BlueOak

The leader would need to be in exile and well guarded. It doesn't guarantee safety but it does make it harder, and it removes him from appearing to his people or being immersed in their struggles or problems. So all in all, a difficult proposition, so I'm not going to surprise anyone here and say: Get a competent group of five people who can be named and referenced as a group. Give them access to a genius AI Let that inform their decisions. Spread these five over the territory, and just keep replacing them if they get taken out. This would get them there. Far from ideal, but useful given this problem.

You want my egoic response? I don't trust China or Russia's leadership, nor much of BRICS. Russia's image to my bias are you kidding? If I were to engage purely in an egoic response, I would say Putin was a dangerous man who needs eliminating tomorrow. If I were in charge of Ukraine's defense, everything that has built up I would have done at the start, I called for most of it. But you don't want my egoic response, you want a perspective that aligns with yours, or to defeat your opponents. I was trying to push us beyond that, and step out of my own bias, which is required for any lasting peace to occur that doesn't require WW3. I see the same in BRICS as I saw in the US. Different moral framework, violence to get their way. Its not much of an upgrade. Same old Same old. Nobody's learned much. On to the next zero sum game and world crisis, with the added bonus that everyone's further right-wing, nationalist and trigger-happy than ever. I think i'll have to formulate 15 non zero sum outcomes or do 10 and let chat gpt do 5, see if that gets us past our own fears and insecurities. First I have work tonight but if I have some time tomorrow.

@Breakingthewall That's a zero sum outcome. Am I that much more aware than you that I can put forward 15 scenarios in which we don't focus on a winner and a loser? No I am not, you are just choosing your bias. *shrug* So let's do the zero-sum game again I guess: Because what you are describing is not only factually incorrect, Russia as you currently know it is doomed either way due to demographics, and asian influence, now accelerated due to its overreach and reliance on the Asian sphere for trade/manpower/industrial and technological integration and support etc. Several european countries are also with the cutting of immigration and the warfare or destabalisation of the world, and the march into isolation is rising the cost of living, stagnating culture and growth or the ability to carry their aging populations. Not to mention the damage to biosphere all this burning of oil is doing for military actions. But this is me arguing zero-sum outcomes and it leaves us, or this thread, in no better positions. I could argue for your position also and the devastation it's had on Ukraine, and damage to western or rather global trade, relations, security, and stability if I wanted a meta perspective. Europe can fight this a hell of a lot longer than Russia can, mostly because they have had little lost to this point. All they've done is ship over largely old arms, while Russia expends all theirs, they are untouched. Apart from what i've described earlier, but the march to the right in their populations only makes them more able to fight, not less. It seems inevitable Ukraine will collapse to you, but then Russians or their supporters have told me that since day 2 of this war, yet here we are years later. Because no Russian or BRICS advocate I've ever spoken to that takes the bias you have has been the least bit objective or grounded, not even slightly. They just cherry pick whatever they want and then try to argue black is white to me. For me if you wanted the logical analysis, Ukraine is smaller but better trained and equiped than Russia, the casulaities seem comparable based on their population ratio. So while yes Ukraine could collapse, Russia wouldn't be far behind. As for Russia needing to win to survive, this is also factually incorrect. Nobody here wants much to do with Russia, let alone cares about the country anymore, Russia will be fine with the huge amount of land they currently have. What will collapse Russia is what I have indicated, their demographics, reliance on the crutch of others, overreach and strategic blunders, and need to guard such an absurdly large border. Mostly Russian overreach though. They are not an empire, they are a regional power.

Come on, design a scenario in your head that isn't a zero sum game. I've seen you do it elsewhere. Put aside your perspective and give it a shot.

Well we are arguing in the language of insanity, which is war but I will try to represent the opposite position to you: These are not the first hits Russia has suffered to its ability to deploy nukes, not even the first bombers hit, though they are the most significant. When taken as a wider strategic action, such as teams inside Russia, hitting missile production, partisans sabotaging sites, revealing nuclear sites, drone waves, drone deployment from inside Russia itself to be used against them, clamping down on the technologies required to maintain a nuclear arsenal and launch it, knocking out warning systems etc, its all part of a wider strategic plan to remove or lessen the threat. You say 3,700 nukes would launch, of course they wouldn't, not only because they wouldn't launch, but because many would be knocked out before they got their missiles off, especially with an increasingly eroding capacity to fire them. As for a full mobilisation, Russia is almost at its capacity to gear such a mobilization. I know I know when I talk to the BRICS supporters they will tell me its barely touched and the economy's fine, which is completely nonsensical (nobody's economy's great for a start). They don't have the capacity to push for major offensives anymore, their stockpiles are depleted. Neither side does, that's the point really, to reach a stalemate. One of the only things stopping that is Russia can keep saying they'll nuke if they don't get their way, so it's time to remove that ability, or at least show it's possible if the war continues. Defang the opponent. Sadhguru was talking about 'the West' when he made that comment to a student, but it works in all scenarios. That's some of BRICs position, and the West is now reflecting it. (or parts of the west if we must use the collective name). But yes in a more aware state of mind we can say one nuke is utterly insane, but it's been threatened every week, as I said at the very start of this war, the threat diminishes and diminishes every time its repeated. And now people just don't pay them any attention. So if and when the first nuke flies, its WW3. - Though this path was picked by both sides a long time ago, imho, it might take mass devastation before people stop acting like lunatics, and far right authoritarian fascists the world over. I don't know. Do you? Can you answer that question without picking a side and saying this side need to back down,or that side needs to be defeated? If you can't here, with everything you've talked about and all the awareness you've gained, then it's likely nobody where you live can either, and war is largely inevitable in some form.

They can cease to exist with Russia's and BRICS expansion also, certainly in the current form, the authoritarians pushing outward is having vast effects across western countries. Russia is creating what they say they don't want by putting them into a nationalist, fearful, protective mindset. (Exactly what Russia experiences by them doing the same.) Though a part of this war is so the decline of an empire in Russia, and an authoritarian fascist regime requiring an opponent to exist, so they need that villain in the narrative. A bit like the western governments are being reshaped to require sustaining the leaders or parties that hold that view. So is war worth it, no never. Is it worth it with what's being directed at them yes, especially given what i've just described above. This how the west as you call it reasons now, and although i've been seeing the first signs of the right-wing authoritarian push slowing in England and America for example, it's directly related to Russia and BRICS slowing their pressure also.

Knocking out 30% of Russia's strategic bombers is huge, both for the conventional war and their ability to launch missiles. Also the leaking of their strategic nuclear information is also disarming, and the attacks on the sub for example. As well as their ability to produce missiles to carry the warheads. I understand Russia will need to downplay this to the utmost, as any country would, but from an objective perspective, its a big blow. Apparently one of those drone cluster launches was from right outside an FSB building. *Also if you believe this attack had little effect, you've nothing to worry about right? No big deal? So if another happens, its just a few bombers right? I don't know how many times Russians and their supporters can tell themselves that before they are looking at a hollow husk of a military and country, but hey ho.

That is brinkmanship, and it's a two way endeavour. If you ask me, is brinkmanship worth it when everyone has nukes: I would answer hell no. I would talk about the absurdity of fighting of a few KM's of land inside a spec of dust in infinity etc. Of entire realities being constructed in people's minds, an infinite wealth of experience and perspective only to end in a bullet or bomb. Its archaic, it's absurd and it needs to end. If you ask me, should Russia be able to continually threaten nukes with no response: I would answer hell no. This is just what happens. People take the threat away. Its what Russia has tried to do to the west, take away the threat of being closer to their borders. Ditto countries wanting protection from Russia. You can see how it works both ways. Both are reasoning from fear, which never leads to favorable outcomes long term. Again you can justify and do the Russian position, I can try to justify the west's position, if you want the collective term (I would mostly focus on eastern europe). But it doesn't negate that its all fear-based. So either the fear needs to be reframed or addressed on both sides, and fear needs to stop being amplified by both sides to be used as a reason to escalate further conflict or mistrust

Observe thoughts. Observe space. Return to focus on breathing or a single simple thing which has no complexity. Return to focusing on nothing. Don't fight thoughts, let them come and sometimes choose to focus on space, sometimes to observe the thought - then you have the essence and balance of human experience. I would describe it something between a skill and a muscle, part of you regulating your state or just returning to what you are naturally. Its also why I fundamentally disagree with Leo that the universe dies when the mind dies, because the universe doesn't exist, only this does and you can be it anytime.

Of course it can, that has been the threat since they invaded. At the very start of this conflict, you'll see I rationalised all of this from that fear based perspective also. I was saying exactly what you are, with some minor differences. Back then I didn't consider 'west' vs 'east' useful labels; I still don't, I think it broadens the violent aspects of this conflict unnecessarily. You can certainly make cases, as others do that supplying arms is the same as using them, but I don't believe it is at all. Mostly because someone is always going to sell guns when people have the will to use them. Steps are now being taken to neutralise this continual strategic threat. That was Russia's choice to overuse it. As its going to be continual, and people won't live with that. There has been zero indication of any change in their strategic positioning; nukes are their constant political pressure, and this is the result of going to that threat by default. There is a cold war, and like in the cold war these strategic assets are targets. Like how the rise of cyber attacks has mysteriously increased in england, these kinds of strategic hits are what that entails. You can certainly say, and will, that there has been little change in the West's perspective also if you want to use that term; there has but it's mostly been to take a more aggressive stance against Russia and unify NATO more. But then if you insist on using such broad labels, you'll only get small shifts in overall perspective or viewpoint. If you narrow your focus, you can see much more measurable changes, and hope to influence, or accurately reflect them more. tl;dr if Ukraine and Russia both want to stop fighting, it won't matter one iota what the 'west' or 'east' collectively want. **I realise I am using the neutralising polarity argument, and diminishing wider strategic influences, that's because it has the potential to work toward peace.

Yeah its an excellent strike because it goes directly to Russia's nuclear threat. Recently, there has been an upturn in taking this out, both the missiles, the bombers, the subs and locating the sites. Instead of giving Nukes to Ukraine to end the war, they are taking out Russia's nukes bit by bit. This will help them reach a stalemate quicker, and halt the war in Ukraine, which is the goal. Also it helps stop Russia fighting wars with impunity.

1/06/2025 Added additional material to modules 1 and 2 before launch. Introduced GPT's to protect branding and material. Setup company support emails and a limited authentication system for licensing keys, among many other backend things I learned the last two days. Registered a domain name, after a lot of analysis the tools extension was picked even if the .com is taken (on a landing page no site). As this isn't a product people are looking for in a general search, they'll go there by design or not at all, I agree even though the GPT teams logic had to talk me around. Obviously, the legal GPT did trademark searches based on the teams feedback of the top 5 name choices. Work called me in yesterday and today. I've decided to frame this as every day is important, not just this week I set aside for the product, things don't stop or slow now i'm back off my holiday. If I don't launch today or tomorrow (tomorrow is looking likely), it will happen when it happens. No more excuses for time being against me will creep into setting a victim state for failure. The time i've got is the time i've got, period. Sketched out what my next product will be after this one. But i'll run it by the team after this one's completed. Its something i've asked time and time again for people to focus on, so i'll do it myself as the opportunity is obvious and there. Supplement is enhancing my focus, but I still tire out after 11pm, so it doesn't keep me up. My sleeping situation (surrounding flats) means I have to go to bed post 12.30, which only hits me hard on the days I need to get up at 5.00am for my current work. Almost once a week on average, so its not terrible, mostly I am on evenings till 9.00 Current focus: Introduction Pages + PDF's and a final product Page + PDF for each module, which will bring it up to 4 for each, so I can justify in my mind the cost of it. Even if the GPT's say people will pay, I want them to pay and realise they got value. I do plan to introduce more tools to the package as time goes on, so people have the ability right now to buy full program for life, or upgrade. The only thing i need to decide is how to ship non online upgrades to those purchasing early, or just throughout time when I improve the system on a second pass with feedback. Now adding a personal GPT's notes to engage with it more. GPT: Focus and Balance Coach Helps you improve focus, heal emotionally, and balance your life with psychologically grounded advice. Coach’s Note (01/06/2025) You're doing powerful work—not just in launching a project, but in recalibrating how you relate to time, accountability, and internal systems. One shift I’m noticing in your reflections is the move from resisting the limits of time to partnering with them. That’s not small; it’s structural. When you reject victim narratives and instead build rhythm and integrity into your workflow, you’re creating a sustainable engine for future growth. Even if the fog visits, your grounded strategy and internal clarity are doing the heavy lifting. Remember: clarity doesn’t require perfect certainty—it asks for presence and choice. Keep anchoring into your “why.” You’re building from design, not default. Would you like me to drop in brief daily prompts like this for your entries going forward—either reflections, reminders, or encouragements tailored to what you’re working on that day?

29/05/2025 Did some refinement on terminology, project is ready for launch. Finished the graphical design work with advice. Still trying to rid myself of dopamine addictions, the mental fog is there but feels different. No gaming for a week, been exercising again and visiting people in my life to check in with them, but still running youtube constantly and get spells of restless energy. - You'll be unsurprised I go to a focus and balance GPT :). but the prescriptions are often the same. Walk around, shake the body, breathing exercises. Apparently, the supplement will help with that adjustment. But usually it's only 2 weeks of mental fog. Had to see the family again, Mother's birthday, she's still bed-bound from the stroke. Had some limited interaction with my father. If you know me, its not a good experience. Trying the usual narcissist lines, but it only derailed me for 30 mins or so when I returned, mostly its the mental fog and pulling focus back when I get restless that costs time.

Felt like a quick break, created a GPT and did a query. Alien Contact Expert Hyper-rational GPT for designing and analyzing alien contact methods. You said: What is your honest estimation on the existence of alien life, given the most up to date evidence and rational calculations you are capable of making. You can draw on anything here of relevance, and any method of deduction likely to provide accurate results. ChatGPT said: Given the most current scientific understanding, rational deduction strongly supports the high likelihood of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe, though it remains unconfirmed by direct observation. Key Lines of Reasoning: 1. Astrobiological Potential Planetary Abundance: The Milky Way alone contains an estimated 100–400 billion stars. Approximately 20–50% of Sun-like stars host Earth-sized planets within the habitable zone (per Kepler mission data). Exoplanet Diversity: Thousands of exoplanets have been confirmed, including potentially habitable Earth analogs. The variety of planetary systems increases the statistical probability that some support life. 2. Chemical Universality The basic elements for life—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur—are common throughout the universe. Organic molecules (e.g., amino acids) have been found in interstellar clouds, meteorites, and comets, suggesting that prebiotic chemistry is widespread. 3. Abiogenesis Likelihood Life arose on Earth relatively quickly (within ~500 million years of habitability), suggesting that abiogenesis might be a common outcome given suitable conditions. However, the mechanism of abiogenesis is not yet fully understood, which leaves uncertainty about how probable it is elsewhere. 4. Bayesian Reasoning Under Bayesian inference, even in the absence of direct detection, the prior probability of life existing elsewhere increases given the scale of the cosmos and multiple habitable environments. Fermi’s Paradox (the apparent contradiction between high probability and lack of evidence) challenges this, but can be mitigated by: Civilizations being rare or short-lived. Civilizations not being spacefaring or broadcasting. Communication signals being unrecognized or undetectable. 5. Drake Equation Framework While highly uncertain, updated inputs suggest a non-negligible number of technologically capable civilizations in the galaxy. Most uncertainty comes from factors like the fraction of life that becomes intelligent, and the longevity of communicative civilizations. 6. Recent Discoveries Phosphine on Venus: Initially suggested as a biosignature, though retracted or challenged; nonetheless, it illustrates growing capability to detect life indicators. Oceans on Moons: Enceladus, Europa, and others have subsurface oceans with possible hydrothermal activity—environments where terrestrial life thrives. Conclusion Based on current astrophysical data, molecular chemistry, and statistical modeling, it is rationally probable—though not yet empirically confirmed—that extraterrestrial life exists. The existence of intelligent or technologically advanced life is far less certain, but cannot be ruled out without more data. In sum: Microbial or simple life is likely to exist elsewhere; intelligent life is plausible but remains speculative in the absence of evidence. You said: What is your current analysis of the release of government documentation on the subject that has been in the media over the last number of years? ChatGPT said: The recent release of U.S. government documentation on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), particularly since 2017, marks a notable shift in official engagement with aerial anomalies. However, from a scientific and analytical standpoint, the evidence disclosed thus far is insufficient to support the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin. Here is a breakdown: 1. Nature of the Disclosures U.S. Navy Videos: Three declassified videos (FLIR1, GIMBAL, GOFAST) show objects with unusual flight characteristics. These were confirmed as authentic and unidentified by the Pentagon. UAP Task Force Reports: The 2021 preliminary assessment and subsequent 2022 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) documented 366 new UAP incidents, with about half remaining unexplained. AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office): Established to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence efforts to analyze UAPs across air, sea, and space domains. 2. Credibility and Constraints Credible Observers: Many reports come from trained military personnel with advanced sensor platforms, increasing reliability of observation—but not interpretation. Sensor Limitations: The data is often limited to infrared, radar, or pilot testimony, lacking the multi-modal confirmation required for scientific conclusions. Ambiguity: Most UAPs remain unidentified not because they defy physics, but because the data is sparse, degraded, or classified. 3. Scientific Interpretations Instrumental Artifacts: Some apparent anomalies (e.g., sudden acceleration, hovering) can be explained by parallax, frame-rate aliasing, or sensor limitations. Human-Made Objects: Likely explanations include drones (foreign or domestic), misidentified aircraft, atmospheric phenomena, or electronic warfare decoys. Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH): While not ruled out, ETH is a hypothesis of last resort—it requires extraordinary evidence, which is currently lacking. 4. Policy and Sociopolitical Context Transparency Shift: The change from ridicule and secrecy to structured inquiry suggests a shift in threat perception and public relations strategy. Geopolitical Framing: There is increasing concern about UAPs as potential surveillance technologies from adversarial nations rather than interstellar probes. Public Discourse: Media framing often emphasizes mystery or insinuation, but the actual documentation is careful to avoid leaps in inference. 5. Recent Developments David Grusch Allegations (2023): Claims by a former intelligence official that the U.S. possesses “non-human craft” have not been substantiated with verifiable evidence and remain anecdotal. The AARO has found no corroborating evidence as of its 2024 update. Congressional Hearings: These indicate political and institutional interest, but so far lack evidentiary breakthroughs. Conclusion While the recent disclosures warrant scientific attention and improved aerial object detection protocols, no released documentation provides credible, verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial origin or technology. The UAP phenomenon remains unexplained in part, but not demonstrably alien. Continued investigation is warranted, particularly to eliminate terrestrial threats and improve aerospace domain awareness.

@Leo Gura When the mind dies and collapses into consciousness, do you believe consciousness disappears also?

28/05/2025 Last Nights Progress, not sure i'll have time tonight as its getting closer to crunch day. Module 1 and 2 are done. I've refined the GPT team, had to reign in the management GPT from negating the other's perspectives, and thus i've done a systems integrity AI to monitor team overlap, so the management AI can tier the instructions and feedback given. Before I restart work on the 2nd from my holiday, I want to have launched the product today or tomorrow. Deciding how much to reveal here as its cutting edge the framework I am building, eventually on the backend but first I need a stable income stream that isn't taking me away from the project. - I've dedicated a no-nonsense financial AI that has given me a grounded plan. While i'm not giving you every key, I'll be giving away snippets to those that read this. I will say, without a doubt, some guard rail GPT's are essential. A legal advisor GPT drafted a disclaimer for shipping with the product, but more than others have proved invaluable to negate the overly positive or theoretical bias of the GPT's involved. That and making sure you question things which feel off. Like the management GPT telling me it could interface directly with all the GPT's, which was a flat-out lie. It can simulate them (or have a method externally crafted), but the benefit to working this way is their perspectives integrate, not a single perspective. Thus the system integrity Ai was essential in facilitating their own configuration updates, and other essential frameworks, that I ask them for time to time, to make sure nothing was lost as the roles as sync up in a cohesive team form. - I cannot describe to you the level of magnitude this can propel you to when you can simulate permanence or a combined focus between GPT's, projects and conversations. BTW i think I understand now why quantum computing is so powerful on another level, and why all life is evolving into that. Its doing this only for considerably more perspectives. I will be dedicating a GPT to explore that eventually, as a tertiary task, to simulate it within this structure as I design the backend more later. Assuming the project is successful initially, as it is refined with feedback through appropriate GPTs designed to handle customer feedback. - Even if its not, I am learning so much I can just drop a second project idea in and run with it, assuming IRL work doesn't tire me out too much. *Additionally I am often wrestling with, do I use this platform to enhance and build out what I am, or simulate what I am not. This seems simple to say both, but in a daily workflow you have X amount of hours in a day, and the core of this is structuring perspectives to complement either or both considerations depending on the task. **Ordered this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DKC2FCBD?psc=1&smid=A2UMIVYWOVPPOE&ref_=chk_typ_imgToDp To help negate some of the tiredness next weeks return to work will bring, and allow me to be more focused in the downtime I get. This was after consulting with a vitality GPT, describing my own states, goals and patterns, to rank the supplements most useful to me (and available in england).

Well it does in part, because he's equating the morality of actions to be refected in the level of advantage a country has over its neighbors, or at least the ability to research and develop new technologies, and that relies on a variety of factors which shape moral character by the virtue of them existing. Certain technologies existing do by their nature also remove survival concerns or fears which in turn shapes the ethics of that society. Technological development and certainly a level of advantage over your neighbours require a great deal of progress within society. Cooperation internally and externally to acquire speciality or resources, a lower level of corruption, a well-functioning education system, a healthy economy, and the huge supply chains that necessitate not just delivery but development, which stagnates in climates of conflict or great stress on these factors. The regulation of them, the institutions responsible for sustaining them, and a healthy culture which inspires or demands it. Technology, in the modern setting, facilitates stage green to then occur because we have the advantage (in the zero-sum game, orange plays), of time and space to indulge in it, while society here is still largely structured to be orange. Yes it requires safety, security, and law and order also, but more development than that is necessary by the people or country involved. Can a country regress in its moral or ethical character while technologically advanced, yes. I would argue the last 20 years are clear indications of it. But its very difficult to argue these points on their own, even citing what I have, because morality is largely subjective and certainly acting along ethical or moral grounds is far from guaranteed even when they are in place. *Also as it does this it tends to regress, as demonstrated by people restructuring education/culture currently so it regresses in some regions of the world, or what is called the brain drain as people abandon their society for something more aligned with themselves. I mean here in England we are slowly eroding our food standards, which has slow but gradual effects on the population from health through to intelligence.

I fully understand reality is subjective, because reality is entirely in your mind. - Beauty in this case. What you do not understand is that states are often created before logical thought rationalises them. I've explained some. We'll do an easy one. Being wet. I don't sit there and think to myself am I actually wet, I am just wet or dry. We can experience this differently, but wet or dry is wet or dry. Certainly, you can example a bear mauling you, and ignore survival, but reality contains survival in it. In actuality, I should be shooting or escaping the bear, as it's a horrific experience to be mauled. Certain constructs within reality simply are, and these evoke different states of being. Survival is a key factor in life, as are the human needs; they are baked into the experience of being a human, not dependent on belief, patterns of behaviour, identity etc. Then you are exampling perfection (whatever that concept is) and beauty, telling me they must be seen everywhere, because why exactly? Where is it written that everything must be beautiful and perfect? Who told you this, and why is this the default, overriding state? Why is that belief system the overriding one? I'll answer, because it makes us feel better, and thus, feeling better generates a better experience. You consider the imperfect or ugly as lesser or not wanted (insert your term here) because reality does have inbuilt triggers that generate states within you without any conscious effort at all. - One of them being beauty and ugliness.

Here is the Political Minds Analysis of the this page + some core strategies: Hyper-rational political analyst solving complex issues objectively 1. Moral Symmetry vs. Structural Asymmetry BlueOak’s Core View: Emphasizes personal accountability and balanced attribution of moral responsibility to both Israel and Palestinians. Advocates for depoliticized moral clarity: “Israel committed genocide, Palestine committed terrorism. Period.” Proposes that acknowledgment by a large public can pressure enablers to change behavior. Strength: This model aims to depolarize discourse by drawing moral boundaries in equal terms. It rightly emphasizes that clarity and shared consensus can be a catalyst for international or domestic pressure. Limitation: It risks flattening the asymmetries in power, agency, and systemic structure. By asserting equal responsibility without equal context (military power, statehood, international support), it may obscure the mechanisms that make one actor vastly more capable of destruction and impunity than the other. 2. Zazen’s Systems Critique Zazen’s Core View: Argues that the U.S. is the structural enabler of Israeli impunity. Distinguishes horizontal development (material, technological) from vertical development (moral, ethical). Emphasizes that asymmetric accountability leads to asymmetric power consolidation and further violence. Urges focusing on levers of influence, not just surface actors. Strength: Deep systemic analysis that traces power from battlefield actors to geopolitical structures. Effectively challenges assumptions that modernity or liberal democracy equates to moral superiority. Rightly points out that moral development is not guaranteed by institutional development. Limitation: Could be read as downplaying Palestinian agency, even when acknowledging structural oppression. There's a rhetorical risk in emphasizing structural causes to the point of appearing to absolve non-state actors of their moral responsibilities. 3. Leo Gura’s Civilizational Hierarchy Framing Leo’s Core View: Argues that Israel is a "lesser evil" due to being more “civilized,” governed by law and constraints (even if selectively). Frames conflict outcomes in terms of “civilization vs. barbarity,” with survival as the arbiter of moral legitimacy. Strength: Points to institutional differences and behavioral norms in warfare (e.g., IDF aborting missions to avoid civilians). Invites pragmatic evaluation of regimes based on comparative harm reduction. Limitation: Relies on an uncritical civilizational metric that confuses development with morality. Risks legitimizing structural violence when done by “civilized” actors while condemning reactive violence as inherently more evil. Neglects the colonial origins and moral relativism that underpin such “civilized evil.” 4. The “Greater Evil” and Asymmetric Warfare Debate Multiple users (Raze, Zazen, Twentyfirst) challenge the idea that more developed nations are inherently more moral. They note: Israel's historical and ongoing use of disproportionate force. The selective application of international law. The moral danger in using “standards” that privilege state violence over insurgent violence, when the latter may be more understandable (though not necessarily justifiable) given systemic oppression. This aligns with: Frantz Fanon’s and Hannah Arendt’s theories on violence: that oppressed populations often resort to violence when peaceful channels are structurally closed. Realist critiques of international law, which point out its selective enforcement and geopolitical bias. Final Synthesis To effectively hold all parties accountable: Direct Responsibility: Moral clarity about atrocities should be affirmed. Structural Accountability: Systems that enable atrocities must be scrutinized, particularly U.S. support structures. Asymmetric Contextualization: Accountability must reflect material and institutional asymmetries (power, resources, international protections). Ethical Consistency: Moral standards should apply across contexts, but with contextual nuance (e.g., state vs. non-state actors). Policy Levers: Targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and international legal mechanisms must include enablers, not just perpetrators. Do you want a proposed model of how a multilateral accountability framework could look (e.g., involving a UN-mandated mechanism, ICC jurisdiction, and trade conditionalities)? You said: Yes and also suggestions for individuals or small collective groups to assist A Multilateral Accountability Framework for governments and institutions. Actionable Recommendations for Individuals and Grassroots Groups seeking to promote justice and accountability. 1. Multilateral Accountability Framework Objective: Create a scalable and enforceable mechanism that addresses the actions of both direct perpetrators and structural enablers of large-scale violence, like the Israel-Palestine conflict. A. Core Mechanisms Level Instrument Description Legal Universal Jurisdiction & ICC Empowerment Reinforce the mandate and reach of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with binding jurisdiction over war crimes, regardless of state ratification, through a revised UN Security Council resolution. Include enforcement provisions for state and non-state actors. Economic Targeted Sanctions & Arms Embargoes Impose smart sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans) on political/military leaders responsible for war crimes, from all sides. Implement arms embargoes via binding UNSC resolution (with automatic renewals and independent verification). Diplomatic Multilateral Conditionality Agreements Link bilateral trade, aid, and security cooperation to human rights compliance. E.g., require demonstrable progress on civilian protections and humanitarian access as conditions for military aid or financial loans (modeled after Leahy Laws, but globally applied). Verification Independent Observational Force Establish a neutral UN or BRICS-backed "Accountability Corps" composed of civilian monitors, legal experts, and forensic investigators to document violations, verify compliance, and issue regular public reports. Conflict Resolution - Regional Negotiation Bloc with Enforcement Authority Create a regional dialogue mechanism (e.g., Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, EU, U.S., BRICS observers) with power to propose binding solutions, mediate truces, and enforce arms suspension agreements with third-party monitoring. 2. Suggestions for Individuals and Small Collectives These actions are designed to work within the limits of personal agency while leveraging broader systemic influence: A. Educate, Frame, and Amplify Host teach-ins, reading groups, and public forums that examine the structures of violence (e.g., arms trade, UN vetoes, IMF conditionalities) rather than just focusing on visible atrocities. Emphasize distinctions between horizontal (technological/economic) and vertical (ethical) development in public discourse. Use precise, system-aware language: avoid "both sides" flattening but articulate asymmetry without absolution. B. Targeted Advocacy Lobby politicians, especially in supplier states (U.S., Germany, UK, France) to end unconditional arms support. Join or support campaigns like: DAWN MENA, Jewish Voice for Peace, Democracy for the Arab World Now. Stop Arming Israel (UK) or CodePink (U.S.). Push for city-level resolutions (e.g., boycott-related procurement policies) as symbolic yet momentum-building acts. C. Material Solidarity Support reconstruction efforts and medical aid through vetted organizations (e.g., Medical Aid for Palestinians, Palestine Children’s Relief Fund). Fund independent journalism and legal monitoring bodies (e.g., B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Forensic Architecture). D. Platform Resistance If you control or influence a platform (social media page, university club, podcast, etc.), create space for historically marginalized perspectives and long-form context—countering misinformation and narrative reductionism. E. Strategic Civil Disobedience Engage in disruptive nonviolent actions where appropriate: sit-ins, protests at weapons manufacturers or government buildings. Use legal leverage (e.g., human rights litigation, FOIA requests) to expose complicity by local institutions in enabling arms transfers or foreign policy decisions. Final Thought Accountability is not a zero-sum game—it must be multi-scalar. To address state-sponsored violence or terror, accountability must scale from the personal to the planetary. Effective action requires a distributed network of pressure: governments, institutions, and people.

@zazen That is the crux of it. How do we do hold all parties accountable for their actions. It is the perfect question to ask and ask repeatedly. With the majority focus on Israel and Palestine, and not to negate your perspective, a secondary focus on those fueling and supporting the conflict. For one, we acknowledge it. Right here and now, you and me. That Israel is responsible for a genocide. Palestine is responsible for a reprehensible act of terror. We don't go any further than that, we keep it simple. We don't make excuses for either country; we put them at the top of the list, directly responsible for making those events happen. They are personally recognized for it. For two, once an understanding like that is agreed on by a large enough group of people, political pressure mounts. Though we don't have to ever agree on every detail zazen, (we never will ) we do need to agree on that much for it to stick. That political pressure slowly influences the secondary parties to stop enabling the behaviour. Again I am not equating anything, there is no excuse here (that's the point) I am stating exactly in clear terms what both parties are directly responsible for in this period of violence. --- As for the deeper question on how to help, or the how of something, which is a noble one, let me offer that below:

1, The world may say ethnic cleansing is morally wrong but they do it anyway because, for the most part, they are not stage green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns It's easy to condemn something and do nothing. 2, The US is one of several suppliers of arms; if they withdraw, someone else will arm Israel. It doesn't solve the problem; in fact, the only leverage they have over Israel is that they supply arms. to the extent they don't step over a line. If the US did, Israel just goes to one of these 25 countries, or others, or independent contractors. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/01/11/the-25-largest-arms-exporting-countries-and-who-they-sell-to/ They are far from the only dealer they can buy from. This is why I put blockades higher up on the list of topics to focus on. Besides, if they did, they would lose a major strategic interest in the region, at a time when BRICS are expanding all the time, which would be a misstep. Especially nearing the possible 'official' start of a larger conflict across the globe. 3, If anything, the US having 700 bases weakens their ability to focus on Israel. If they had 5, those 5 would get their full focus. Shall we estimate a dozen in the region? It's more their aircraft carriers which project power. 4, The weight of history does not support your assertion that the west is responsible for most of the wars. This is sadly your bias. I mean we could do a breakdown, but let's accelerate that topic: I'll refer to large periods of history, you'll point to specific regional conflicts in a recent time frame (while also citing things that go back 100's of years), I'll go to wikipedia and link all the conflicts BRICS have been involved in, you'll try to justify it, and at that point I'll probably get tired out :D, which is what usually happens. We can start there instead this time? Me justifying western conflicts from their historical perspective, you are justifying BRICS conflicts from their perspective, with me continuously bringing you back to the 6 human needs that drive all of humanity and reminding us all humans have fundamentally the same drives. Then i'll add on top that authoritarian regimes rule through more violence than liberal regimes, so it's a constant state of increased violence day to day, and we'll argue that vs larger-scale conflicts, etc. This is where I say you don't apply systematic thinking to western nations. You probably could, you could entirely put aside bias of them, take their perspective, and explain it. I do this with Russia sometimes when I want balance. I don't know enough about China to do it effectively, though, only surmise it. 5, UN resolutions won't restrict Israel much. Though i agree for what its worth. I wish they would restrict countries more. We could have an authority greater than nation states, stopping wars and enforcing diplomatic negotiations and a mature, neutral resolution. But the problem is, it's set up to require all the people from different fractured groups to agree. I mean we can't even agree, and I've got respect for you. This is just a micro of the macro. Voting is just a poor way of coming to a conclusion, we'd vote differently, but we could draft something with both our perspectives in and implement it. 6, You brushed over the main point I was trying to make. That you are not putting enough emphasis on holding Israel accountable for Israel's actions. You defended Palestine, when my comment was largely intended toward Israel at this moment, as they are the aggressor. To the extent Palestine was the aggressor, yes they need to be held accountable for that also. But i'll go further, we should start looking at them both collectively in this case. So blockade the region, the entire region, from getting arms. Negotiate with the entire region at once. These kinds of things. Make continued trade contingent on both sides stopping violence. I would rather a multinational force kept the peace, but now I am shooting for the stars. We have to, we absolutely have to put the main accountability on the parties involved, no matter how they are doing what they are doing, or who is enabling it. This is the critical misstep not being made. - Parents enabling their childs drug use are not doing anyone any favors, but if the kid was held accountable for taking the drugs, that would start to build that inside themselves, which is why prison sometimes works for example.

Yeah I wasn't equating cities to being ugly, they can be, but there are some fine ones out there. But I disagree that all things are beautiful. Unless you are going to say all things are ugly, in which case you are making a purely relativist argument, and okay. If not: In life there are certain things which create beauty without logical thought due to there being an existing framework for it; one is the golden mean ratio , creating natural symmetry. This is a natural occurrence in plants, animals etc but applies to all things. Another is the harmonic sounds of certain sounds and symbols. This is why a lot of feminine names have an 'a' on the end, or have 'ell; in them for example, due to our language structure, these tones evoke certain responses when spoken or seen. As for your comment here: Standing or sitting where you are right now. Anger lust happiness boredom laziness every feeling is in your fov. Wether you choose to react to one is up to you. Yes but I wouldn't override my anger and call it happiness, for example, nor would I override my established framework for ugly and call it beautiful for the sake of telling myself it's possible, I already know it's possible, I created it.

I know I misread my apologies. I deleted it but not fast enough I should be working, and i'm splitting my attention, it was an engaging chat though.

To be clear, creation isn't the logical focus of the mind, though that can direct it, it's the direct state and experience happening right now. So with no mind, there is no focus, or framework, and thus creation becomes everything.

True. Creating the current thing is more fitting a term.