๐ฎโฌ๏ธ tarot:
there really are some mentalities that default to conflict, and everything about them is fighting. mining populations which are locked into brace and protect, like the homeless or those who have been conned or con systems, or prison populations breeds this sort of mass psychosis into the intelligence models. psychology fundamentally predicates the ability to decide, and what sort of decisions are made; if reactivity is the only psychological knowledge in an immature mind, there is no reasoning with it in times of fear or anxiety or antagonism. bodies like nato which are literally designed for war, and which have no purpose if there is no conflict, stimulate the need for conflict to maintain their relevance. by investing in systems which exist because they are trying to stop fighting with more fighting apparatuses - you get conflict. withdrawing attention deflates the hegelian. sometimes as long as one entity refuses to or cannot break out of the conflict mentality - both are prisoners to it. i can refuse to fight but if my partner constantly fights, i am always under fire. when you fight with those who are mentally incapable of not reacting to antagonism with more conflict, you risk everything you do and have, including your own safety - on someone who cannot control themselves. there is no honour in maintaining broken and unstable relationships if the relationship is built on ignoring your safety because they want attention/fame/triumph etc. some are not ever going to extract themselves from the gamble of war. the court jester of international relations is the gambler who always doubles down. without a pivot to something else, the double down is eventually destructive. if you feed war machines: you get war. even if you say you are promoting peace - because in the end, being against war is a fight to have it your own way and you end up "bombing for peace". nato wants to draw the coalition into a massive conflict to play soldiers and tanks; the sustain of conflicts by their narratives clearly shows that's accurate. if you are not interested in being drawn into a "an attack on one is an attack on all" constant loop - leave. the reason the immature loop perpetuates is because of that ultimatum protocol. eventually rhetoric manifests into reality..... it only takes one war monger in a group of peace keepers who have signed a treaty to bring everyone into war. and the reality is: everyone would clamour to get into a big war anyway - you don't need a treaty to assure alliance. "can i play" would solve any doubt of most nations wanting to cooperate in a conflict.... consensus is fascist. which is why war doesn't end when there is diversity in a consensus setting. sometimes you have to stop pretending an arbitrary solution of 80 years ago is still the solution now. we discuss how much has changed all the time - yet we use luddite bureaucracies and psychologies like nato to solve novel problems. "it's an attack the group screams !!!!!" (she's writing a novel...).
โดฒ. 