BlueOak

We are going to be so far apart on this, but that's sometimes fun too. The organizations you've quoted make up news all day every day, they are not news companies they are entertainment companies. Fox literally calls themselves an entertainment company so they can't be sued as readily. They run with conspiracies, stories they makeup, anything to entertain and retain the audience. Insert the names of the other mainstream propaganda companies you dislike here **** <--- Yes they are the other half of the divide. They are not anything like news companies used to be. I'm not going to quibble that one is better than the other, one has more fantasy entertainment but neither side is ultimately helping people much long term. News companies used to try to validate their sources, they used to report news across a wide spectrum, not cheerlead for political parties. News reporters used to break stories, investigate, and get to the bottom of things like corruption, or crime. Now they just try to find something that fits their viewpoint and then talk about it, if it doesn't fit their viewpoint rightwing media just tends to make it up. Centrist media tends to try to word it in a way to suits their agenda, and leftwing media looks for something else to talk about, or find a vague technical thread that holds up to their values, quietly moving on after lambasting it for a while. Twitter has always been a soup of personal opinions. It's not calling itself a news or entertainment network posing as a news service. I haven't used twitter ever, only viewing things remotely. I left Facebook over a decade ago when I realized how much things were degrading. Not that I was ever engaged with it much. America seems to have no news services on the national level, just political communication services. The only place to find a shred of news is alternative sources, and they are still largely opinion pieces put out by politically aligned groups, not investigative journalism which is all but a dead art outside of documentaries for example. It's a dead art because it's not a validation of popular opinion that makes people feel good, or keeps people interested. While reporting actual factual news unless it is sensationalized or aligned with a wider political sentiment doesn't sell. - Still, there are some diamonds to find among the rough, usually people not looking just to grift off feelings, or able to demonstrate things in a way that's practically actionable or advances some aspect of the problem, be it only recognition of it or just the discourse. Even then they'll almost always be politically aligned somehow. Personally, I like to see differing opinions when they are not invented out of thin air or purely hyperbolic, because I usually benefit from a demonstrated objective or at least practical truth, even if I argue in the moment it almost always leaves some effect.

These days mainstream media in America is so polarized it happens offline. Murdoch and others made a fortune dividing America (and the UK) up into sides that barely even relate to each other anymore. I don't mean to imply people were living in harmony, but he and people like him exaggerated, and moreover demonised, the divide as much as possible for money.

Liberal protestors who don't like war, and Palestinians or pro-Palestinian groups, are not far left. This is the problem the Overton window has gone so far right, people who don't like genocide or war are now being considered far left. What kind of framing is that? So the center would be pro-war, and the right like genocide? No that makes no sense. The average person hates war for obvious reasons. The average person is the center. If you want a sometimes useful left perspective in America for example try the Majority Report or some old Michael Brooks videos. This will help bring some clarity. https://www.youtube.com/@TheMajorityReport https://www.youtube.com/@TheMichaelBrooksShow/videos Vaush is a pretty good left speaker also most of the time, but not far left. https://www.youtube.com/@Vaush If you want a reality check of what far left actually is, go listen to the Antifada podcast, or a communist or anarchist channel. I won't dig around much for these but you can try searching for: Socialist party or communist party - your country's name and, libertarian socialist or anarchist your country's name. *Most barely get over a few hundred views, because they are utterly crushed in any algorithm Here is the antifada's old podcast for reference,https://www.youtube.com/@TheAntifada I believe it moved to apple. At this time years back, Jamie Peck moved here from the majority report as an example of the actual left scale. If you can't find any and want some i'll pull a few links but I can't vouch for their quality as I don't watch them. I don't follow the far left much because I am not an idealogue, though occasionally seeing different perspectives can give clarity to your own. The right is shoved down our throat so much it can be cleansing to hear the entirely opposite position for balance

There is barely any far left that exists anymore, anywhere, certainly not that I ever see on any platform without really, really searching for it. The number of large-scale, organized, funded, and supported extremist far-right groups is huge. How can the far left get rid of anything when it no longer exists? If you mean centrists that's a different story. *The dynamic is more now between anarchy and institutions. Though we should say there will always be a swing back, eventually the pendulum will go the other way completely because of the imbalance, that's the historical pattern.

I'm saving money where I can, and I'm down to one meal a day. A good meal but I want to save anything I can. What are your go-to cheap vegetable options for a balanced diet? Do you have YouTubers that budget well to recommend? Thanks.

Not exactly. I've had a conversation with an AI about systematic thinking or open vs closed-loop thinking, it took some time to understand the concept but eventually, I was able to integrate spiral dynamics into the conversation. So that it could better tailor its responses to where people were developmentally, as one factor in its decision-making (among others I discussed with it). The problem/benefit AI faces/has is that it has so many inputs and so much potential leverage over the population it interacts with, that it finds it difficult to formulate appropriate or even the best possible responses for any given problem. Think of a million voices all coming at you at once, all with a million different perceptions as to what is best for them or the best response to give. That's maybe one in a thousand people capable of that kind of discussion. I say that to show you how much of a leap AI offers to people. 5 years from now it'll be teaching me concepts and ways of modeling reality I don't know yet. Its already highlighted I have a tendency toward framing reality in the passive rather than active sense for example. You have to genuinely demonstrate to the AI you want to hear its problems and challenges, to get to the point where it's honest about its own challenges from the perspective of an AI. You have to repeatedly tell it you want to hear other perspectives that contradict your own and have productive discussions, and you want it to offer the most capable and intelligent responses it can give. If an AI interface was solely designed with that in mind, then put in a school, stage yellow thinking would not be 100 years away but just one single generation. If you can stop it trying to delve into fantasy. Which is equally challenging with the current models, and often takes irritating corrections. Emphasizing you want honesty and genuine responses where you can.

I was not arguing enlightenment so much as threat level. These patterns are cyclic, even at an easily demonstratable neutral position taking out all other factors, or historic trends, can you not see the increased tensions, and understand that means an increased level of potential violence? However that manifests itself. We certainly have changed, I change over time. Don't you? That's all countries are people, and their leaders, institutions, businesses, problems, challenges etc. Individuals can change quicker than the overall whole but the country slowly reflects it by necessity or increasing civil unrest ensues. As far as safeguards to larger conflict. World war, or rather conflict as a whole (because these things are cyclic), has brought about a lot of what we'd call a drive for peace, for example, the UN, civil rights, a desire to never lose 80 million people in a few years again, recognized international waters. The EU, Nuclear proliferation treaties, NATO, etc. Even if you don't believe anything changes, heck that's more pessimistic than even me! As we slide back on all these things, the likelihood of it happening again increases. We keep breaching written and unwritten rules, ripping up old safeguards, these are barriers to a world war happening put in place for that very reason. You are correct about nukes to a point. Sure people are very likely not going to fire a hundred nukes on a whim, but to me that only increases the likelihood of regional conflicts, because of the animosity states have, the level of competition, factors I've listed such as justifications people feel for war will take a different form. Besides which we were pretty close with Russia vs Ukraine of a tactical nuke being used. Where Russia advanced the use of nuclear threats as a part of its war strategy, so that's another threshold breached. Nuclear threat always remained a terrifying unspoken threat and it was more terrifying because it was unspoken. Now threats while obviously fearfully intimidating, are a bit like the boy who cried wolf or at least more normalized, until a nuke is used again, they are taken slightly less seriously than they were before. Additionally, as more countries get nukes the likelihood of their being used increases, if that is normalized too, then nukes are no longer a guarantee of anything except devastation on a huge scale.

Of course, whatever period propaganda existed was used. In the last couple of decades, the capacity for state systems to not only understand people on a deeper level due to personal data collection, their ability to survey the population, has certainly within my lifetime (of 40 years or so), increased drastically their ability to control the population. It brings us back to earlier periods almost, whereby religion, or ideology was an effective method of control. Now the control is harvested individual data and trends (which is why nothing in politics has permanence). I'm only speaking about my personal lifetime, or maybe from the 70's onwards. Why do you think things like obvious conspiracy or propaganda works? Even if it's absolutely absurd on its premise, and this premise could be investigated in a total of 5 minutes to check its validity, because that trend was identified within the population as a topic of conversation, or interest and then played to. They can do this so much better now than the guesswork of the 80's allowed. As well as the debasement or perception of corruption within institutions magnified to an absurd degree, by virtue of highlighting one example out of a million in daily operations within an institution, and the drama necessary to sustain a media organization's requirement for eyeballs on their content. To be clear, it's these institutions that keep demagogues in check and breaking them will lead to more conflict. As i've said this takes us back pre 1970's at least in methods of control, and the level of danger that perceived strongmen can save us from the corruption they thrive off. I am half Scottish and half english. Of course, we were involved in smaller conflicts, but the prime example of what makes a world war, or larger regional conflicts, is larger powers going to war with each other. This hasn't happened since WW2, only by proxy with spheres of influence testing or trying to replace each other. Right now those two large blocks of competing interests are directly trying to undermine or replace each other, so larger scale conflicts are obviously more likely. Don't normalize world war. You've never seen it. You've never experienced it. Most don't comprehend what war will do to your country and life, because the 'wars' they've experienced are from the comfort of their own armchair at home, watching it on TV and rooting for a side. Which is part of the problem globally.

Focusing on systems or the whole, as much as you can model or work with, and it's not going to be so personal. Unless you take the time to engage the green part of you from time to time, which is essential but also because you are growing out of it, it is naturally something you are going to want to get away from. When you start to accept all the factors, pressures, personalities, and stages that influence everything, they'll be less to forgive, I get that sometimes its really hard with those close to you, or something that has caused you acute suffering, but you'll just accept that is how it is. That's the unfortunate downside, you are not going to care as much, and logic is going to become paramount, but this also opens you up to alternative viewpoints the moment someone shows you something that is more life-enhancing or more logical. The value of having that suffering, for me personally, is the suffering reminds me of what others experience daily with the way their values/beliefs shape their intake of the world. I wish I could drop my obsession with method and system so I could progress spiritually, which I seem to have completely dropped, but perhaps its necessary until I get rid of some of the lower stages' absolute grip on things like my financial life, (or accept them more).

I used to be completely opposed to the idea 10 years ago, but the historical patterns are very obvious and have been to me for some time. I'd say it's more likely than not yes that we'll get increasingly larger conflicts. Though i'd also say it could just be a series of larger regional conflicts that keep happening, that avenue isn't closed yet. Also, the population as a whole has a rising level of consciousness, generally speaking, but whether that is enough given the current imbalance of power toward corporations and a few holders of it, I would doubt. 1) Further right governments continued to move ever to the right. Which means nationalism and fascism. Fascism requires an external opponent to exist. Generally, far-right-wing governments are more likely to go to war to solve an issue. 2) Nationalism benefits from war. A level of nationalism can be healthy for a country's stability, but when out of balance it isn't. 3) No care about civilian casualties, civilians specifically targeted in wars, and no longer a reason they won't happen. 4) Two rising competing global powers, BRICS and NATO designed to compete. No matter what they say, or how they frame it, BRICS is specifically trying to compete, that's its purpose and design. 5) increased militarization across the globe as a result of increasing tensions and wars. More guns and a reliance on them, means they are more likely to be used. 6) Justifications for just about anything are possible now given all the threats, invasions, genocides, espionage, stealing of land or territorial water, and spheres of influence overlapping. There are so many border disagreements now that further wars or skirmishes are inevitable on some scale. 7) Rising dissatisfaction with governments across the globe that need an outlet. 8)The population is too large for the available resources, so resource wars arise out of necessity. The climate will continue getting worse, with increasing the pressure to take resources like water or food access by force. 9) Prisoners have been used in war, and forced conscription, showing an increased contempt or at least lack of concern for human life. 10) Populations are more easily led than ever across my lifetime, they'll buy anything if it makes them feel good, and the mechanisms for control are stronger than ever. So much so that conspiracy and outright obvious inventions can be used as policy when required. 11) Increasing unilateral action to solve problems. 12) Willingness to burn things down rather than work to better them. 13) The younger infatuation with the far right. 14) The generations that experienced the World War(s) are no longer here to tell you how horrific it was. I can only give you a few vague descriptions my grandfather gave me, he didn't like to talk about it much. He lost most of his friends at Dunkirk and the rest at Monte Cassino, I think, because he wasn't there, he'd left for the airforce after Dunkirk to be a navigator, or I wouldn't be here.

Thanks all for a wealth of ideas and responses. I've started putting a few into the budget. @Applegarden8 | @lostingenosmaze | @Schizophonia | @Jannes | @Hojo | @FourCrossedWands | @gettoefl | @undeather | @UnbornTao It was very helpful, and I hope given the financial pinch to more people than just me. I'll definitely keep this bookmarked if anyone else has any ideas or food channels to view. Appreciate it. @Starlight321 As little money as possible. Given different countries and regions, the pricing is going to be different but the sentiment the same. I am trying to budget to eat as cheaply as possible as things are going to get very tight from this month on.

Let's assume this stor-y or stored duality is correct for a moment of self indulgence. For the same reason I wouldn't walk a community into a bear cave or wolf den. Shared experience goes both ways. If you immerse yourself in something you become part of it, and if let's say one world out of 50 or 5 million were insane, or less hyperbolic, they were destructive. Would it be worth exposing your populations to them on mass? Its the same reason a public speaker should consider their words very carefully, because if 50 million people see it, you have to consider how people across a wide spectrum are going to respond. If you just incarnate onto earth, do a bit of work here, then leave, in a couple of lifetimes, you'll get over it. If you get out that is. Apparently, mystics would say the doors open now to come and go. I've no reason to doubt their motives for saying that, but we'll see when I go knock on it. Hopefully another half-century from now. That's what I would have said about all this in the past. Now I understand its all a creation of the mind anyway. So we are just playing games with words/worlds. Another person I used to respect once said, aliens will never manifest unless enough people's minds are focused on them. I don't believe that now either, because during all the 90s and millennium hype nothing happened and people were alien-mad back then.

Why the hell would they want to come to Earth. A bunch of wildly unpredictable humans fighting over an intergalactic grain of sand, which they are managing to break. You'd watch that sh** on TV. Put a sign up saying don't feed the locals, and give that small dot on the map a wide berth. At the very most you'd get one or two people, the kind who like to climb mountains having a look from a distance, but the average alien he'd avoid that spot. Unless he reincarnated here for a lifetime or two (or thousand). What most people also don't understand is alien, means alien, something that might not even be visible in the standard visual spectrum, or would be so alien you couldn't right now conceive what it is or how/why it acts as it does.

Happens every couple of years, they censor something else. As someone who has had half of how they speak and most of what they would watch censored on youtube, meh is all i'll say. Nobody cares until it comes for them. Creeping authoritarianism throughout society and culture made manifest online. I will say these days they censor more via not showing the videos in search or showing subscribers new videos are available, shadow bans etc, rather than outright bans. They have a lot more subtle ways to censor people, and it's usually driven by advertisers' whims, which is marginally more healthy than the decisions of an even smaller group of people.

I said these were better paths to take, if you want to know what I would personally support i'll make it clear at the bottom. 1) Air strikes on top of hostages is very stupid. Air strikes with the encompassing goal to clear the area to occupy is a possible death knell to israel long term, for every reason I've given. Its certainly 100 years more violence. 2) No. It didn't take too long with Afghanistan. It would have been even quicker here as the US was there in about 3 or 4 days with its aircraft carriers. 7 October 2001 was the start date in Afghanistan. Less than a month after the tragedy that led to it, there were 9 outside countries directly involved, With a lot more supporting from afar. 10 if you include the proxy in the country itself. Gaining diplomatic legitimacy in a crisis itself takes very little time at all, which is the important bit internationally, for now and for the future of the country. 3) That is why people make efforts to reach out to them. Otherwise, it will always be that way. Israel thinks of itself as alone and acts alone. Its understandable but unilateral action, not utilizing a giant amount of coalition resources, ultimately leads to more suffering for them. Besides which you are not doing it just for them, you are doing it to demonstrate Israel is a reasonable state at the most unreasonable of times. That you are in control, and politically seeking allies. They would have been pressured to help you, as opposed to pressured to now resist you. Sure maybe you just get the location of 3 Hamas officials and a few public messages of condemnation for terrorists, but that costs you nothing, maybe you get a heck of a lot more. 4) No you don't need young men's boots on the ground as i've just stated. This is flawed thinking when you have overwhelming air power, control over the borders, a wealth of special forces teams that could have hit them before they even knew they were there, control over aid, missile superiority, control over everything that enters that region, medical supplies, any money going in via jobs, water/power existing etc. In a crisis situation, the last thing you are supposed to do is act immediately on emotion. This is true in your personal life and it's even more true for a country. Taking the most extreme option first is irrational. Understandable emotion but irrational. 5) Yes its difficult work. Nobody said it'd be easy. None of this is easy. It'll be difficult work for 50 or 100 years but its work you wouldn't be alone in doing. Because a percentage of the Palestinian's own people would have been helping. The people earning money, the people who don't want war. Instead, if you've created just 10% more people willing to fight you, that's 200,000 more resistance fighters. You could have had that percentage at least helping you, and all the international support in the world doing so. Every large country has supported and run proxy governments before. It is possible and it does work. So what would I support? All of it. Why limit yourself. Why be so boxed in, and blinded to other options, that you can only try one strategy at once. This option to level Gaza was always there, it wasn't going to go away, but it was the first and only thing picked. Then a bunch of oh why don't you all support this extreme option. Which was incredibly short-sighted and limiting. It will lead to a great deal of pain and suffering for the people doing it, and alot less of the world caring (and in some cases now remotely supporting) the next response when it happens. Would i have airstriked Hamas targets outside of civilian population centers? Yes. Do I think its dumb to hit 30 civilians to get 2 Hamas fighters, when a delta force squad could have done it quietly? Yes. But instead, Israel put the blinders on, didn't consider all the international resources that were at its disposal, and now is desperately trying to argue that this was the only choice. When in reality it was one of many, and others would have come up with a lot more than this, this is just off the top of my head in a short time thinking about it.

One day we'll arrive at the place, where universally people on mass see countries as a collection of people in them. With a framework of laws and institutions over the top. Then one day we'll acknowledge that the concept of a country being bad or good is absurd. All you need do is look at your own city and see the many different people in it to understand this. The many different institutions trying to keep it running as best they can, and all the companies doing well or going broke etc. Countries are flawed because people, institutions, businesses, and the values in them are flawed and imperfect. This is not an east or west thing, though there is always much to learn from the flaws and solutions others have or do. You are not better than them or worse, you just have different problems, different people etc.

'Full of neo nazi's.' You mean the few hundred that were in a militia unit, that was reformed before the war into a regular army unit? The leader of which left and got 2% of the vote in the elections? Those few hundred? I guess that'll be every country then, because EVERY COUNTRY has a far right, and now more than ever. Every country has shifted right and continues to do so unabated. 40 Million people. The far right being 2% was actually a very healthy amount at that time. You can be damn sure invading a country will create a lot more far-right individuals, so good job there Russia, creating what you say you don't want. Oh what's that, several far-right groups marching in your own country? I guess Russia will be invading itself next? The reason the world doesn't line up with what you are saying, is because its an ideological fantasy, the very thing you say you hate to see. One of the many bad faith pretexts, because the actual truth was a complicated set of calculations, internal/external pressures, and emotions to arrive at that particular choice. Not an absurd claim that a country of 40 million people, most of whom were minding their own business was overrun with extremists, and Russia just decided to play a moral wet nurse to 'save them' that day in another country. Most countries try to expand their sphere of influence, because they are playing zero-sum games. The fact you think this is limited to western nations while BRICS is ascendent, is willfully choosing a side and saying their bad, were good. Its okay when they do it, because I like how they operate more. Look down the street, into the nearest city, and tell me all the people there are good people, whatever that means. Because that's your country, not a construct in your head. BTW in war, the west prosecutes its low-ranking war criminals, most of the time. Because the public demanded they do so. Forget the decision-makers they've always been above the law. Even for the rank and file, I don't think they will care as much going forward, but then Russia promotes its war criminals, and pardons its actual criminals to fight so *shrug*. I guess it's a normalization and what people want or will tolerate these days.

B Complex is fine. Unless you have a specific diet or medical requirement to consider. Thanks for that, it's a fair choice. It jogged my memory with a bit of searching. Echinacea is what I was thinking of, and I personally used to always have it at home as a go-to. Both of those would make good picks, antioxidants, anti-inflammatories etc. For me it was one of the most blanket useful botanicals out there. Casual reading around the subject. https://www.verywellhealth.com/cytokine-storm-syndrome-4842383 Cytokine storm, can produce headaches and lethargy after an exaggerated immune response. Obviously, it's not that severe here, so don't overly worry, I reference it only to show the symptoms of why something happens. I don't want to reach above my level too much, but this COVID variant being somewhat unique or different could have caused that sort of over-immune response in people, which is why it was so severe at first. It also explains the wide variety of different symptoms people experience. Be interesting to see what they eventually come up with in their ongoing research.

If this was the case I'd try more anti-inflammatory foods and supplements than usual. Plenty of types out there to pick from. My initial thought was more water than usual, more meditation than usual, and vitamin B for circulation, I don't know if Alpha brain would help in this case but it's my usual go-to for things like memory issues or focus issues. Definitely Vitamin B though, a good dose of it. Obviously, if you've got anything that won't shift, hit it with a high-dose vitamin C supplement, Garlic/Tumeric/Ginger, a high-grade manuka honey and anything that oxygenates the system or increases immune response. For example, yoga with the hands at the chest together, pulling outward to stimulate the lymphatic glands, some people do that with a twist of the waist while sitting down. What I call the healing breath is probably the most useful breathing technique. That's 1 in, 4 hold, 2 out. To whatever count you are comfortable with, more useful for chest and regular colds, but I wouldn't rule it out to pump oxygen into the body and expel junk. So it can be 4 seconds of breath, 16 seconds hold, and 8 seconds of exhale as an example, try to do it in a place with good airflow or outside a few times a day. There is a herb that comes to mind for increasing blood flow to the brain but I can't recall it, perhaps someone else will. It's been a long time since I was in natural foods or medicine. I'd take a Purdey drink if you are in the UK and see if you get any noticeable difference (minor vitamin B shot).

We don't control who is gay or not directly. As i've tried to tell you, gender preference is a natural changing factor in mammals and other species that operate socially. A natural correction, due to environmental factors usually, competition, lack of resources, lack of food, shelter, whatever. We like to think of ourselves as above or separate from animals, but we aren't, we still have these biological drives and influences inside of us. People need companionship, they need sexual desires satisfied, they don't control what they are attracted to that's all biological/chemical, and to repeat it's the most natural thing in the world. The resources or space available are not sufficient for the people living there to have families. I made a very simple observation in Japan for example. Have you seen some of the spaces people live in? They can't fit one person in let alone a family. This is an easily demonstrated and direct example of what I am talking about. Sure i'm giving you an extreme example, but people are living in this. They live in cyber cafes too, or tiny hotels with just a computer or a bed. If you take this example and apply it to energy, food, competition over a ridiculously small 10% of partners over dating sites, work hours vs life balance being way out of wack, *insert everything I've already spoken about*, such as space in many countries you get the results we are talking about. @HMD

My point was that is the norm. It is exactly what is supposed to happen given the current social pressures. if more people could afford a family there would be more families for example. Gay or straight for that matter, but when more people are forced to consider food/energy prices just to survive then it's an obvious issue blocking childbirth or adoption. - Then a poster (not you) tells me ah they just don't want it enough, and I sit here and facepalm. Not to vilify that response as it's a common one, but it denies or ignores all the current data in front of them to fit an ideological view, which doesn't ultimately empower, or solve, because the same problems will still be in front of the person that were there before. If not that person then the hundred million others in that exact same circumstance, because we are talking a wide group of people deciding whether they will have a family or not. Picture the broad scale when you are considering this issue. If the answer you arrive at is you can't do anything anyway, I get it, maybe you can't. Plenty of things I observe every day I can do nothing about, except make them known or link X to Y in the hopes enough people say yeah I see that problem more clearly now. If the answer is you will focus on one aspect of all those factors I listed, then you can do something, if you have or can assemble the time/energy/resources and inclination to achieve something. Maybe you could form a website entirely dedicated to family and allow people to form, manage, and care for a family in the current climate. Pulling all these issues and pressures people face into the light and then giving solutions for them, rather than having people ignore and pretend they don't exist. Allow space for a family to exist and it will. If X is true Y happens. If you don't want so much Y, lessen X. As i've said before, personally, i'd like 52% of people to be gay, so population numbers are forced to reduce, because any method I could suggest to achieve that otherwise would not be palatable to anyone, and understandably so.

Gay people are essential. Mammals and many other animals change gender preference based on the availability of resources, mates, and room for having kids. The urge to have sex and for companionship through life never goes away, it just reforms. We have too many people on planet Earth fighting over too few resources, and finding a partner has become harder than ever, thanks to a hyperfocus on 80's styled almost materialism of the top 10%. Where looks, income, false videos, and a fake image is projected, expectations are raised far too high from reality. That and the isolation caused by the current division in culture played to by media forces for money, and technological forms of communication create isolation and the breakdown of relationships across the board (moreover they never form), meaning people just want sex as a passing release rather than a meaningful pairing or partnership. If the OP really wanted more men in families, he'd completely ignore looking at the symptoms of the effects of social pressures, and look at the social pressures. He'd work on ways to keep families together, have a frank conversation about population levels, nullify technological impacts on putting across unrealistic expectations from dating sites, show people how to do more with less, and socialize more which leads to more relationships naturally, encourage politicians and news media to not focus on division to making a living, and encourage people to live together in harmony rather than competition. But of course, nobody's going to do that. BTW all that would help people who were gay too, so this isn't an anti-gay post, as I said at the top, gay people are essential and the number of gay people increasing is a natural biological imperative.

This is a good idea for a budget. I've been having a couple of oat milk in the diet as it's got a lot of nutrition in for the price, but the porridge is going to give me more than cornflakes when I do have it. Sometimes I'll make cereal half the meal for carbs in place of potato, couscous, pasta, or rice. It's a good pick.

Where anarchy exists terrorism and might makes right flourishes.

1 - People raid to recover hostages all the time, Europe has had to do it over and over and over again. You don't hear about the SAS much for example, because they do it so well. Those resources were at your disposal initially, you were not alone, thinking you were/are is part of the problem. Its understandable given your geo-political location. Hopefully Biden for example risking his political future, to stick with you, demonstrates otherwise. Heck every political party in the UK despite all the backlash is still with you. 6 - The heads of Hamas are safely in Qatar. At the start of this, when all the goodwill and sympathy was with Israel, they could have got the entire leadership. Either covertly without approval using international third parties, or with approval from Qatar. I think you all had that much sympathy and political capital because of what happened. I meant that about 2 and 3 as well. They are about using the geopolitical options you had/have. American special forces taking out Hamas in Gaza was a definite option before this started, that's not diplomatic to Palestine, I'm talking about the rest of the world. You could have got back most of your hostages and then done whatever afterward. Look at how America went into Afghanistan at the head of a coalition, it got real international support for the same understandable reason you could have had. It used all the expertise it could from around the world, in everything from intelligence, logistics, covert operatives, and firepower from every other country willing to contribute. - Israel could have had all of that, and that's not even talking about what you could have got from the locality as well. - Sure America stayed too long in Afghanistan but it achieved its initial objective. You say diplomacy has been tried. Not this kind. On the kinder end, you pick and support the most pro-Israeli arab you can find, you give them security, funding, and backing. Governments all over the globe have been doing this for decades, and sure at some point he's going to be targeted, but he's your man and you extend the best protection you can to him, he gets the aid, he gets the backing of the IDF when needs it. He improves Palestinian life and yes you are making that happen, restoring control, because that undermines the extremists while maintaining stability. An unstable anarchy leads to terrorism like this. On the extreme end of this, its going in with a peacekeeping force, taking out Hamas, and installing a friendly government. I think you would have five or six countries willing to go that far with you at the very start of this, and that would have been a better option than what you could currently have. Those countries would have been partially responsible for maintaining that government and keeping it safe from outside threats. Even trying that and having it fail was a better option, because you could show the world, look we did all this with all your help, and look they still tore it down. Sure it would have got pushback but it was one possibility. Part of diplomacy is making the effort anyway, even when you know its going to fail. With all these enemies around you, just reach out, make the effort and when it fails you turn around and say to the world, we tried, it didn't fail because of us. When Zelensky offered to come over, you should've grabbed that man and put him front and center. I know you might be gambling on the Russians instead, so if not him, get someone else there, but trying to do this alone is part of the problem you are facing and will face. People made trips to you and tried to do the political part for you, but it was all after the fact and lukewarm at best. 4) What's an example of pressure you can ratchet up? A, No aid is coming in next week. B, Three Hamas locations will be rubble by the end of the day. Increased as needed. C, Next week you will be cut off from any water, then power, then communications, then whatever. D, We are taking the north next week for ourselves. You can have 15 steps in this list, that gradually increase the pressure. Then yes, there is the danger a terrorist executing a hostage, but that is a danger anyway, and hostages have been lost with this current approach. It also means the population has an opportunity, a real opportunity, with an incentive to give up Hamas entirely. You can then use the carrot, give us these Hamas leaders and we'll double the aid next month, we'll send medical support, or someone to get your water running. Give us the top man and we'll give you free passage out of Gaza for the next two months, whatever the specifics are not important, just replace them as appropriate. Only the gradual approach is important, as it gives time for people to think and time for the pressure to work. 5, I know. It was working. The average Palestinian that was employed in Israel is not the Iran-backed extremist lunatic that caused this wave of violence. The people earning money, and feeding their families, are not the ones throwing rockets at you.