The rebellion against the Matrix and Vedantic philosophy.

[Gary Childress]

I mean, I agree that Biden is not starting any wars and is so far keeping the peace, but what happens if the people who "rig" our elections decide to put another George Bush into power? Are we therefore at the mercy of the "riggers"?

[Gary Childress]

And it's not only the children of the "riggers" (if at all) who will be fighting in the bloody trenches of these wars. EVERYONE potentially donates their children to wars like Iraq that these "riggers" get us into.

[Constantine]

Not leadership oriented at all, just a few judical conceptual tweaks, if placed in the right circumstances can be devastatingly impactful to the tyrants. I've predicted about 30 years for reformists in government departments to wrestle control from the current faction. I want my concepts kicking in about the same time. I'm unwilling to discuss it here, but it's entirely non violent.

[Gary Childress]

Not leadership oriented at all, just a few judical conceptual tweaks, if placed in the right circumstances can be devastatingly impactful to the tyrants. I've predicted about 30 years for reformists in government departments to wrestle control from the current faction. I want my concepts kicking in about the same time. I'm unwilling to discuss it here, but it's entirely non violent.

That's possible. WW2 saw the demise of overt colonialism for the most part. WW1 was a precursor to it. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the precursor to (for lack of a better term) "neo-colonialism" or the manipulation of sovereign countries by distant or detached entities. We'll see. Or it could turn out that a few will always find it necessary to exert their will over the many or at least some.

Maybe technology will yet push us into a world of increasing democracy and self-determination. Or maybe technology will push us into a world of making it easier for a few to manipulate all. Or, perhaps the kernel of reason to be gleaned is that democracy is a constant battle that must always be strived for. Those who lay down control of their lives ultimately leave it to someone else to control them, unless the controller wishes to let them perish.


¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Constantine]

WW2 certainly didn't see the end of colonialism. Many European powers doubled down, and the Soviets expanded. NATO (a then purely defensive bloc) broke it. European powers were in a position to choose either empire or holding Europe together. EU as it was morphing also helped.

Blocs alone don't ensure this. United States under both The Articles of Confederation, US Constitution and the Southern Confederate Comstitution tried to expand (also during the north eastern confederacy during Prince Philips War).... we view it now as one country but recall under the Articles of Confederation we were 13 fairly independent states behaving like the EU today, and scrapped it a few years later. What is missing from the US system is the additional level of cooperation in our divisions of local, state and Federal levels of government called a alliance. Example.... having a alliance with Canada requires diplomacy. US States don't have much diplomacy with the Feds, and rarely outside of compacts to cooperate with one another state to state. Only time we really see this happening is when a national disaster happens and state governors send in their national guard to another state. NATO preserves that spirit. It's growing more and more in Asia. Latin America largely lacks it.... OIS exists. Some alliance networks exist but none are close.... closest ones collapse whenever political parties of the extreme opposite faction comes into power. Don't expect Venezuala for example to stay close to Cuba and Iran when the opposition eventually take over. Columbia and the US used to be closer, now a leftist president in Columbia is in charge so US is less active with it despite having Americans kidnapped down there. That's why I pay so much attention to the West African ECOWAS- it's a fairly advanced bloc for countries who don't quite know how to operate its machinery (so they keep finding themselves stuck and not knowing how to proceed, living up to the higher ideals of ECOWAS, when nobody planned to have say, a international military force for rapid deployment.

But WW2 did nothing to stop colonialism. It did usher in the United Nations.... but Woodrow Wilson was already talking about the United Nations in the 19th century in his writings, prior to The League of Nations. And the League of Nations did provide a roadbump to colonialism but not much. It wasn't a effective organization, not quite a bloc. UN didn't stop proxy wars or Soviet and Cuban colonization. It did help stop wars, resolve wars and helped prevent nuclear war.

British Commonwealth strangely keeps expanding on a voluntary basis. France in the Sahel collapses at a faster rate than the Commonwealth expands. The African Union is pissed off at Wagner in Africa right now. Prigozhin is in Mali at the moment.

[Gary Childress]

WW2 certainly didn't see the end of colonialism. Many European powers doubled down, and the Soviets expanded. NATO (a then purely defensive bloc) broke it. European powers were in a position to choose either empire or holding Europe together. EU as it was morphing also helped.

Blocs alone don't ensure this. United States under both The Articles of Confederation, US Constitution and the Southern Confederate Comstitution tried to expand (also during the north eastern confederacy during Prince Philips War).... we view it now as one country but recall under the Articles of Confederation we were 13 fairly independent states behaving like the EU today, and scrapped it a few years later. What is missing from the US system is the additional level of cooperation in our divisions of local, state and Federal levels of government called a alliance. Example.... having a alliance with Canada requires diplomacy. US States don't have much diplomacy with the Feds, and rarely outside of compacts to cooperate with one another state to state. Only time we really see this happening is when a national disaster happens and state governors send in their national guard to another state. NATO preserves that spirit. It's growing more and more in Asia. Latin America largely lacks it.... OIS exists. Some alliance networks exist but none are close.... closest ones collapse whenever political parties of the extreme opposite faction comes into power. Don't expect Venezuala for example to stay close to Cuba and Iran when the opposition eventually take over. Columbia and the US used to be closer, now a leftist president in Columbia is in charge so US is less active with it despite having Americans kidnapped down there. That's why I pay so much attention to the West African ECOWAS- it's a fairly advanced bloc for countries who don't quite know how to operate its machinery (so they keep finding themselves stuck and not knowing how to proceed, living up to the higher ideals of ECOWAS, when nobody planned to have say, a international military force for rapid deployment.

But WW2 did nothing to stop colonialism. It did usher in the United Nations.... but Woodrow Wilson was already talking about the United Nations in the 19th century in his writings, prior to The League of Nations. And the League of Nations did provide a roadbump to colonialism but not much. It wasn't a effective organization, not quite a bloc. UN didn't stop proxy wars or Soviet and Cuban colonization. It did help stop wars, resolve wars and helped prevent nuclear war.

British Commonwealth strangely keeps expanding on a voluntary basis. France in the Sahel collapses at a faster rate than the Commonwealth expands. The African Union is pissed off at Wagner in Africa right now. Prigozhin is in Mali at the moment.

My reading of history says the Allied Powers fought WW2 with the promise that the Allies stood for "Freedom" as was propagandized. It was the best way to get places like India, and other subject nations to remain loyal against Japan and to by extension, Germany. As with Lincoln when he declared the Emancipation of blacks in the South, the promise was made to garner support. When the war ended, the promises of freedom for slaves and decolonization of former European colonies (in the case of WW2 Britain, France, and the Netherlands mostly) were slow and hard-fought in some instances. But the Allies were the ones who made that promise and it was believed by the lesser nations of the world and so it had to be delivered in one way or another. Business as usual was not going to cut it. Colonialism and "neo-colonialism" are two somewhat different things. One was outright management of "colonies" by colonial governors, the latter has been "tutelage" under programs such as the Chicago Schools' economic ideas which were prescribed for countries who were "developing" under our influence in Latin America and others.

That's my reading of history. You read it your way if you want. I'm sure your reading parallels the Pentagon synopsis. However, when war planners guide policy it's usually for reasons of "national security" and not benevolence.

[Constantine]

No pentagon synopsis. Just took a few decades for colonialism to end in western Europe. Vietnam was a aspect of that, was well after WW2, French still didn't give up.

[Gary Childress]

No pentagon synopsis. Just took a few decades for colonialism to end in western Europe. Vietnam was a aspect of that, was well after WW2, French still didn't give up.

Fair enough. I'm not saying war is what broke colonialism or was the only mechanism. I'm saying the "Allies" weren't angels either. Perhaps not as evil as the Axis but the Allies had to advertise that they would make freedom the end game of their war in order to attract loyalty of countries such as India especially. The Japanese formed the Indian national army from POWs in Singapore in order to recruit India to rebel against the British. This forced the British hand to at least pay lip service to the idea of 'freedom" for India, however as history shows Britain wasn't eager, to say the least, to uphold the pledges that marshalled support from its colonies. Same with France and The Netherlands.

[Constantine]

Portugal was the worst.

[Gary Childress]

Portugal was the worst.

Well, we'll have to do better than Portugal for sure, however, we're going to have to top the British if we want to keep friends in this world. Business as usual isn't going to cut it for humanity much longer at the rate our species appears to be going. Sorry if I'm a bearer of bad news, however, I'll blame Noam Chomsky, I read a fair number of his books and have watched many interviews and critics on social media. But Chomsky is right as far as I can reckon.

There will be a unified Earth one way or the other and it will not be a "racket" with a "ring leader" heading it. Humanity will survive.

[Constantine]

Do you have any solutions, or can define the problem at least?

[Gary Childress]

Do you have any solutions, or can define the problem at least?

No. Solutions are for saviors. There are no saviors, only people. And a single individual cannot define what a problem is for all.

[Gary Childress]

But that is my opinion.

[Constantine]

We have very different experiences in life and philosophy it appears.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X6cogix3c ... llcyBpcmFl

[promethean75]

Bro that's exactly how my life and philosophy sounds. That could be like my sound track.