BlueOak

So your standards are time not proximity? Do you see how that isn't any better at all? All that exists is the suffering of the people in this moment. And its horrific and it needs to stop globally. All the justification in the world doesn't make any difference when someone is sitting there starving in a prison, in the street, or in front of a TV camera. The families of those people laying dead are not sitting there thinking, oh you know what, they've been here awhile, so it's not so bad. Nothing compares. No justification matters. - Bombs. Starvation. Permanent Imprisonment. Forced drafting into a bloody suicidal war. The extermination of people who have no say in any of this.

I have it was called the holodomor. Russia starved Eastern Ukraine, replaced eastern Ukraine with Russian colonists, they educated them as Russian with their language. Now they claim its Russian, and wage war over it, which would be sick - But its a lie of course, there are 50 other reasons they are fighting that war. Heck they recently disappeared many thousands of Ukranian children into Russia, and Putin was named a war criminal as a result. China genocided the Uyghur population of East Turkestan, they put them in camps to eradicate their culture and disappear those who don't agree. They are eradicating Tibetan culture. Russia have disappeared anyone who doesn't accept the Russian occupation of Ukraine. They've just been more efficent in their exterimination, they don't bother with starvation these days, they bomb them to nothing, occupy and then send them to front or remove them outright. - They also do this with their minority cultures, using them up as their fodder to take more of Eastern Europe and cultures more closely related to the Muscovites. You just cherry pick the information you like because it suits a narrative you have. Even if the above was NOT TRUE. This is a border war, its the same thing. Its horrific when done over a civilian population hostile to the invaders. Which is what happens when a country tries to impose its will over a country that doesn't consider itself part of it. - Re: The Uyghur, Taiwan, Ukraine etc. You and many people in this thread are hypocrites. I am sorry to be blunt, and check your ego, but it drives me nuts to read it over and over. *You are now going to reply this was in the past, not 5 years ago, and i'll reply China uses the past sometimes up to 1,000 years ago, to justify its foreign policy. Russia certainly does also.

The ones supporting Israels actions is America yes. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of most of this forum in being okay when Russia, China, and India supported by BRICS do this compared to Israel. They claim a neighbouring region on a map and invade it. Kashmir, Tibet, the South China sea (all related islands), Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia (Abkhazia) East Turkestan etc etc. They say its okay because of its proximity, so its better than when America does it globally. Its like they have blinders on. They'll pull 50 justifications for the above and then ignore every justification Israel gives because it doesn't suit their narrative. So by that standard Israel doing this is perfectly fine. Occupying Gaza would be normal. (It's not; the whole thing is insane.)

By BRICS standards this is war is justified and fine. Israel is taking what they consider theirs and forming buffer zones around their state. That's what China and Russia do, supported by their BRICS allies. If this is the reality most of the world is calling for, then that's what we have to accept, while pointing out its insanity of course. *India is one step away from doing this to Pakistan also. Armenia - Azerbaijan. Turkey - Greece. Everyone - Syria. So its not like i'm cherry picking. This is the current global reality, which we either say spheres of influence don't work in the nuclear era and we need to progress as a globe to something better, like national sovereignty remaining within its own borders in a global league of nations, or accept this is what happens.

@zazen If multipolarity just means swapping the USA for Russia, China, or Iran, each invading, threatening, or suppressing whoever they want until someone stops them, then there’s no moral or strategic gain in your model. It’s just more powers doing the same destructive thing at once. That’s not stability it's permanent war with even less predictable outcomes. Your logic of “proximity = right to control” collapses the moment you apply it consistently. By that standard, Israel is justified in controlling Palestinians because they’re nearby, or Turkey can dictate Armenia’s alliances. You and I both know that’s absurd. It’s the same imperial mindset you claim to oppose, just wearing a different flag. Even in pure political terms, this thinking doesn’t work in the nuclear era. The old 'great powers need buffer states' model was built for a pre-ICBM world. Trying to enforce buffers through invasion or coercion increases existential risk, because the other side is armed and can retaliate instantly. That’s why NATO expansion accelerated, not because America forced it, but because Russia proved over and over that “buffer” means “we get to dominate you. They are still to this very day doing so in their peace terms. If multipolarity is to mean anything other than 'more predators on the map' it needs to be grounded in sovereign equality, not spheres-of-influence politics. Otherwise, you’re just asking the world to accept a larger number of Israels, each doing as they please until they’re checked, and that’s exactly the kind of instability you claim to want to avoid. What do you think is actually happening in Ukraine right now? It’s two spheres of influence colliding, exactly the model you’re defending. You’re watching your preferred system in action, and calling it wrong only because one of the spheres is the West. It would be no better for the world if Europe was armed to the teeth and doing it alone, it'd be two multipolar influences fighting it out just the same. Unless we are suggesting that these spheres are isolated and do not share resources, arms, intelligence, manpower like NATO and BRICS are doing? And how is that enforced? Again for transparency I am telling chat gpt (new 5 model is great), to critique me. Its telling me I am using too much moral outrage when speaking so I am toning it back.

Russia's economic situation continues to get worse. Russia's population demographics get worse. Their stockpiles are gone. It takes very little land, in Sumy it was just repelled almost to the border again. Their casualty rates now with so little armor left to use are ridiculously high vs Ukraine. They use human wave tactics, its why they've had to reach out to places like North Korea for manpower. Russia vs Ukraine yes, that will always be true. (Thank you for acknowledging it most people just gloss over it) But this is now BRICS vs NATO to a much larger extent than you are acknowledging. China and NATO are using this as a proxy also, and that's the only reason its continuing. As to why nobody would do as you suggest, i'll requote myself below as it covers most of it. But you can add to the fact that obviously, people are calculating and watching that this is going to hurt Russia (and BRICS) more than help it. You cite some land gains, i'll cite that its falling into being a satellite state of China. Its economy bought up, Kamaz just failed, I mean the country is buckling, and although the citizens might well just put up with it, it'll never project real power again. Whatever you think of the above statement, that's the calculus: keeping Russia from puppeting Ukraine is better than allowing it to, else this war would not be continuing. Russia has repeatedly stated it wants control over all of Ukraine, like it had previously, it wants to project its power into eastern Europe and its not strong enough to do so anymore. - This is why this situation exists. Not because I dislike X or you dislike Y - because the practical reality is Russia is overreaching.

Possible false flag attack exposed - as people keep telling me 'how could this start' - 'Russia would never do that' and I keep saying any one of a 1000 ways, the method is largely irrelevant as tensions are that high. Russia being backed by BRICS means it can do that, it'll get Belarus levelled and Russia heavily damaged, but Putin doesn't care as the people are that suppressed. Also ballistic missile sources for the last post. - With the interactive map on their site as always. I also agree that India and China need to be sanctioned heavily at this point, and their efforts to support this proxy war for them halted as much as possible.

@zazen You keep talking like Russia is just asking for space and being ignored. That’s not what’s happening. Russia’s entire approach is to project fear, and that doesn’t earn respect from stronger countries, it gets pushback. If you focused on the countries that joined, and why, you'd come to that conclusion. Chat GPT examples from the last decade: Feb 2022 – Putin warns of consequences “you have never experienced in your history” and puts nukes on alert. May 2022 – State TV says the UK and Ireland could be turned into a “radioactive wasteland.” Jan 2024 – Medvedev threatens nuclear strikes if Ukraine hits Russian launch sites. May 2024 – Medvedev talks “fully fledged nuclear war” if NATO keeps supplying Ukraine. July 2025 – Medvedev brings up the “Dead Hand” doomsday system at Trump. End Quote This is Russian foreign policy mask off. Then they've got hypersonic missiles in Belarus, ditching the INF moratorium, and rewriting nuclear doctrine so even conventional threats matter. Intimidation is baked into their security policy. You frame NATO expansion like it was some arrogant Western move. When Russia’s spent centuries threatening Eastern Europe. NATO was created to stop exactly that. Countries lined up to join because they remember Moscow’s behavior, not because America forced them. Regional powers don’t get to veto who their neighbours ally with, that’s not security its trying to control other countries. By your logic Turkey could tell Armenia who it can talk to, I highlight that with the Azerbaijan-Russia relations deteriorating to show you directly Russia's regional power slipping. On Multipolarity, sure great theory. Russia’s 'multipolarity' is just an authoritarian bloc with China, Iran, and others keeping each other’s wars or expansion going. Russia believes it allows them to act like they used to. BRICS support isn’t neutral, it’s keeping the Ukraine war alive. Real multipolarity means sovereign equality. Russia’s version is 'we get our sphere' and everyone else accepts it. That’s not balance its replacing one unipolar arrogance with another. - Cue you saying how bad the west is right? Then I just point you to the mirror they are. If Russia wants space, it needs to learn how to live in that space without trying to dominate everyone in it. Right now it’s doing the opposite, and that, (and their weakening geo-political position) are why the neighbors you think should be neutral are running straight to NATO or China for that matter. For transparency. I told chat GPT to critique my own position. It told me that because you use statecraft, and I use debate imagery, I needed to bring more real-world examples and argue more along those lines to provide solid examples.

Everyone was complicit in destroying the middle class because they believed that hard work was the metric everything should be judged by. They still do. It isn't BTW, its results.

Well Russia is one and they won't be much different to China, North Korea etc. They'll die in droves for the state, either from threatening them or propaganda. The poster said it'll be impossible to convince people. I'm saying they are already ready to do so. If they mean it'll be impossible to convince a democratic country to attack another, no, i've seen it happen before. But it won't even need that it'll just need to be framed as defense. For example, I've seen the almost entire electorate weaponised against immigration and now in the name of economic benefit, which is such a farcical position I wonder if I am living in an alternative universe.

Russia did. Also Russia didn't care and sent them anyway.

As always, on many things, human consciousness remains the same.

Patterns repeat and are updated. Rarely does anything come into my experience that isn't part of an easily identifiable repeating pattern, so when it does, it's huge news. At the moment, the pattern is - Cold War with military build-ups. Bad economic situation. Far-right individuals or parties run most of the military powers. Rising fascist and nationalist themes within the population, demonization of the 'other' throughout it. Changing global dynamics leading to unstable geopolitical situations. China and India are rising, Russia and America are falling, etc. New weapons of war (drones) are changing the balance of power and giving other states ideas, as well as a general lowering the casus belli or justification, for wars. The usual response is war for resources, distraction, land, and influence. This is the pattern that has been repeated for thousands of years. Its just dressed up differently. There are off-ramps but in our current scenario, it requires something like the global superpowers sitting down and telling the world how the new order of things will now be, and then enforcing it. Even if this is done at arms length. That is China reigning in Russia, America reigning in Israel (another reason that war exists), and both powers mapping out how things will now work globally. BRICS and NATO competing does not lead to this outcome; it leads to conflict and war. Essentially a peace could be negotiated now without a hot war.

If progressives really are such a small influence on everything, why does it matter what they say or do? Like it or not, the left is the left. Its multiple voices not one singular voice.

The world is already at war, its just a cold war with small border conflicts currently. Both sides are trying to convince everyone that they are right. Organising chaos in other places wherever they can strike. If anything, Europe is sitting back too much, but gradually waking up bit by bit. Large build ups in Europe, especially Poland, but also Russian build ups in Leningrad and kaliningrad. People always go on about the US trying to ignore Europe but at this point its little to do with the US. It suits their narratives more I guess, but lacks any practical understanding of what's actually happening between THESE SIDE BY SIDE STATES. Also China has stated they are preparing ot invade Taiwan now. This is all going to happen together: Iran attacks Israel and shipping. China attacks Taiwan and shipping. Russia attacks the Baltics and Finland. Because together they have a shot and nobody's throwing nukes over that strategy, it'll be a conventional war. The only uncertainties to me are what happens when Belarus gets nukes, and what happens if Russia decides to nuke Ukraine. Because Belarus is going to be airstriked out of existence, and Putin may get angry enough that he nukes Ukraine. Also where India will stand in it (I guess BRICS economic support against NATO), and if Iran get nukes that'll be very bad in the current climate. *There is still a chance to avoid this but its not likely now.

Given we are on the verge of a major world war, this was israel's most likely method of avoiding conflict on their own soil. I loathed the approach, but i've accepted it.

Masculine. Leadership. Qualities.

Have you read the fifth agreement. https://fourminutebooks.com/the-fifth-agreement-summary/ When I was studying Almine and studying Toltec shamanism, it was in that realm. It works because you are what you focus on, and if you focus on love, you become it and essentially bliss out. But the unresolved things hit you in face, it energetically feels like that.

It suits their political agenda to ignore Europe completely. I've long since said this but nobody's interested because it would make their takes more nuanced and realistic, which would deflate some of their narratives naturally.

Yes. Its embraced socialist aspects that America villainise. We do so in Europe, somewhat, depending on the country. Instead, China villainises liberalism. If any point of the compass is vilified, the country suffers. Authoritarism Socialism + Capitalism Liberalism This is because they are balancing factors. *Western Europe villainizes authoritarianism and the UK demeans socialism, for example.

Quality of life isn't consciousness. Millions of people disappear when disease strikes. Locked in to die. Say one thing outside of the goverment line and disappear. Be a different culture or nation on one of their maps and disappear. Threaten, Threaten, Threaten - Succeed and thus in inspire more threats and war globally. Take any land and sea you want and thus inspire the same and help destabalise the globe. Build endless cities nobodies living in, to sustain fake economic booms - exactly the same as the US (only the US do it with individual homes) There is less corruption in china, that's it. That's why more gets done. The USA has a high degree of corruption, not as high as somewhere like Russia but high. This one party line is objectively wrong.. I could point to 50 countries with one party that are corrupt and their quality of life or domestic situation is terrible. Though a multiparty system is far more stable and less prone to corruption than a two party system, which is one reason America suffers from it. China just tends to execute or be extremely harsh on corruption, which is why they suffer from it less. I actually dislike the chinese as a culture far more than the Russians. The Russians see a threat and they are attacking it, I understand it, I understand them. The chinese culture, outside of China, likes to absorb territory, cultures, and either kill them off, imprison them etc. And then people make threads like this saying how conscious or great they are. Drives me nuts but there you go, great propaganda, have to give them that. *Although I want to add that China still suffers from corruption, for example, in its armed forces. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-waterlogged-missiles-dont-matter But the word 'purge' is used, and it demonstrates what I am talking about, a very harsh response.

By design I didn't mention corporate or progressive because the average person won't either.

AOC is more likeable than both Trump and Newsom but she's a woman, and right now when people are seeking out strong masculine role models, a man wins this election. - Not my bias, I couldn't care less, I am telling you the obvious trend. Trump is already losing because the economic reality is bad at the moment. Though if we all go to war, traditionally, his polls will spike up for a while. The democrats are seen as weak, feminine, old and indecisive. - So you need a leader who is strong, masculine, full of energy and decisive. Who gets to that podium and owns it. Who shows the contrast to Trump, a charismatic but aging leader, who is easily led around on ego, and says the first thing that comes into his head (if he can remember it). We are close to war, we need stability, a cool but firm hand on the reins, who will descalate but not be a doormat or appease - appease - appease, and if it comes to it fight but remain rational and fight to stabilise, hold and cool the situation off, rather than escalate.

Love is the highest goal of all beings on planet earth So you could love Hard Kill's reaction here for example. Love doesn't mean you start wanting, agreeing with, or condoning it, or you stop trying to make a better life for yourself or others. You realise Trump (that part of yourself) needs healing, for example. So any actions taken could reflect that.

The reason I ask this, is because: This is you evolving this particular pattern past stage green - its painful but its necessary and you'll either drop it from you as unnecessary or get more involved in politics if it's you. A lot of times we do things because we consider the world outside of ourselves; it isn't, it is us. And when we realise this, by the painful understanding that all this you hate is also you, it trims away a lot of the excess baggage you are carrying. (And all the emotion you are suffering too) In real terms the choice is you get more involved in this pattern directly realising and focusing on that part of you, or you drop it for the reasons you now understand: You will never control the world from the outside in. Unless you have a political influence of some kind you are small, you are one in a billion. So that choice comes to you. Step into this fully or be okay with that. - But Static and Stuck *You are as static or stuck as you want to be. All the best.