to move out of it, with plenty of pushback of course. Then he talks about people doing things to earn money to survive, while he may not like what they do, people will survive one way or another in hard times, and better porn from the safety of their own home than crime. He has no real concept of what it costs to live in the UK, its nothing about 'free independent woman' the old tired trope, I am neither a woman nor particularly free when I work, and I've been broke most of my entire life even when working 60 hours a week. It's much more related to the cost of things, and how people do or do not establish a value they can bring to the society they live in, not gender. I get that the over-emphasis on beauty has caused many many issues, dating for example, lower birthrate due to exacting stands, seeking physical pleasure over love breaking up marriages, and one of them is people's default to physical beauty rather than exploring other long-term options that might keep them financially stable. His view is people are bad because they earn money to eat and objectify their bodies to do it, which is such a condensed perspective it misses all nuance. The alcohol industry is on the decline (likely due in no small part to people self-medicating in other ways). Pubs are closing here in the UK. Then he goes extreme, outlets are closing all across the country in the UK due to shoplifting? Yeah ignore the internet being the hub of trade, ignore the cumulative effect one store closing has on the other, the huge differences in cost of running an online store vs an offline one, traffic problems, fuel costs, and massive commercial rates increases the last few years. Let's just blame shoplifters, and 'mobs of people' all I ever saw in a store were kids stealing. I did see that shops didn't bother prosecuting them much, probably due to insurance or just offsetting the loss in other ways financially, rather than legal costs (like price increases), which has led to an increase in people doing it, because nobody follows them up. Then I stopped watching at 8 minutes :). I can only watch ideologues for so long. Thanks though it was interesting.