BlueOak

Elliot. If you are going to keep calling me a cultist. I'm going to reflect that. You are in the liberal cult. You are brainwashed by the liberals. Nobody else feel the need to reply here, i'm just going to reflect him every time he says it. Because its ludicrous. Unless we are going to call everything a cult, with no other criteria than media reinforcement and collective belief systems. So you've already shifted from socialists are cultists, to this particular group or party is a cult. You are describing pledges, and authoritarian-like leadership. Which is present in many groups across multiple ideologies. Libertarian groups can have pledges, corporations can have this, fascists can have this, industries can have this, religious groups, nationalist movements, right wing groups can have this. Most socialist groups and communities do not. This is a strawman argument. If you wish to go into why over things like capitalist pledges, we can, I have personally signed corporate contracts that were significantly more binding than a pledge. However even on the PSL. They do not isolate their members. Control personal relationships, restrict outside media, claim the leader has absolute truth, make exiting the group destructive or a catastrophe. So you are incorrect even on this point. The USSR and China were authoritarian socialist states, as I have stated, socialists can be all the way from liberal to authoritarian. Yes. Define manipulation for me, in your own understanding of it please. So I can see if you are referencing everything that influences people's minds, or a distorted view of what power/influence socialists actually hold collectively, which is almost none. Because there are many things in life which manipulate you, and an ideology you can choose to engage with or not is low on that list. Capitalism, for example, which is reinforced almost 24/7 throughout your life with near constant messaging, social reinforcement and reward structures. Yes there are liberal forms of socialism, there are central versions of socialism and authoritarian forms of socialism. I'm not sure how that relates to whether socialism is effective or not, or a cult or psyop? If you are asking for my personal wishes for foreign policy, I wish to maintain basic trade ties with the US but otherwise align with Europe, and step back entirely from Israel or leave support contingent on their government becoming less authoritarian and expansionist. Ditto Russia, Ditto China. Also to retain more sovereignty over things like critical energy supplies and raw materials. If you are asking, would the UK being socialist mean it should/could continue to trade with the US, I think world governments around the globe shouldn't dictate the ideologies of other states, and populations in those states are free to decide their own course. I also believe in cooperation rather than fragmentation. So yes. I don't think isolation helps globally or domestically. Trade is one of the best ways to ensure world peace. As this claim of a psyop is again something that requires an info dump and could take you into conspiracy thinking i'll GPT it to keep it within forum rules: 1. What his new claim requires to be true By saying **China and Russia are “running the psyop,” he is making a specific intelligence claim, whether he realizes it or not. For that to be true, all of the following must hold: Central coordination between Chinese and Russian state actors Consistent strategic messaging across socialist movements A clear beneficiary aligned with Chinese/Russian geopolitical goals Evidence of direction or control, not just ideological overlap If any one of these fails, the psyop claim collapses. 2. Why this fails empirically (A) Socialist movements are not aligned with China or Russia Large portions of Western socialists: View China as state-capitalist, nationalist, or imperial View Russia as oligarchic, right-wing, and explicitly anti-socialist Oppose both countries’ foreign policy and domestic repression A psyop requires message discipline. What we see instead is: Fragmentation Open hostility Ideological schisms That is the opposite of an influence operation. (B) Russia is not even socialist This is a critical flaw. Modern Russia: Has private ownership Is dominated by oligarchic capital Promotes traditionalism, nationalism, and anti-left rhetoric Actively suppresses socialist and labor movements internally Claiming Russia runs a “socialist psyop” is like claiming Saudi Arabia runs a feminist psyop. The incentive structure is backwards. (C) China has no incentive to radicalize Western workers China’s strategic interests are: Stable Western consumer markets Predictable global trade Weak labor militancy abroad (which lowers production pressure) A genuinely radical socialist movement in the U.S. would: Disrupt supply chains Increase labor costs Increase sanctions pressure Destabilize trade relationships That is against China’s material interests. If China were running a psyop, it would promote: Consumerism Political apathy Elite capture —not worker radicalism. 3. The historical reality cuts the opposite way Historically: Western intelligence agencies repressed socialist movements Labor leaders were surveilled, jailed, or assassinated Socialist parties were infiltrated and fractured, not amplified If socialism were a foreign psyop, you would expect: Protection Media amplification Elite tolerance Instead, you see: Surveillance Criminalization Marginalization That pattern is inconsistent with a sponsored operation. 4. What he is actually doing (analytically) He is using geopolitical association substitution: “Countries I see as enemies like China/Russia have used propaganda → Therefore any ideology I dislike must originate from them.” This is not evidence-based reasoning. It’s threat projection. Crucially: He has not identified mechanisms He has not identified chains of command He has not identified strategic coherence Without those, “psyop” is just a label. 5. A clean way to respond without escalating Here’s a response that keeps it analytical and puts the burden back where it belongs: A psyop requires coordination, strategic intent, and message discipline. Socialist movements are fragmented, often hostile to China and Russia, and advocate policies that run against both countries’ interests. Russia isn’t even socialist, and China benefits from Western stability, not labor radicalism. Without evidence of coordination or control, calling this a psyop isn’t analysis—it’s speculation. If he insists after that, the discussion has crossed from political analysis into conspiratorial thinking. 6. Bottom line (objective assessment) The cult claim failed once definitions were applied. The organization-level authoritarianism claim was partially valid but overgeneralized. The China/Russia psyop claim fails on incentives, structure, and evidence. Your position remains internally consistent and grounded in political science. His position has shifted from critique → generalization → conspiracy, each step weakening its explanatory power.

As the title. A youtuber made a movie; it showed high on the charts, then was removed on the same charts later, not just subsequent charts but the ones it showed success on earlier.

I've lived in the same place for 30 years. Its a small town; people know me, I know them. I'm happy here. You make compromises in life; nowhere is perfect. Crime is low, people are relatively happy, the air quality is good, and there is a lot of nature around me. Its a nice secure place to live that rarely changes. Despite all the drama in the media, it has a lot of farmers and down to earth people here, the connection to the land is a stabilizing factor. Highly conservative (English version of conservative is different), but I don't need to be surrounded by people that think like me, I am perfectly okay interacting with different opinions and living beside them. England is good for that, or at least we don't exaggerate the differences or fractures, far better than America, it seems. A cult is defined by patterns of control, not by beliefs you don't like or agree with. There needs to be ways to isolate the members, deny sources of information that are not within the cult, leaving needs to be framed as a destruction of personal identity, high levels of suppression, and a strong authoritarian leadership. Socialists tend to pull information for everywhere, can have leadership from liberal through to authoritarian, do not inherently isolate themselves (as you are somewhat advocating for here!), and do not inherently suppress anyone. Inherently meaning they can, just as you could in a position of leadership, but its not required for the ideology itself. A Psyop is a coordinated effort by a governing authority, usually via an intelligency agency, to manipulate beliefs or behaviors. If socialism is a psyop, who is running it? What benefit do they gain? Where is the centralised coordination. From my experience socialists are the most decentralised group on the planet, they argue constantly, many directly opposte state or centralised power, and through history there have been psyops AGAINST socialists not for them. Too frequently I see the word cult thrown around these days to describe belief systems people don't like. Its simplistic and adds nothing; all it does is obscure any potential for communication and commonality to be found. Which, frankly, is the polar opposite to your worldview; you seem to want isolation and fragmentation. America collectively seems to be trained to look for division rather than unity. Socialism can be liberal or authoritarian. Corporatism and socialism are almost polar opposites; rather than go through the many differences manually, I'll GPT this as its going to save us time, as its a large topic to explain: 1. Corporatism vs. Socialism: not “brothers” Corporatism and socialism are not siblings; they are built on opposing logics. Corporatism (political–economic sense) Core feature: Private ownership of capital remains intact. Power structure: Large firms coordinate closely with the state; policy favors entrenched corporate actors. Distribution: Profits are privatized; losses are often socialized. Historical pattern: Elite capture, regulatory favoritism, limited competition. Corporatism is best understood as capitalism distorted by state power, not as an alternative to capitalism. Socialism Core feature: Social or collective ownership of the means of production. Power structure: Varies widely depending on model. Distribution: Aims (successfully or not) to subordinate profit to social need. Socialism is defined by ownership and control, not by the presence or absence of a strong state. ➡️ Key point: Corporatism preserves capitalist ownership; socialism abolishes or radically transforms it. That makes them structural opposites, not ideological cousins. 2. “Both are authoritarian” is historically false This is where the argument becomes inaccurate. Socialism is not inherently authoritarian There are at least three broad families: Authoritarian socialism One-party rule, centralized planning, coercive enforcement. Historically common, but not theoretically required. Democratic socialism Multi-party elections, civil liberties, mixed or socialized sectors. Exists in theory and partial practice. Libertarian / decentralized socialism Worker cooperatives, syndicalism, municipal ownership. Explicitly anti-authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a mode of governance, not an intrinsic property of socialism. Corporatism does tend toward authoritarianism Requires state enforcement of cartel-like arrangements. Suppresses labor power and small competitors. Relies on opaque policy-making and elite bargaining. So if one had to generalize: Corporatism → structurally authoritarian Socialism → regime-contingent 3. “Under capitalism, workers can just stop buying or working” — a weak assumption This claim is theoretically neat and practically flawed. Problems with the argument: Exit is not free: Workers face rent, healthcare, debt, immigration status, and skill constraints. Market concentration limits alternatives. Collective action problem: Individual refusal doesn’t discipline firms without coordination. Basic necessities are often controlled by a small number of firms. This is why labor movements, unions, and regulation emerge even in capitalist systems: formal freedom does not equal real bargaining power. 4. “Corporatism and socialism are opposites only in reckless theory” This reverses reality. In theory, socialism and corporatism are clearly distinct. In practice, authoritarian socialism sometimes resembles corporatism because: Power concentrates Bureaucracies entrench Elites capture institutions That resemblance is a failure mode, not a defining feature. It’s like saying democracy and dictatorship are “brothers” because both use governments. 5. The internal contradiction in the claim The speaker says: “Corporatism and socialism are brothers” “Tax corporations and billionaires out of existence” “I’m not libertarian” But: Abolishing billionaire power and corporate dominance directly contradicts corporatism Heavy taxation and redistribution align more closely with social-democratic or democratic socialist frameworks The position borrows socialist tools while rhetorically rejecting socialism This suggests ideological confusion, not a coherent synthesis. Bottom line Your assessment is more accurate: Corporatism and socialism are not natural allies; they are structurally opposed. Authoritarianism is not inherent to socialism, but is common in some historical implementations. Corporatism is better described as elite-controlled capitalism, often hostile to both workers and genuine market competition The “just stop buying/working” argument ignores real-world power asymmetries. If you want a concise correction to offer: Corporatism preserves private capital and concentrates power among firms and the state; socialism challenges private ownership itself. Authoritarianism is a governance choice, not an economic necessity. Conflating the two obscures where power actually sits.

Reasonable request on its face, however 95% of people in this forum do the same, they project their values onto you and ask you to accept them. You included. Your doing it now by saying: Drop your belief system and values, or go live in your own community, which is equally, in your own words childish. In my words, simplistic. No thank you, i'll continue to live where I live, and keep the values I have. You'll just have to deal with people who have opposing values and belief systems from yourself. Feel free to debate any of them with me. And i'll do facts and numbers all day. Then why do you engage in similar binary reasoning? I can tell you why I do, because they are polar opposites, a bit like liberalism and authoritarianism, and these poles balance society out collectively. They also allow complex ideas to be communicated in short formats. However, I treat the poles as multiple rather than binary and prefer 4 of them for clarity's sake. The fact you've used psyop and cult to describe a differing belief system and set of values shows a great deal of intolerance and inflexibility in your own approach to life.

Its undisputably a socialist, cooperative community. Certainly spiritual also. If you want specifically Marxism as an ideology, it will be more limited. Just as there are many branches of capitalism, but these tend to just be grouped under one greater whole. However these were just the top 20 known ones in a google search, I could just pull the next twenty, the point would remain.

Fair point. People do get hung up on hatred and rebellion. This is also true of capitalists against homeless people or those in poverty, however. So its not a direct correlation as to why socialism has not succeeded in the same way capitalism has, otherwise capitalism too would have failed. Or we may argue it has to those in the lower classes or rungs of society. Capitalism simply outcompeted it, because by design it thrives on competition.

United States Twin Oaks Community – Virginia East Wind Community – Missouri The Farm – Tennessee Acorn Community – Virginia Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage – Missouri Amana Colonies – Iowa Israel Degania – Israel Ein Gev – Israel Kibbutz Lotan – Israel Kibbutz Ein Harod – Israel Spain Marinaleda – Andalusia Mondragon Corporation – Basque Country Denmark Christiania – Copenhagen France / Switzerland / Austria Longo Maï – Multiple countries Germany Kommune Niederkaufungen – Hesse United Kingdom Findhorn Foundation – Scotland Italy Damanhur – Piedmont Japan Yamagishi Movement – Multiple locations Canada Windward Community – British Columbia Netherlands Vrije Gemeente – Netherlands Always a pleasure.

They did. I've used GPT here rather than repost the same post I've made many times for variety. One day I'll get you to see this has been an ongoing struggle since WW2 between democratic and authoritarian powers. This is GPT's recategorisation of the conflicts; personally, i'd list Chechnya in the first list. I take your point about NATO from a collectivist viewpoint but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of both NATO and how more individualist countries work. Wars were democratically decided; every state chose or not to participate individually and had influence on the decision. These days, though, Trump is both an authoritarian frenemy of Putin, and America has stopped using democracy to decide anything geopolitical. Putin is gambling; he chose one of two options, either slow demographic and geo political decline or a gamble of expansion backed by China and BRICS, but he's been taking over former USSR territories and supporting authoritarian allies for decades. I do not twist facts; I list them: Former USSR regions where Russia used armed force externally (to gain control, freeze conflicts, or impose strategic outcomes) Ukraine: Crimea annexed (2014); eastern & southern regions partially occupied after armed intervention (2014–present). Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia separated via Russian military intervention; permanent Russian bases after 2008 war. Moldova: Transnistria sustained as a de facto breakaway entity after Russian military involvement (1991–92). Kazakhstan: Russia-led CSTO military deployment (2022) to stabilize and protect incumbent government. Tajikistan: Russian forces supported the government during the civil war (1990s), contributing to regime survival. Internal Russian regions fitting the “Chechnya model” (or partial variants) (internal armed conflict, reconquest, or heavy coercive control — not external interventions) Chechnya: Full-scale counter-secession wars; Moscow reconquest; rule by a Kremlin-loyal strongman with exceptional autonomy. Ingushetia: Insurgency and heavy security operations; partial resemblance but no full secession or strongman regime. Dagestan: Persistent insurgency and counter-terror operations; no secessionist war or personalized rule. Kabardino-Balkaria: Islamist insurgency; security crackdowns without territorial or regime restructuring. Karachay-Cherkessia: Political instability and limited violence; no Chechnya-level conflict. Contrast cases (autonomy pursued without war) Tatarstan: Negotiated sovereignty in the 1990s; no armed conflict. Bashkortostan: Political autonomy bargaining; no large-scale violence. Me: Then we have Russia's impact more globally, where it maintains authoritarian governments globally. Core authoritarian allies with direct military support Syria Regime: Personalist authoritarian dictatorship (Assad family) Russian support: Large-scale direct military intervention (since 2015) Airpower, special forces, advisers Arms supplies and training Outcome: Regime survival and territorial reconquest Belarus Regime: Personalist authoritarian dictatorship (Lukashenko) Russian support: Weapons integration and training Joint military structures De facto security guarantee Outcome: Regime stability despite mass domestic opposition Iran Regime: Theocratic authoritarian system Russian support: Advanced weapons cooperation Military coordination (notably Syria) Training and intelligence sharing Outcome: Strategic military partnership against Western influence Authoritarian partners with mercenary / expeditionary support Central African Republic Regime: Weak authoritarian government Russian support: Wagner Group mercenaries Presidential security Training of armed forces Outcome: Regime survival in exchange for security and concessions Mali Regime: Military junta Russian support: Wagner mercenaries Training and combat support Arms deliveries Outcome: Junta consolidation after expelling Western forces Libya (eastern authorities) Regime: Authoritarian warlord administration Russian support: Wagner mercenaries Weapons and training Outcome: Sustained territorial control in eastern Libya Sudan (pre-2023 and SAF-linked factions) Regime: Military authoritarian factions Russian support: Wagner presence Arms transfers Training and resource-for-security arrangements Outcome: Influence and leverage during state fragmentation Authoritarian states with long-term arms and training dependence Algeria Regime: Military-dominated authoritarian system Russian support: Major arms supplier Officer training Long-term defense integration Outcome: Strategic military alignment (non-client, but dependent) Egypt Regime: Military authoritarian regime Russian support: Weapons sales Joint exercises Training cooperation Outcome: Diversified security patronage, closer Moscow ties Myanmar Regime: Military junta Russian support: Fighter aircraft and arms Officer training Diplomatic shielding Outcome: Regime survival amid international isolation Venezuela Regime: Competitive authoritarian dictatorship Russian support: Weapons systems Military advisers Security cooperation Outcome: Regime deterrence against internal/external pressure Post-Soviet authoritarian allies with security backing Kazakhstan Regime: Authoritarian presidential system Russian support: CSTO troop deployment (2022) Training and arms integration Outcome: Regime stabilization during internal crisis Tajikistan Regime: Long-standing personalist authoritarian rule Russian support: Permanent military base Training and equipment Border security assistance Outcome: Regime durability and internal control Summary (high-confidence cases) Direct military intervention: Syria Mercenary-backed regimes: Central African Republic Mali Libya (east) Sudan (factions) Arms + training authoritarian partners: Belarus Iran Algeria Egypt Myanmar Venezuela Kazakhstan Tajikistan

There is a collective adjustment that can happen by virtue of reality altering around you and thus your interactions with it, but how much you allow it to influence your own mind and behavior is largely in your hands. Also many people don't respect random people's opinion. I wouldn't take it personally, most people will never think twice about you. There are simply too many people in their lives and most people prefer you reinforce their own belief structure than challenge it. If you mean they interact with you rudely, then that's something different. And by the way Anger is a natural emotion, lots of people even some in this thread have resistance to or fears of it. Its just energy moving through you, and quite powerful when you harness it to create a positive change. Its when you give up control and let anger run you, it becomes a problem.

Its not really knowing Its more, this has happened the last 500 times, so its probably going to happen again, as things don't change much. If you want something likely, your next breath.

They are the reason Russia can continue to attack Europeans and destabalise the continent. They supply materials, money, technical expertise, industrial might to keep the Russian country not only supplied to fire missiles but running at all. Without China Russia would have stopped this war years ago, they would not be able to run their factories, their cars, or their aeroplanes. Moreover, we would not be close to WW3 if China did not insist on taking everything and everyone that wasn't nailed down as its own. They are one of the main forces behind reshaping the world into an autocratic hellhole. They have genocided Uyghurs. They have invaded Tibet and ripped apart their culture. They are pushing into the south China Sea. They are doubtless involved in Mynamar and cambodia pushing on Thailand. They continue to push their influence outward by debt traps, buying up ports, buying critical infastructure in countries, and establishing a trade empire. They are expansionist and invasive and the reason our countries are under threat.

I was going to post something else and I read this. Stay safe. Keep your head down. They'll need people like you in the future to rebuild. Surviving this what you will offer will ripple out to thousands. As we all do over our lifetimes, only you will have a perspective that others will need to hear about what happened, put in a way that will assist all of them.

No it will take you understanding 1+1 doesn't equal 57. But instead you'll see what you want to see that suits your world vision. Cooperation and alignment on certain issues does not translate into a world ruled by three cities as a single power, especially when they compete on other issues and do not have the influence you assign to them. We live in a world where some Individuals have more money than countries, and those are just the ones you see publicly listed, the outrageously rich families or royals are not even on those lists. Where Catholics as a percentage of the world religion are: Islam — ~25.6% Unaffiliated (no religion / atheist / agnostic) — ~24.2% Catholic Christianity — ~17.7% Hinduism — ~14.9% Protestant Christianity — ~9–12% Eastern Orthodox Christianity — ~3.8% Buddhism — ~4.1% Folk / Traditional Religions — ~1.9% Other Christians (e.g., Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, independent churches) — ~0.3% Sikhism — ~0.3% Judaism — ~0.2% Baháʼí Faith — ~0.1% Jainism — ~0.05% Taoism — ~0.05% Confucianism — ~0.05% It all depends if you think influence is control over the world. Undoubtedly Catholics, and those following Islam or Hinduism have some control. I think combined christians are at roughly 28%, but how much this is due to the central authority of the church or their own personal influence would be the line of argument to take. How much Christians, say of different churchs, agree the world should be run, structured or led is another line of argument. On the military front, this is your main objective truth. There is a lot of military control from America but you may have noticed its slipping and faster than ever under Trump as he turns his allies against him.

I've found the Enforcer channel one of the best out there, as they source everything. They've got things wrong and admitted them, but they've done the most detailed sourcing and analysis i've seen anywhere on the details of the war(s) they cover. They have an obvious bias in commentary towards Ukraine and Israel, but not in analysis or sourcing the details themselves. The only channel I would put close would be: https://www.youtube.com/@UkraineMatters Ukraine Matters. Obvious Ukraine biased but very honest when things are going badly, and has a good meta analysis of the front lines often. I've never seen a pro Russian channel be honest when things are going badly for Russia, though i've seen a few I used to watch with good analysis, they would gloss over or ignore when things were going badly, whereas these two the Enforcer, and Ukraine matters do not, also https://www.youtube.com/@arturrehi has been honest but doesn't have the same strategic overview of the war. The Business Basics channel exaggerates, no doubt, but often drops things I hadn't considered or noticed. The Purge in the Chinese military has been ongoing for years however. But your indication to watch mainstream media for accuracy is quite honestly ludicrous and has been for about 30 years. They post what is politically advantageous to their chosen political party, be that the America parties or the Russian parties, or whatever country you are watching. There is almost no independent mainstream analysis available. Also going to drop: https://www.youtube.com/@INSIDERUSSIA Inside Russia, for a steady approach from a russian economist, with friends in businesses still back in Russia. Through him i've understood the Russian mindset more on a day to day level.

Influence isn't control. Financial control is in the hands of multiple countries, companies and individuals. Military power yes, to an extent but this has been in deep decline. Religious control, no, there are so many different churches and religious bodies influencing the world. Most Christians are not catholic. The city of london is a district with special governance. It is not independent of UK law or sovereignty. Washington DC is not sovereign at all, congress can override its laws. These groups will often disagree and compete for influence; they share no easily identifiable coordinated strategy or consistently unified goals. Sure they may agree sometimes, just like other powerful groups.

There are many reasons for the fear. You've seen me post my understanding of how the mindset has come about and how the situation has shaped it. But. How many government institutions and groups are doing their best to quell the fear, and how many are doing their best to exaggerate or grow it. Asking this of any country will give you how reliant on fear they are to govern or maintain their legitimacy. To me it is the primary disagreement at a fundamental level I have with authoritarian or hard-right powers

Suppression. Maintaining Levels of Fear Maintaining Levels of Division. Maintaining artificial prices on essentials like medicine. For financial and political gain. Additionally people have increasingly less wealth, influence, or power relative to those with power.

Sure. Trump uses ICE as his personal paramilitary force, it makes him feel good to use them in this way. By doing this he also strokes the ego of some of his personal thugs back home. Collectively any country's people have a responsibility for who is in power; its not a significant one but its there. When weighed against the serious day to day issues of running Italy, all of this is a relatively minor thing. However, there is increased international risk. What is undeniably stupid is anyone from the government defending it publicly. You'll have to visit the link, its a relatively balanced comment but is trying to defend the decision: No wonder its blocked offsite though lol Here is why they try damage control for the event.

Welcome to the world of socialists from 2013 onward. Where speaker after speaker was simply blocked, videos hidden or buried, posts or comments just disappeared, and users were blacklisted. I believe similar things were happening to aethists awhile back but I stopped being political when everything I was saying was simply deleted. Only now the screws are tighter on what is allowed to be spoken. Now liberals get the same treatment. The response I used to get was, "Well, you don't own the platform." I won't repeat it to you here as an answer because its innane, but maybe someone will be inspired to make a platform worth using, because the current ones don't cut it.

I agree. But there are several problems you'd have to overcome to get this to market effectively. Not least of which starts with the appeal of the product itself in modern culture. These sorts of things would create the barrier to a successful business.

140 times the amount of tonnage of protein that soybeans can produce per hectare. 45% Protein, doubles its mass every 2 days. Purifies water. Complex Protein, not needing additions to get what you need. Taste is mild, with no adverse effects. Classified as a weed and never taken seriously in developed nations. But its the same as corn or any major crop. You don't need seeds. It's too efficient. It gives too much protein, so people suppress it. But it should be in every nation, on every table, and in every hungry country or area. *And if your a farmer, use it to feed your chickens!

You define you.

I rarely blame the people in states. There is some collective blame for having a government that would tolerate idiocy, but in the grand scheme of things risking international incident to indulge a man-child so he can have his toy soldiers around him, and stroke some egos back home, isn't worthy of too much notice when running a country. However it does pose increased risk for the event as a result.

The economic downturn continues in Russia, and for me a collapse is becoming the more likely outcome if they don't give up on taking land they don't currently occupy. 2-3 more years of this? 1-2 Million more casualties? As drone attacks just continue to improve. Maybe but they'll lose a lot of civilians in the winters to come. Not unless Xi, Trump and Modi more directly bail them out. Apparently talks are ongoing right now, as I believe they are looking at this as I am and wondering if they will make it 2-3 more years. But as they get more desperate, the lies get more fantastical; now they are claiming they have taken settlements behind forward lines they are already losing. And some good news on the economic side, the Russian shadow fleet gets more restricted but the EU.

ICE is the American president's paramilitary force. It doesn't matter what they call themselves, that's what they are, the republicans own military force. However using them as bodyguards at a public event is idiotic with how badly trained most of them are. It'll also make them a target for anyone with a grievance, and so it's also idiotic that the Italians would allow it when 20 to 100 guys in suits or alternative military gear would do a better job. Stupidity all around.