BlueOak

Oh and on energy. India is buying all the Russia oil the EU have let go and more. I was searching for a comparison graph but I couldn't locate it. This means Russia won't be hurting in its energy markets, and these countries will be burning oil more readily to up temperatures, AND oil is for war. When a country has an excess amount of oil, that factors into their readiness for war at least in China's case.

@actuallyenlightened There are strict nuclear doctrines. Russia will not do a first strike overseas without changing theirs, there is a long line of people involved in that process. They will also know their opponent's response ahead of time, they won't be hoping they won't be nuked, if it's the policy of that country to do a second strike then they will and will know that far in advance. This is why nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, everything is published ahead of time in the open. I hear differing reports about China, but I did mention it because the housing crisis is quite bad there. I don't know if its enough for the economy to stagnate though let alone enter a depression. Perhaps, if we see them stop expanding their influence in Africa economically for example that will be a sign they are at least stagnating. Food is an issue yes, for a lot of countries right now. It will be increasingly so for those that don't make preparations for global warming, if only because the crops each country will be able to grow will change, or dwindle at worst. Seafood for example will be hard to come by as coral reefs die out. Indoor farms, boosting agriculture sectors at home, and greening of deserts are certain countries planning ahead for the challenges to come. China and India will suffer here because their populations are so big, its a monumental task to ensure a billion people are fed in all areas when the food market is shifting so much. Flooding of course on all coastal cities will continue to increase, and those that are already in deserts or high temperatures now, which are not doing anything to lower them (greening deserts) are going to be less habitable. I don't see China being as rash as Russia, certainly not using nukes. I see them just waiting it out for an American president who takes his eyes off Taiwan and then invading. There will be a president in America one day that will say something like, we need to focus on American issues not asian issues, and that will be the cue for China to seize Taiwan. Of course, I could be wrong and they might rashly invade, but China will get all it wants and more if they continue to grow in influence, economically they will end up owning Taiwain a few decades from now if they have patience. Sri Lanka is an example of a debt-ridden country being crippled by tourism falling due to covid and internal issues, and a highly corrupt government. I wouldn't compare it to a superpower that has a growing economy, even if it has certain pressures on it. Some countries are just in a better position to weather this storm than others.

Synchronicity I was watching this at the time I read Leo's post So as I prefer to do, here is the opposite outlook to balance my own.

Sorry I should have been more specific. In military doctrine, the use of nukes first is called a first strike. I don't know of a country on earth with nukes that has a nuclear first strike doctrine against a naval force. Russia does for example have a first strike when they are losing a land battle on its own territory and the country is in danger of being overrun. This is also why nuclear powers don't fight conventional wars on their own territory and instead attack each other's spheres of influence either directly or indirectly. Almost all modern wars are a result of this. References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy Check the see also section for a few doctrines, first strike, second strike etc. So when I say more conventional wars are more likely, they are infinitely more likely based on past history, they just won't be fought on the land of nuclear powers, at least until missile defense has become much more effective. As for happening on its own. I was referring to an authoritarian government only collapsing usually when their economic or military policy fails them. Most people if they are well fed, have reasonable jobs, and feel secure in their military forces they are not prone to an uprising. Sometimes democratic groups get enough funding and coverage to push for change but that's usually only viable when the population is discontent. I don't see the people of Russia or China discontent, there are some murmurings in China, but the state apparatus to suppress the population is incredible these days. It works on so many levels, that I don't see democratic change in any of the large authoritarian powers happening any time soon. Meanwhile they are extending their spheres of influence over more and more of the world, which is changing governments everywhere.

As a first strike? Still extremely unlikely as that would mean a retaliation and again the end of millions of lives (at best). The only possibility for a nuclear strike is against a country that is far outside the influence of a nuclear power, which are a few but not many, and most of those don't have the military to make it necessary. When they reach that stage sure, either through economic collapse or losing a war badly enough. Getting to that stage when the authoritarian way of governing is ascendent in culture and the population is not going to happen on its own.

It's great people are waking up, better late than never I guess. A theocracy is also an outside possibility. The Overton window is so far to the right now, that the center-right is apparently the far left, and anyone left of that on any issue is called an extremist, it's beyond ludicrous. I feel sorry for Canada because I like that country and it will inevitably be pulled further right itself through America's sphere of influence. It'll be a time to see if people are willing to fight for democracy or not, because that is what it will take in many countries.

Very sad I hope some of the donation links are enough to ease the final months/years. It seems like she's being sentenced to death on the streets because as she says she can't take care of herself.

Not to be too descriptive but if Texas bans two methods of intercourse as they are trying, then they largely ban gay people from having sex. A dozen other states have the same anti-sodomy law they can enforce. They don't need to ban gay marriage to persecute gay people. Contraception is also on the table for a ban. This video is more reactive than i'd like but its true. Most people would have been shocked abortion was under threat a few years ago, so yes its perfectly possible. I don't know how much more people need convincing. Your unelected court can decide policy, they've decided the EPA doesn't have the power to enforce anything like clean air. So that's gay rights, trans rights, right to contraception environmental protection, child labor laws and other employment laws that I can think of. They don't care if its unpopular, they are a court, they are not elected and their position is for life.

People need to see how bad it will get while the reformist half of the liberal party is constantly ignored and put down. Where there is no pushback to the continued rise of the authoritarian right. You could accelerate the awareness of what abandoning the activist half of the party is doing to the country. The understanding will probably get there eventually on its own after some more suffering, that or your country will eventually have a third party break through the legal redtape, especially as the boomers eventually lose their grip on power. One of the defining trait of generation X was always not to be labeled, so if their time finally comes in power a third party is increasingly likely. But no amount of calling for unity while admonishing the progressive half of the liberal party will actually create it. That's outward. Inward you can look for a state that does more represent your values, it looks like states will be increasingly split as to the quality of life and values within them. If a place for you doesn't exist I hate to say but i'd move. Thankfully in America you have more choice as to where to move and if not easy access to canada. Though we value our rights more, we are not entirely different to America in the UK, and face a continued push of our politics to the right. I keep looking at Scandinavia myself as the quality of life there of workers seems to be in the top of anywhere in the world, up until recently I was strongly considering germany also because in previous crisis I'd always thought they'd managed them very sensibly. That has changed with their dependency on Russia, with them still going ahead on removing nuclear fuel. That's a huge misstep when these power sources need to be expanded to allow for a country to decide its own foreign policy. Canada was also a place I looked at for the quality of life, the relatively cheap value of land compared to here, and I seem to like Canadians as a people.

On the sports field. The arms producers can be retooled for space colonization.

Really surprised nobody put up disturbed! They've done several that would fit, this genesis cover is probably one of their most well known counter culture videos. This was one of their most powerful covers, originally by Simon & Garfunkel apparently about the Kennedy assassination. Zombie by Cranberries would be my personal pick as I was born in a period of history called the troubles, but you've got that already. The video in that is very powerful Previous generation to me it was groups like the sex pistols, which had a lingering bit of influence as I grew up. The punk scene in the 70's and 80's in the UK was big. In the 90s we killed it with underground raves, which came about because festivals were being closed down and banned. This sort anti-establishment culture, moved into things like the prodigy in the early 90s which did dance music. This one simply being entitled their law, but they have firestarter for example. There was also a lot of what was called indie music, which was another name for UK 90s rock. For the raves generally, it was stuff at the time you could gather in large crowds and mindless dance to, often with a drug culture attached. As you see the album is entitled for the jilted generation. Of which we certainly were, we hated the police and would frequently test the limits of what was legal. For Oasis it was working-class culture getting the spotlight in songs, not so much social change or commentary, but social recognition, which is what this energy became in the years going forward, to be eventually followed after that by culture war we have today. There is a certain working-class tribalism in the UK which you'll only see properly at a football game these days, or at a pub. There are numerous videos comparing football chants in the UK to the US for example, and like much of Europe that collective energy is channeled into sports as it's shunned or suppressed in the wider society. Things in life never go away. Anyone saying I hate X, or that X doesn't exist anymore, The energy itself doesn't go away it just reforms. The social pressures change how it is expressed.

At the moment? To reverse some of the momentum on the right. We are dealing with a large imbalance of idealism on the right now, with the roles having reversed somewhat. A complete collapse of the conservative party would leave us with a center-right labor government. *I want to edit this with that's never going to happen, this will be a flash in the pan, character assassination then carry on as normal.

You perhaps have heard of elfisim which focuses on all living things. The creator of that was recently reallowed on youtube after a long ban. I see it as collective antinatalism but that assumes that the human perspective is paramount over other beings which is a huge leap of ego in my eyes. Antinatalism for me is based on value judgments only, rather than seeing something as a part of a whole or a link in a chain. In pure value terms, I agree a dozen people's happiness cannot make up for one person having cancer. Efilists would argue a billion small creatures killing each other daily is worth no moment of happiness. Suffering isn't without its place. Suffering gives a depth to life that you can't have without it. You cannot really appreciate the depth of something without its contrast. A lot of the time you can't have growth without suffering, we can't meet challenges and better life in broad terms, without people suffering in some form. Assuming of course people are trying to improve life for others, which certainly isn't always the case, many are going through the motions and some are actively making it worse. There is a good argument to be had that humanity isn't moving forward in a harmonious or balanced approach, what that means is, its actively making the biosphere and life worse for those here. The ongoing environmental changes are all i'd really need cite for this, because that's the greatest collective perspective I can draw evidence from. For animals of course a vast majority wouldn't have anything like this moralist way of looking at life, and I would say imposing it over them is flawed. I also agree many parents' reasons for having kids is messed up, and part of the reason society is messed up. It's often only about them, and a value judgment based on the parent's life, or worse, expectations of them. If they instead thought, 1) I want to have a kid to give it the best life I can for him/her, as some do, then that kids life is going to be vastly improved, THEN did the personal value judgment 2) I'll only do this when its right for me, and no amount of expectation will make me have a child. 3) If they went one step further and said how can my child be a contributing part of the community, from a young age, that would be a step up too, but you get the idea. We could use spiral dynamics here, to the level of consciousness of the parents Overall I came to learn from my limited viewing of the ideology of antinatalists and efilists, they can be (or appear) outwardly compassionate people, because they are considering the suffering of others above their own. They are limited to just value judgments which is a capitalist way of looking at the world, and are from my understanding often pure atheists, because if you do consider any form of intelligent or spiritual design to the biosphere we live in, with any greater purpose, that too needs to be put aside to hold these ideologies.

They happen every day. I think the use of nuclear weapons is always extremely unlikely, especially by comparison.

Yes. There will be a rubber band effect eventually but unless someone keeps the courts in check, you can expect this. From my understanding, there have been US presidents which have put a leash on the courts before but failing that yes its a distinct possibility. People's willingness to protest or tolerance of it is an all-time low, so the people's response is muted. Its highly like this will create two countries inside America, and further divide your population for generations.

I have a negative outlook, and I dismissed a spiritual teacher ten years ago when they said we were on a path to WW3. Having watched all this, it's too bleak, I feel this is out of alignment with what is happening. I do feel a large-scale conventional conflict is increasingly possible, as are civil wars in countries that are already unstable. It misses some hope like Egypt or Saudi are greening their desert. It misses some of the technological adaptations which could happen at a faster pace, such as in multi-level indoor farming. So I think the food crisis, being such a unifying necessity will be solved. It misses that if we finally, (ever), get off oil/gas then that will be less of a factor. My thoughts about people's willingness to get off oil and gas are currently at an all-time low however, if this Russia crisis was anything, it was an excuse to do just that, people failed. I think the fall of some of the authoritarian powers is vastly overstated here, because they are on the rise and have been for a very long time. I don't even see civil disturbance being as great as I originally thought, given that most people seem not too bothered about the changes occurring. The level of protest or willingness to tolerate it is an all time low. But yes there are some tough times ahead, possibly some larger conventional or civil wars but I think the video exaggerates. I would like to see the UK's military doubled in size to 4% of GDP as soon as possible personally, and I no longer completely rule out a world war as I did previously, seeing some of the extremism I've seen from opponents in this recent conflict.

There was a significant self-reflection of narcissism in those that were aware enough for such thoughts. I did watch interviews with reformed MAGA supporters at the end of it. When you preach hate or express hate towards a large group, there is always a chance you'll wake up to that part of yourself, or the part you hate and resist. I remember when Trump was elected people telling me the benefits of narcissism for example, I hope at the end of it all, that attitude shifted to show the flaws more readily as well. The other part is, as I keep hammering on about, authoritarianism is still integrating, at the expense of liberal values. It is necessary in the long term even if I hate it :D. I would like to be aware enough to see democracy surviving with more liberal values intact but I can't see that and I don't feel it. Perhaps when emotions are no longer running so high, some liberal positivity will return, as it tends to need positive outlooks to flourish. PS Before anyone goes off, I don't mean capitalism - socialism. I mean authoritarianism at the expense of liberal values. Please if you can split those up in any replies that'd be great.

A few other examples I can think of things that do exactly that, but are/were still part of the culture binding a country are: War, Intelligence services, Dog Eat Dog cultures, cultures with a history of piracy or privateering, Colosseums, Slavery, Raiding, etc. Many of which are negative things but still formed the basis of a culture. As I said it doesn't have to be positive from our point of view for it to be true.

Although moving countries is difficult for anyone. Is this more true in Russia and China? I honestly have no idea, I assume wages are generally lower so money is harder to save for a large move but beyond that?

We are in corporate feudalism more than capitalism. Here is a video you might have seen but it was great at the time. The problem is most of us with any left-leaning parts of ourselves, have got so used to not caring about image, nobody thinks about it. Which is a weakness I understand to abandon it completely. For decades we've been ignored, mocked, derided, and you develop a very tough skin to things like image concerns or just general nonsense abuse. I'd even go as far to say that a good portion of left-leaning people go out of their way to be counter-culture to image. All of this is a strength in things like reform when you need to be able to weather the pushback. You get used to it and gradually don't care.

Never done it, but i've done it with a person in the dreamscape, I've also lived a moment through their eyes, so I would assume yes. Set your intent for the dreambody before you sleep to see what happens. If you can lucid dream or astral travel then you've another option. Try bringing back a lost pet, or if you are in control of your dreams and have a sound mind/body a dead relative. That can bring some pain though if you are still at the mercy of impulse or emotion toward them/yourself.

Trees unsurprisingly

Now you've arrived at that perspective. Back then it was the backbone of the culture, the strive to be rich was over here as well to a lesser degree. You are looking at something through a modern lens, and not appreciating how it used to be. I would suggest watching interviews on how the mall for example was the meeting spot for American youth, or how wall street was seen as a positive progressive force by most people. How and why things like muscle cars were a sex symbol, or the fanatic nature of fans which went even further than it does now. I don't know American culture as well as someone that was born there, but I do know the time quite well as I was born at the end of it. We had some of what I've written above, where money was everything, it defined almost all opportunities in life rather than as it is now, where you can with a good work ethic, some luck, and the training/team achieve almost anything. Naturally, because money almost completely defined not only your social status but almost value as a person, materialism was aspired to more readily. Things were status and the act of trying to get things, was an identifying aspect of culture back then. I'm trying to give you a snapshot into the mindset because its completely different to when I was young. I'll close with, just because something is harmful doesn't mean culture isn't built around it. War for example was a pillar of many cultures through history even if the average people in those cultures hated and never wanted to see it.

This is a wider perspective on the spiritual/materialist connection that was just dropped for synchronicity.

@Devin Quote: I think our culture divides us. Because of the changing view on materialism. Can you see if it was celebrated as before in past decades, it'd be the opposite? People were celebrating wealth, it was a defining aspect in media or film, and the now mocked American dream was a staple of the culture. Now its an extremely divisive issue that is quite literally a splintering factor in your own country. Quote: Americans eat each other alive Competition was/is a strong part of your culture, more so than mine. We'll have to disagree on the rest. I could continue to cite where authoritarian parties have risen in power and influence globally, but if raw numbers are not enough to demonstrate it, wars from expansive authoritarian powers, and landmark political reforms going on in your own country I don't know what will. The world hasn't had a progressive liberal phase at all, that's the problem. Part of the world's population in a couple of dozen countries has, over half a century. If the world had, or even the majority of governments, we'd not be having this conversation. *I did want to add I agreed with this. Quote: Many sub cultures do not understand the changes therefore are afraid of them, therefore desperately fight against them.