BlueOak

People don't often break the core patterns of their life. Because they are them. At the moment, you and I have the luxury of looking into something from the outside. Looking at the pieces of it, which are flawed, and saying hey, that's dumb. What you are calling dumb is what that person is at their core, beliefs, values and society itself is entirely structured around it, from religion and community to governance. What someone is rarely changes drastically in life. It often evolves for better or worse, but the underlying pattern is usually reinforced by a hundred other patterns running in their psyche, all of which bring the situation in question around again at some point in a cycle. Especially when their peer group is reinforcing this further. *Though I would like to say leaving is an underrated and often vilified answer to a lot of issues. It doesn't fix you, as who you are follows you anywhere, but it does provide another perspective to see the obvious irrational choices you are making.

There is a large peace push by the US currently. I am going to suggest most of the UN assembly walking out on Netanyahu speaking was the final catalyst, among a hundred other factors.

Italic Slanting the typeface (text) to the right. A font choice to separate text. It has a few uses, sometimes in quotes, first-person entries in journals, or by writers to offer a separation from the main text, such as speech or a character's internal thoughts.

@zazen I'll italic your quotes, if I do any copy-paste typos, I apologize. I'll correct. Quote: That's why I said America AND the Western led order. They are distinct from the US which is the clear unipolar hegemon but they exist as preferential partners and allies within that order - that are also taken advantage of when it suits the hegemon, as we are seeing today. If they truly want to be left out of great power competition then they need to build their own defense capabilities to gain strategic autonomy and sovereignty - and act accordingly. While it would be nice to live in this alternate reality where having a large military funded by the country is entirely defensive and not used offensively, even while being pressured and attacked by outside powers. We don't, and we never will. I actually agree with Sadhguru on this one, even if his solution was inane. That is: Having a large military is the cause of war. Its all the resources going into it, its the cultural, economic political and institutional influence it creates etc. The arms race, creates the arms race, which creates the arms race. And its only disarmament that solves it. Sadhguru called it defanging. In short Zazen we will never live in the reality you propose as the solution to the problem of hegemony. As Europe rearms it will use that military against the alliance threatening it, just as Israel did. And you will go on to moralise or analyse that this is bad, when it is an entirely predictable course. Because its an obvious pattern. So understanding that inevitable outcome, what are Europe’s and Israel’s choices at this juncture? Give up on American protection, cower against an increasingly aggressive world, give up more of their sovereignty to Russia/Iran instead. Stick with America doing the dirty work as you call it, while at the same time being blamed for going along rather than destabilising it further. Or build a large military of its own and use it. Or something else? I am open to this, I had suggested other forms of alliance in the past, or an EU military for example. In israel's case it could align more with other countries in the region to form a defensive alliance, this will be harder now for obvious reasons. I'd love to say empower the UN, but that'll never work when the world is so divided and no leader can be put under sufficient force or pressure for defying the UN. I can say BRICS vs NATO will create these scenarios ad nauseam to exist, even if people never attribute that competition as the direct cause. If Russia had not invaded and brought us to the brink of WW3, this would be different discussion but it always does. Its done this for hundreds of years. Any significant power in Europe did because it had the military strength to. The only thing stopping a lot of smaller countries globally going to war is a large military force saying. Don’t do that. If you need examples, I could write them for hours. So what you call Europeans being, shall we say lazy and indifferent to the suffering of others, I call a necessary band-aid on a bad human instinct. Had Hamas (Iran) not killed a large amount of civilians, this would be a different discussion, but it always does. And before we go through hoops, even if I take the premise that this huge coordinated movement of their proxy was pulled off without Iran’s knowledge (I don’t) they still structure half of this conflict. Quote: I did say Western violence gets framed as policy, everyone else's as pathology - acknowledging that others can be or are violent. I'm not denying others aggression or threats of it - I'm saying there's asymmetry in how that aggression is talked about or understood based on who does it and why. Welcome to how every country justifies war. You think Russia is out there preaching a symmetrical understanding of force or violence to its citizens or allies? If it did that, they’d never fire a shot. They'd realise that anything up to and including systemic thinking about war is not sufficient. That this is human nature the world over, and it is only overcome or integrated by seeing the other person as part of yourself or failing that their wellbeing in your own best interests (harder to put forward). Quote: And the causal chain gets erased to frame the latest act of aggression as if it comes out of a vacuum - that the one doing it is simply aggressive by nature, culture, psychology - to the point of not wanting to live on the same planet as them lol. For me no, its simply not wanting to get shot, or living in an authoritarian hellhole. Please re-read where I said it was not cultural. I used to think the Chinese culture was the most interesting on the planet. Mandarin is the only language I have voluntarily studied, and I include English in that. I do finally see parallels with Israel and Europe. However, the Israeli’s have had to endure it a good deal longer than I have. And as such been demonised more than Europe. They have my sympathies. Much as I understand militarism creates war, I fully understand why Zionism was embraced as a response to irrationality. (Whatever the cause, hate is not rational). I fully understand that if and when Europe embraces militarism and fights back, you’ll demonize them the same. Claiming that we hate other cultures. When its an entirely predictable pattern inherent in human nature and the problem of seeing the other as separate from ourselves. Quote: I said Muslims and Jews have lived quite peacefully (relatively) for centuries Arabs and Jews were peaceful relative to what? How big were their militaries? How far are we going back and to what period? What were the forces inherently pressuring those areas at that time? How were they for food/resources? (Hint: these are all questions with no need for an answer). Anyone can live with anyone, but too many people see the other as a threat. Quote: I can understand yet not condone the actions they felt they needed to take due to survival pressures after the Holocaust. But not the current climate? You could easily understand this if you wanted to and still not condone it. I understand Russia, China and Iran, but don’t condone any of them either. You could easily with a click of your finger grasp what I am saying about Europe, that people would rather live in snug safety, pretending the Americans are not that bad, because it's much easier to ignore problems that don't affect us. You could easily grasp what I am saying about Israel, being born into the mindset of seeing all around them as threats, being constantly pressured or threatened by larger powers for living on the land they were born to. Quote: Russia also uses historical claims (Ukraine isn't real, historical Russian lands) to justify what is also a response to strategic encirclement. The historical rhetoric obscures the defensive logic, but the defensive logic still exists within which to understand its actions. If we strip away Putin's speeches about Ukrainian history and look at the strategic picture - Russia is reacting to an alliance expanding toward its borders to a country that is being used as a launchpad through which to weaken it on its flank. This has been laid out in think tank papers only a arrogant hegemon would have the audacity to make public. That’s one of their weaker claims. Enriclement… on one flank. All the while trying to move its territory closer to the threat they say they don’t want. It's illogical on its face, because its not an accurate description of the cause(s) or goals of this war. Quote: Russia's defensiveness is real due to a accurate assessment of the threat - even if their response and rhetoric are wrong to the point they blur the lines of their defensive logic and make us question their motives (imperial vs defensive). Israel's defensiveness meanwhile is theater and cover for domination of the land they want to settle in. Israel claims existential threat - but from who? Egypt, Jordan, UAE are normalized. Syria is destroyed. Iran is far away and only retaliated after Israel directly struck it. Their threat is exhaustion from proxies (that Iran backs yes) and non-state actors who emerge because of the unresolved Palestinian issue. That's not an existential threat to the state - that's blowback from perpetual occupation which is the root cause of the issue. The "sea of hatred" narrative is increasingly detached from a actual state level threat. War is not defensive. Americans used to tell me it was and I said the same to them. Its about as offensive as you can get. Israel is threatened on multiple fronts. In part this is because of their own actions. Russia is threatened on multiple fronts, In part because of their own actions. Also because they exist, and are different enough to both be considered by, and consider their neighbors threats to Ego ID. To directly answer you question: IRAN. Directly threaten Israel. Without Iran Palestine would already be part of Israel. Without America, Israel would already be a vassal state of someone else or at least much less aggressive. You talked about Libya and Yugoslavia (Serbia) Of course you understand these were Russian-backed proxy wars in the same way? Like Iraq, armed, trained and funded by Russia. Because the Hegemony you describe was practised by Russia also, only now its old, faded and dying off over the decades. America just likes to be on Camera, boasting about how great they all were back then, Russia preferred to just send people and/or material. No matter how much you want to frame Russia’s foreign policy as purely defensive, it never has been. Unless every action is to be considered defensive, in which case this war between Israel and Palestine is also. Quote: They got comfortable and indulged progressive fantasies of green energy and mass migration assimilation because someone else lifted the hard weight of survival. Europe’s moralism is a luxury afforded by American militarism. Their only soft and grandstand about their “values”because they outsourced the need to be hard and survive just like anyone else. If you acknowledge that order - then it logically follows that the actors we are talking about are acting within that current order - and where they are within that order and how they are treated within that order (contained vs pampered) will determine how they act or react. I did also say that states can act independent of that order and not everything can be blamed on it. Not every protest is going to be a regime change operation despite the clear track record and evidence of the US perfecting that art (US-UK couping Iran in 1953 for example). No more than I blame the Russian people for Putin’s warmongering. Which I have flirted with before, but at the end of the day they chose being politically lazy, as did I. I am not better than any of them. We are getting a bit long, so I’ll end here: Quote: I said everyone's actions have deeper roots to the point we get into the chicken or the egg argument - ultimately blaming God who started it all. So then what time do we pick to analyse events? if we go too far back it becomes too detached from the current reality to be pragmatic in understanding and resolving it, if we just go with the latest actions our analysis is surface level and symptoms based rather than root based. That's why we look at things systemically - and therefore look at the current system within which events take place. This is where you step out of systemic thinking into a global consciousness and global understanding. No point in time will ever suffice. Or you keep picking linear events to base your analysis on, and I keep pointing out of the flaws of such. I’d love to keep going as you made some good points, such as this: My critique can be moral but not moralistic - I said in my full comment that ''Israeli's aren't the problem, the way they are acting upon their survival is''. Which I couldn’t agree with more. And some terrible ones: Im just pointing out the hypocrisy within that structure by the ones who lead it claiming their own survival needs are primary whilst others are secondary or non-existent. People will always put their survival needs over others in a large group context. I could step in front of a bullet for someone, but a large group for strangers, never. (You get a few % of a population trained to do so, soldiers or officers of the law.)

Burning up the environment to live in it. Treating it as just there The complete removal of ourselves from the natural environment that 'we are'. That we live in, require for all our needs, are birthed from and die in. Blowing each other up over KM's of land to put an artificial border on a map, which is less than a grain of sand in the infinity of the cosmos. Being stuck on one planet more generally. Factory Farming to Fast Food, the unnecessary slaughter and engineering of sub-animals for the human fast food chains. Death from common things such as cancer. Alterated states of consciousness to avoid reality, and the addiction to things like avoidance. The inability to recognise that you are always talking and interacting with yourself. Narcissism, Sociopathic behavior etc. The creation and introduction into the biosphere of substances we cannot break down: Plastic. What will be then, archaic genetic meddling, or the creation of diseases to cure ahead of time. Not realising that in infinity there will always be more diseases or illness, creation of new ones to cure is futile. Whereas we understand so little about DNA, which is infinity in a spiral, that altering it is like a kid with a nuclear weapon in his hands. The necessity to surveil someone 24/7 for those in power to be comfortable. The surveillance state more broadly.. Using words to harm another, such as through the news or social media to a mass audience. Bigotry and Racism. Death or imprisonment for currency in any form. Treating people like robots so much that we engineer jobs that can be done better by robots, so we build robots to do them.

Going to end with this. Nobody living in Israel was around for its founding. They didn't create the conditions of their birth. The hatred they were born into surrounding them and threatening them every day. Yes they don't help themselves by escalating and their methods are barbaric, they remind me of Russia, but they have to defend themselves, or they'll be dead. Much like the Russians feel they need to do. But in BOTH cases, they create far more enemies than they ever really had.

Europeans barely do anything, they have hardly any military and are largely cowardly, weak and feminine. - You've told me as much several times. But i've seen it on first hand display with the Russian planes and drones flying over their countries, afraid to defend themselves. If I keep stabbing you in the foot and you want to guard your foot, its not paranoid its a natural survival reaction.

@zazen False https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_military_history But then every nation, culture or people has this history, despite what most of you here want to admit. Moreover. Your framing fails to take into account that Israel as it exists now is not a blip. Its 80 years old. It's this kind of dismissive behaviour that contributes to why no equilibrium is ever reached, and we are forever at war. EUROPE Doesn't suit your framing, does it? That's why you always dismiss it or say oh its not important but at the same time we'll villify the people there. Like Israel. They are not the good guys to you. Your side. Apparently, because we don't have a military and are not shooting at everyone to you Zazen we don't count. You argue against your own points. So we get a military, we start throwing our weight around, do we get to be left alone then? No, we'll be the bad guys again, not on your side Zazen. Because, unless you are allied with BRICS or just taking whatever is being thrown at us, we're the bad guy. Israel fights back, and what it does it get, vilified as being the bad guys. Utterly gaslit from start to finish by both of you and half the people here. I make an obvious post designed to get twenty-four into: You can see this in the US but not in Russia, Iran, China and BRICS, and you walk hook line and sinker into it. This boggled my mind with the number of debates we've had about America being as bad as everyone else. Self reflect that America is not infact Europe, for just a few minutes. Then the rest of it. You just like to couch it in some fight for liberation. I swear I might as well be listening to an American 30 years ago. Because it suits your framing the best. Despite the fact China keeps quoting things from thousands of years ago, and Russia from the previous millennium. And this particular war does exactly the same. People just pick a point in time and say ah.... we'll go with that. You are again arguing against your own chain points. Get out of linear thinking for a heartbeat and move into a global recognised consciousness that this is human behavior, and until you can universally and without bias can see that everyone is engaging in it, because they are the world, then you'll always be cherry-picking which parts you like or dislike through a narrow lens. Oh i'm sorry: I now like the county threatening to nuke me and trying to push for WW3, the people backing it are swell guys. The fact I want isolation over the continual authoritarian overtaking of our countries has nothing to do with the internal culture of those countries. Frankly, this was a low part of your post and beneath you. I used to want to live in China, not that it matters now. EUROPE DOES NOT EQUAL THE USA. Nor does Israel. Honestly, at this point I feel like giving up explaining myself. Because even the basics are being gaslit. The problems won't be solved through dialogue, nobody will listen or take our positions seriously anyway. Force is the only way it'll be settled. Or maybe because we are being bombed and European or Israeli civilians deliberately targeted while you whitewash over it all on your own moral highground, and the authoritarian powers just remove countries and cultures they don't like, all in the name of liberation, Utterly nonsensical. FINALLY. YES. Why did I moralise. Look at the original post I responded to. It was a morality argument. I can go up spiral dynamics, down or stay with morality. Survival is as base at it comes (which wasn't morality by the way, that is the point) Most of your post is moralizing if you hadn't realised on the re-read. With a few linear systemic points made. Yes western society is at stake. Its shifting authoritarian due to Chinese and Russian meddling. Which will cause nationalism and further war. Moreover Russia is threatening to kill us all and waging wars of terror. But again the whole point of this was Europe and Israel. Sadly you are unable to assign the agency necessary to discuss the countries in question, or in this case an entire continent. Which again boggles my mind but hey ho, we are where we are

Because I cannot critique the entire planet in a post. I think my views on the current system of governance and over-capitalism / demonisation of socialism have been posted enough.

Calling for war. SELF REFLECT. Telling me not to live in fear, when this is an entire war based on fear. Russia fearing American-backed nonsense along their border, Ukraine fearing the Kremlin's suppression, the east of Europe fearing constant Russian meddling in their domestic affairs, and that's just a snapshot of what's going on. Then we go to Israel and Hamas, who have lived in fear of each other and their religion for centuries. Russia's entire foreign policy is one of fear projection. And Hamas and Iran's proxies aren't much different. America's not done much to inspire trust among the globe, nor has China. I'll tell you exactly what I want from Russia, Iran and China to be left alone. I would rather have nothing to do with aforementioned countries, in fact i'd rather live on an entirely different planet and never hear, see or interact with them for the rest of my years on this earth. I suppose with the Israelis they'd like exactly the same, they'd much prefer a reality where they didn't have bloothirsty maniacs on their door intent on their destruction, and when their country swings around to the natural balance of that, engaging with it as it does them, they get told then they are the problem. Totally gaslit from start to finish. Your posturing fails to understand human nature. 1) That survival is the highest order. Beyond any morality you care to name.. 2) That if we interact with something long enough and indulge it, we synchronise with it, we become it in part. 3) That if you engage in war, you lose the moral high ground to question people doing the same. At the moment what I want doesn't matter a bit. We have what we have. Iran causing terror via proxies, attacking trade and building nukes. Israel stopping this and deciding enough is enough with the religious fanatics next door. Only they've embraced cartoon-level villainy. The Palestinians paying a high price for being born into a hellhole. Russia flying jets, and drones overhead, invading their neighbours with constant terror attacks on civilians, and threatening to nuke everyone every five minutes. China and India are financing it all, because I guess China just wants to become the next superpower. To do what exactly, tell itself how great it is I suppose. Make the world more like they want the world. A country is never enough for some people. Ukraine is fighting back for their independence and paying a heavy cost. Europe is backing it but generally being cowardly towards Russia, with some obvious exceptions. (Poland, Baltics, UK etc) America is sliding into authoritarianism and deciding to pick on a weaker country to prove how great they all are. Typical strong man Russian BS now reflected in Trump. Man, I loved this eastern alignment they've engineered; it's done wonders for the world. Not. Then we've got all the adjacent nations like Pakistan - India, North Korea - South Korea, Thailan - Cambodia etc thinking this is a good time to settle old disputes. Because war breeds war. All the while I am the bad guy for wanting us to grow a spine and fight back. Apparently, I need to be in every fight I approve or I guess disapprove of personally to be allowed to speak on it, yet you can do so without question. No. This war is entirely rational given Israel's opponents are religious zealots intent on their destruction, and how Iran has partnered with aggressive countries intent on expansion and domination.

I'm continually disgusted by people questioning my patriotism or desire to protect my own home. As if its some answer to anything that was said. It's a petty and weak comeback when you've got none. Two powerful armed to the teeth global factions who compete with each other: This is the result of it. You don't get to pick and choose the results of warmongering choices, or where those outbreaks of violence happen, because it suits one agenda more than the other.

If you want the high end, I recently went to business chat GPT which removes sora sadly but otherwise offers pretty good value. 5.0 Pro is pretty damned good. After the current project came to a close I'll be switching back to the individual chat GPT paid plan.

Demand follows supply also. If it's cheap and available, it gets purchased. You'll never remove the flight or the avoidance aspects of the human psyche. There are too many things that bring it about. You can suppress a substance or product from circulation. Suppliers, Producers and Dealers do cost society a lot of money/energy. They literally cost you money, policing and treating all of this mess. That's a fact, not a characterisation. The addicts do the same, sure, to a lesser extent, they'd just get their avoidance fix somewhere else if the dealers weren't around. There is no reasonable or rational argument you can give me that trumps flipping users on the dealers and using them to bring down the chains of supply, as a universal rule. Everyone should know it as a law, and it should be standardised. Rinse Repeat. Until its so damned difficult to run these operations they are effectively suppressed. *Dealers also cost you safety, the natural harmony and balance of society, relations between cops and people etc etc.

The sale yes. Especially in one area out of 50. Everyone would move there. It would be novel, and perhaps even become a social norm because of these factors. Amsterdam, for example. Or Hamsterdam if you've seen the wire, legalising drugs in one small area makes it hell. Spoilers obviously., A show that anyone who wants to understand this specific issue, framed this way, more deeply can watch. The use, even if this is our only consideration in what I've just talked about. It's not nearly as clear-cut. 1) Kids' natural rebellion. They do things that are illegal. 2) We are giving power to criminals. Rather than the authorities. The more illegal we make something, the more illegal power exists to take the place of legal influence. This creates a counter authority. 3) Addicts don't come forward to get help because of the threat of jail and stigma attached. - My brother actually does better when people think he's clean. He gets a job he can hold down, he gets a girl etc, is more likely to stay on the prescribed opioids until they run the dose down too low. 4) But again, you make taking out the actual rational half of this equation harder. Nailing the dealers, and burning the suppliers/producers. - There is no point to doing anything if this isn't the end goal. Locking up damaged people for picking their wounds over does nothing. Try to picture psychological or emotional wounds as serious as physical ones and apply the same principles of how to deal with them. It will lead to a better world. Would you still call me a lefty if I said America should keep a ship or two off the coast of Venezuela, and, when they know for certain it's a narcotics boat, sink it? Seems a good use of the military for once.

If it decriminlized supply in a single area. Of course it will. But I am not arguing that: You are trying to rationalise an irrational state and apply fear to it. I’ve seen, met and heard of many people from that life. All my personal experience gave me was experience and focus. There is no amount of fear that will work against a long time heroin user. No amount of loss. Prison doesn’t either, as drugs are rife in prison If you catch them early enough, maybe. I did meet a friend of his who got out of it early and heard about others. I couldn't tell you what the breaking point is, the bottom for a long-time user, I don't think there is one. Its just random luck and random variables. In this small village there was recently a chain of events, overdose – relapse/suicide – murder - suicide, that left four people dead. It's like a constant wound in that person; it doesn’t go away. You can rationalise the supply and production being criminalised, the sale, because that’s a business and it's one that is responsible for a great deal of misery and suffering for money. What you are trying to put fear over is the method someone has chosen to avoid their own personal trauma a lot of the time. Which is essentially a small childish part of themselves. So tell me does locking that up help society? That's the only point to argue at the end of it. If they are not stealing to support it: You might as well lock me up for comfort eating and disappearing into fantasy worlds. My brother just chose a much more difficult painful path to deal with things, and ultimately we both ended up in similar places in life. - Though I would argue, we are different people as a result of me dealing with my past and him avoiding it.

Alright Leo. Having had a brother grow up taking opioids for 20 years, fear did nothing. You have no idea what you are talking about, because heroin > everything. Once you start taking it you could threaten to do anything to that user. I've seen him beaten with bats, steal from his parents, do anything in response. Criminilizing someone doing heroin does absolutely nothing other than reduce (and also increase) petty crime, because its rife in prisons. It reduces it because you take the cause of the crime off the streets. It increases it because that user is doing crime to support his habit, instead of being able to come out and seek help without fear of being locked up. It also increases it because locking someone up puts them around criminals. Targeting the user is backwards. Be tough on drugs, i'm all for it, but its like kicking an injured man or woman in the shins. I'm not saying put drugs on sale or make them easier to get. I keep saying make them incredibly difficult to get, and even weaponise the addicts against dealers on mass.

In recent times white supremacy certainly was inflated.. They just had the money and military dominance recently When it comes to racism and an ego that puts their skin colour or culture above others. Humans are humans the world over. Here's Chat GPT's bullet point take of non white supremacy, i.e powers that were powerful enough to project their will over others, relatively recently. 1, Chinese Supremacy Han Chauvinism / Sinocentrism – The idea that Han Chinese culture is the center of civilization and superior to others. This influenced policies toward Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, and other minorities. Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) – Ethnic minorities were targeted to assimilate into Han culture. Uyghurs and Tibetans faced suppression of language and religion. Modern Example – Beijing’s policies in Xinjiang (mass detention of Uyghurs) and Tibet reflect ethnic-Han supremacy. 2. Japanese Imperial Supremacy Empire of Japan (early–mid 20th century) – Promoted the ideology of Yamato superiority, claiming Japanese were racially and culturally superior to other Asians. Examples: Colonization of Korea and Taiwan with policies of forced assimilation. Atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre (1937) were fueled by beliefs of Japanese superiority over Chinese. 3. Arab/Islamic Supremacy Arabization Policies – In North Africa (Sudan, Mauritania, Algeria), Arab elites imposed language and identity on non-Arab peoples (e.g., Berbers, Nubians, Black Africans). Darfur Conflict (2003–present) – Arab militias (Janjaweed) targeted Black African groups in Sudan with genocidal violence. Mauritania – Enslavement of Black Africans by Arab/Moor elites persisted into the 21st century, rooted in a supremacist hierarchy. 4. Russian Supremacy Russian Imperial Movement – A far-right ultranationalist group promoting ethnic Russian superiority. Soviet & Post-Soviet Russification – Ethnic minorities (Chechens, Tatars, Georgians, etc.) were pressured to adopt Russian language and identity. Chechen Wars (1990s–2000s) – Moscow portrayed Chechens as “less civilized,” reinforcing a supremacist attitude. 5. Hindu Supremacy (India) Hindutva Ideology (20th century–present) – Promotes Hindu identity as superior to Muslims, Christians, and lower castes. Examples: Anti-Muslim riots (Gujarat 2002). Ongoing campaigns against Christian and Muslim minorities in India. 6. African Supremacy Movements Hutu Power in Rwanda (1994) – Ethnic Hutu extremists promoted Hutu supremacy over Tutsis, leading to genocide (800,000 killed in 100 days). Nigeria’s Boko Haram & Fulani Militias – Use Islamic supremacist rhetoric to dominate other religious and ethnic groups. 7. Other Examples Turkey – Kemalist and later Turkish nationalist policies suppressed Kurds, Armenians, and Greeks (“Turkification”). Myanmar (Burma) – Buddhist/Bamar supremacist ideology has fueled persecution of Rohingya Muslims (genocide, 2016–present). Sri Lanka – Sinhala Buddhist nationalism marginalized and oppressed Tamils (leading to civil war).

Racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Arab_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia ---- Supremacy: (Russia) https://www.e-ir.info/2024/11/01/russias-status-as-a-colonial-power/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Imperial_Movement (China) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinocentrism To do Arab's i'd need to tackle religion, and I neither want to or have the time to tonight. Sadly, this is not confined to one area on earth. Though I do agree white supremacy is having an upswing, largely due to the alignment with eastern powers, but also gender role realignment and elements of Fascism taking hold (Heroic masculinity for example). I blame a lot of people for this, I've said it before, in no small part the spiritual teachers who ushered it in.

Because nobody's pro-life. They are pro birth. Nobody in these arguments considers the child or mother after the event. Which is, you know, the next 60+ years of their and the child's life. Good arguments can be made for pro birth, the birthrate falling for one, and not being able to carry the older generations in the workforce, faith, morality, family values, and responsibility etc. Good arguments can be made against, drugs, lack of foster care, crime, abuse, rape etc. But people argue about: an unconscious yet to be born fetus vs a woman's individual rights to make a choice: Both sides are devoid of arguing any other responsibilities social or personal. Both sides of it drive me nuts.

Only in as much as China, Russia and now America influence Europe. Which is not slight but nor absolute. They'd have to be able to step outside of their own perspective to adjust their strategy here, which so far I've seen no indication they are able to. With America, it's easy. Just yell about freedom a bit, bribe the politicians, yell the word change every so often and bingo, you've got your guy/influence in power. I'm not going to lay out why Euorpe is different, I'll leave that entire process up to BRICS from start to finish, if they want to claw out democracy here they'll need to do so the hard way, and probably change themselves in the attempt.

It's a tricky definition as it depends on intent. If the intent is merely disparagement or derogatory, then its unhelpful, inflammatory and causes problems. If the intent is constructive or to highlight an issue, then it could be argued to be useful, de-escalatory and fix problems. If I say Russian's drink their problems away. I'd be better wording it as: The Russian people have a tendency to turn to vodka because they feel suppressed socially and politically, with no real outlet for their problems to be expressed. The Vodka acts as a both a symptom and a further cause of this suppression of their emotional state. Something English people, and to a certain extent men in general experience, stiff upper-lip is the english expression etc. If I were to say Russians, the English or men have a problem. It's even less clear whether I am being derogatory or just bigoted for the sake of being bigoted. But of course, we don't always have time to word things in long sentences in conversations either, so we standardise communication. There is something wrong with you arab people. There is SOMETHING WRONG with you white people. This to me, is a bad example of it. As anyone in ego identification with their skin color or culture is going to respond negatively. *Also for the record, for the wider population who don't meditate or have healthier outlets, a certain amount of drink could be argued to be socially useful and bonding. Because what have we replaced the pubs with in England, nothing much social or healthy that's for sure.

Wow. I'm on at least four of those lists from a neutral perspective, if its Trumps perspective i'm on most of them. If Trump's deciding what Traditional American morality is - I assume almost the whole planet would be on the list for that one. How many sexual assault and corruption cases has he had, i've lost count. *Hold on, isn't trump himself on this list then? He's also tried to overthrow the government. Huh. Just when I think America can't go more authoritarian and capitalist, it suprises me, Kudos.

Your morality is also dwarfed by a greater Leo consciousness. Let's say 10 years from now. It doesn't mean their, your or my morals don't exist. *I wouldn't even say dwarfed as it makes no sense to me but it fits the context. Its just a different set of principles.

Still a necessary war against the Axis powers of Iran, Russia, China etc, just executed with such a ham-fisted authoritarian approach, I don't think they could have done it any worse PR wise. It is like Israel has gone out of their way to make itself appear the evil villain here. I couldn't have written a script where they did a better job. A bit like Russia hitting civilians every week, only worse if that's at all possible, which apparently it is. What a world we live in. People ask me why the 90s were better. At this point I don't answer them.

As a big deal was made of the propaganda push last month here is what is left of the suicidal charge in three encirclements. As I said at the time, it was propaganda for Trump, its not how Russia fight and yet everyone bought into it. I think there are about 1,000 men or so total in those 3 encirclements left cut off. The third is an encirclement by drones. Something to understand about how war is fought now, is drones create a barrier, and this barrier is getting bigger as drone technology grows. Its the same across the Korean border, they create their own buffer zone, and could potentially freeze the conflict, or all conflicts eventually for many years, or escalate them with a long reach and little defense against it.