View source for The Purpose

==The Purpose==
=== Qualifying the Social Need for Collaborating on Shared Objectives ===
If we consider ourselves a new organization or association that is trying to create some sort of value, we may begin by forming a high level vision of what it is we care to achieve, and then figure out an approach to achieving it. So far, so simple?

In the same way, we can then begin to define more detailed objectives that indicate whether we are on a path towards our vision or not. To reach these objectives, we can formulate various cost- and risk-aware strategies however we see fit. 

We can trickle this same logic all the way down to the very detailed of tasks: What do we care to achieve? How will we achieve it?

SMART-ER Goals are commonly used by various types of organizations to define shared objectives. Though various interpretations exist, we can aim for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-Bound objectives that we constantly Evaluate and Revise.

The first S, and perhaps the most important, is to be specific about our goals. We need to know where we're going if we care to ever get there. Otherwise, we will have to believe the pessimists when they call this a utopian dream. These same people who (not surprisingly, as I believed it too when I was younger) believe that ''Human Nature'' to be self-destructive. I later learned that we are primed and framed to think this way, completely omitting what some of our brightest [https://www.waldenu.edu/programs/psychology/resource/is-kindness-a-natural-instinct scientists have discovered] over the past century(ies).

The word ''[https://www.epangea.top ePangea]'' was formerly selected to represent the idea of global unity. Again, it was simply available at the time of registration. I've concocted numerous names in the past such as [https://epolaris.epangea.top/ ePolaris], HumanCurriculum, LifeManagementBodyOfKnowledge or LMBoK, LilBlueMarble (and even - though a little less polite - ''How to Train a Human''). Some were new back in the day but are now in use for other purposes; some were already being used for other purposes; some were just, inappropriate I suppose.

=== A Short History... ===
Countless scientists and psychologists, including the renowned Dr. Abraham Maslow who is relentlessly referenced all around the world for his intuitive and practically self-evident ''Hierarchy of Needs'', have confirmed that humans are either [https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/abraham-maslow ''neutral or kind in nature''].

Not ''violent'', nor ''evil''.

We also have statisticians such as Hans Rosling who have studied human advancement for decades and published books such as Factfulness to demonstrate just how innovative and capable humans have been over time. 

I have yet to see a culture that does not teach its kids not to judge a book by its cover, or that it's what's inside that counts. That we should try walking a mile in a person's shoes before judging them. 

Yet, for various and perhaps valid reasons, many academics, intellectuals, blue collar, white collar, entrepreneurs, retirees, or even teenagers whom I've met around the world, are often quick to tell me how humans are greedy, or selfish, or evil, or lazy, or incapable, or... everything but "good". They tell me that people can be strange and are to be feared. They tell me how this very endeavour, this dialogue, is and idealist and utopian dream. On the other hand, the very few who Do believe in people's kindness and potential, they - perhaps accurately - believe that our leaders and those in current positions of power, wealth and influence will do all that they can to destroy this movement, to keep this simple idea from flourishing.

I have yet to meet a purely evil person who is out to kill or do anything harmful without (subjective) rational grounds that stem from the (irrational) structure(s) of our many societies existing as We accept them today. This may sound naiive, but I would like to humbly consider that being born in war-torn Lebanon (10yrs), raised in Canada (25yrs), moving to West Africa and East Asia(10yrs), and having studied and worked in a multitude of capacities with people of all ages, backgrounds, skillsets and 'classes' (30+yrs), should at least give me ''some'' idea of how things seem to work on the various grounds I've set foot on. 

For the record, I have personally never met a ''bad person''. I have generally met amazing people everywhere I've gone, and ''some'' people who our lost, confused, weak, insecure, angry, mistaken, vengeful, fearful and just lacking love or craving a need for belonging and acceptance. I have seen many such people make what some of us consider ''poor choices'', or what others might consider ''wrong'', and where others still may consider the person themself to be ''bad'', or ''evil''. Such folk make different choices from what we perceive as ''right'', sometimes harmful to others or even to themselves. 

I hold that a person is not their choices. Admittedly, their choices ''do'' dictate whether I trust such a person ''with my own well-being''. That doesn't stop me from hanging around and attempting to contribute something positive to this person's life, that can perhaps set them back on a more promising path for themselves, and in turn, for those around them. The hope is to ''maaaaybe'' nudge them in the direction of ''eveeeentually'' making the choices that might make them look like a ''good person'' to those of us who have a tendency to quickly label people. 

So, back to the (seemingly impossible) overarching idea here, which is to reduce the (purposely constructed?) complexities of our world into a prosperous global reality that we all envision together. In other words, this platform was built to facilitate worldwide constructive and collaborative dialogue to help us reinvent how we live on this earth - reinvent our reality. Everyone needs to take part. Everyone's Vote, that is to say everyone's Voice - is not only welcome, but necessary! We are to draw out a detailed blueprint that can satisfy everyone's immediate needs, and inevitably as a consequence, our future desires. No more ballots full of other people's names. It's your name; it's your voice that matters!

If this sounds like science fiction, it is not. If it sounds meaningless, I would argue that there is nothing more meaningful at the moment if we wish to have any chance at survival as a species. We have scientists such as Neil Tyson underlining the need for global cooperation in producing the next wave of energy sources, ensuring its accessibility to everyone and not only to a certain power and its allies, if we are to have any chance at surviving climate change - whether you believe in its impacts or not. 

We have historians such as Yuval Harari, author of Sapiens and Homo Deus, warning the world about how AI could drastically morph the current balance of power if it is developed privately, underlining the need for global cooperation if we are to stand a chance. We have respectable mathematicians who define themselves as Doomers, suggesting that the survival of our species is well past its threshold; that we're likely to drive ourselves extinct through one of many possible outcomes, which not only include the common topics such as Global Warming and Nuclear War, but also the less discussed and much more likely outcomes relating to superbugs and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Our supposed saviours that claim to help us face these global challenges include wealthy institutions such as the World Economic Forum (WEF). Klaus Schwab has become the talk of the (conspiracist?) town after co-authoring The Great Reset, which aims to supersede or dismantle governmental agency and independence, and instead centralizing ultimate control (and by definition, power) in ''unelected, expert'' (corporate) hands. We also have individuals such as Jordan Peterson who is attempting to face these challenges by creating his own group of intellectuals to identify the changes needed to make this world a better place. Of course, by definition, such small pockets of people are no different or are comparable to the WEF and their endeavours - a small group of people trying to solve everyone's problems based on their limited perceptions. No offense intended here as all intentions to do good are welcome, but the approach is limited by definition as such a conversation is in itself limited to the 2000 handpicked participants, selected by Dr Peterson and his entourage.

One can ask where the governments come into play, but it seems their priorities have very limited and self-centered scopes placing their own economical benefits above international and environmental interests. When I ask diplomats what their missions are, the answers have often (without exception, really) been limited to international trade agreements. It's as though local economies trump all other interests, which as historical trends have shown time and time again, inherently nurtures incentives that distort the balance of all things, and generates endless harmful environmental and societal outcomes in the name of profit and capital gain. Such harm includes the obvious green house emissions, as well as indirect or covert "civilized slavery", as my driver in Sierra Leone dubbed it when he and I compared my (supposed) ''rich'' Canadian life with his own, back in early 2013. I'll spare you the details but happy to share the breakdown of our conversation if interested. 

It's not too difficult to reason through, define or even recognize such a new age slavery system if we take a close and attentive look at the intricacies of our world today. Our visa systems and movement restrictions are discriminatory at best and inhumane at worst. Limited (andor expensive) access to quality education (and healthcare) are rampant throughout the (so-called) developed and developing nations, which happen to make up the majority of our world. Local currency devaluations and market inflations are worsening on all continents, from Venezuela and Argentina to Canada to South Africa to Lebanon to New Zealand. Forced instabilities and frictions have existed ever since the world was colonized and divided arbitrarily by imaginary lines placed by foreigners standing at a remote office and staring down at a drawing which eventually became an officially accepted map. 

To add to this unnecessary divide and facilitate conquests, our very own public tax money is redirected to private pockets, where military toys and weapons are put together and then given back to the general population. Each neighbour then goes out murdering its neighbouring population using these toys, built by our own public money, while private corporations sit back and enjoy the show as they enrich themselves through engineered fear, hate and divide. If that wasn't bad enough, our (their?) leaders are given further power, again using our public tax money, to the point where a single individual can wipe out an entire population at the push of a button. Whether this button launches nuclear warheads or AI-powered technology doesn't really matter anymore. 

The fact that we not only allow it to happen but actually fund it, should be an obvious question that we should all be asking ourselves! Especially when we have obvious failsafes discussed long ago, like how Isaac Asimov urged us almost 7 decades ago to implement the Three (simple) Laws of Robotics, to ensure our innovations don't ever turn on us in an uncontrollable manner. Yet, here we are allowing our governments to continue investing in R&D that has a primary purpose of doing the exact opposite of what these laws demand: to eliminate threat (i.e. to kill humans). I felt quite irritated when I found out that the most thought-after tax havens exist within the U.S.A., in places like Virginia and South Dakota (e.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/22/treasure-islands-tax-havens-shaxson-review ''British journalist Shaxosn's Treasure Islands'']).

Isn't it time we do something ourselves? Isn't it time for real change? Yes, it is possible. We just need to talk it out. Together. All of us. Right here. Right now. The same way any conflict is resolved peacefully - through constructive dialogue.

Once we have a blueprint of what we envision - what we all want - then we can easily start mapping out transition plans to get ourselves there. It's not impossible. It's actually quite easy. We just need to stop fearing, stop hating, stop shooting - and instead, start talking to one another.

What other option do we have, really? 

I can't think of one, other than continue to follow; continue to do as we're told, and eventually, go extinct.

=== Change is Easy Once it Can be Imagined (A longer history, in the form of a rant - or, Purpose V2.0) ===

What is the purpose of our complicated national andor governmental structures?

When was the last time you had a terrorist knocking on your own personal door? When was the last time you had an elected representative (if you reside in a place where elections are a thing) lie to your people? The answer to the first question will almost certainly be never (and I've spent time in a bomb shelter as a kid in the mid-80's), and I think we all know (and agree on) the answer to the second. 

Regardless of how we answer either question, I still wonder what exactly IS the purpose of a nation these days? Is it to represent a culture? Seems very unlikely as there are very few states left that are absolutely homogenous in nature. 

Take Lebanon for instance, a tiny little country of 10,000km2 or the size of Prince Edward Island - the smallest province in Canada about which most foreigners I've met have never heard - was made up of 18 different minorities throughout the majority of my 4+ decades of being alive. The northerners and the southerners are polar opposites, with varying religious, linguistic, and artistic pockets scattered everywhere in between.

Canada, the second largest nation in the world, has two official languages but there are serious talks of adding a third and fourth language, not to mention all the native and immigrant tongues that are also rich in their own artistic manners themselves.

It seems to be bordering on the absurd if entire collectives such as these were to be classified as a single ''culture'', or ''people'', or ''religion'' or, pretty much anything else besides the term itself, ''nation''.

So then I ask myself once again, what is a nation? Is it simply its governing body? Its currency? Its flag? What's the point of having any of these if they don't mean anything for the entire population? ''Government'' entails a social contract that was put in place to serve (regulate and in some situations, enforce) shared public needs, hence the term ''public service''. It seems odd that it the helm of these entities are often ran by people who are wealthier than the majority they govern, and surely don't resemble a 'servant', at least not to me. To you?

"A shared and agreed upon vision" is the best answer I've heard and agree with. ..but then, are we too ignorant or too cognitively disabled to have an even bigger and more inclusive yet diverse vision? If we can get along with others within a country, why can't we get along with everyone? I have had no issue being part of communities in the Americas, Africa, West-Asia (e.g. "Middle East") and East Asia (e.g. China). Please, do yourself a favour and don't even try to answer this question unless you've actually '''lived''' in various places, or I can otherwise assure you that your answer will be entirely ignorant '''and/or highly likely,''' plain false.

Currency on the other hand was ''one'' approach to value exchange, which has proven to be highly inefficient. The value of your hourly labour depends on where a baby is born on the planet? How does that make any sense? The constant inflation (seems to be a very common occurrence these days) is a commonly justified phenomena, as if it were the natural effect or outcome of a ''healthy'' economy. 

Well, some economists have dared to suggest that it really isn't anything other than a purposely implemented ''hidden tax'' against the mass populations, forcing a devaluation of any small amounts of savings a middle to lower class citizen may be trying to hold on to for too long a period of time. My uncle who just left California had to pay an exit tax, atop all of his property taxes and service taxes and endless other taxes that are often mimicked throughout North America. I like the idea of funding shared services; I'm just not convinced that the policies in place are serving the majority.

Banks only take small currency exchange and administrative fees but they're here to help you borrow whatever you need to build up with nothing. Just don't forget that 95% of new businesses fail within their first year.

The flag, well, it's a symbol of unity and something to die for of course, but unity in what? Nationalism? Patriotism? Die for country? Defend our freedom? From whom exactly? Who - or what - are we dying for, and exactly how is this such an honorable thing to do? Charlie Chaplin in the Great Dictator gives a moving speech for soldiers everywhere. I know my retired military friend is certainly on the fence these days wondering whether he had spent his entire life fighting for the wrong causes.

Maybe it's that when all of these are put together, they may represent our constitution, our laws and our freedoms! Well, then if two nations shared the same constitution, laws and/or freedoms, wouldn't it make sense for them to be part of the same body or entity? Isn't there power in unity? Is that what the EU or the USA is all about? 

So this is it then. A shared constitution and legislation, which together dictate our rights and our duties - a shared vision of a citizen's freedom. What's all the fuss about religious freedoms then and why are there so many arguments about gun laws in the USA? Abortions, marijuana, magic mushrooms? Why are tobacco, alcohol and sugar legal everywhere in developed nations were various less harmful drugs such as marijuana are illegal - or were, only until very recently?

Our tax money pays for our infrastructure and so anyone who uses it should contribute to this "shared tax collection basket" - Revenue Canada or its equivalent in the US, the IRS. So our nation is really the need to protect our own collective interest and investment in our infrastructure! Well that finally makes perfect sense. What if we changed the way we paid our taxes though? What if we abolished income tax and made companies pay taxes on behalf of employees? Revolutionary! Not quite. China, of all places, has been doing just that for quite some time. Successfully. Not sure Big Corp will be too keen, but hey, Bernie isn't likely to return to the polls anytime soon.

Speaking of Bernie, what's the point of electing someone to represent us under such ill-defined nations? Are we that incapacitated that we can't represent ourselves? Do we have that little faith in ourselves? Or is it always 'the others' we fear are too stupid or untrustworthy? Them over there, the ones that can't sign their names on the paper, they could never join a political dialogue. Right. Could they give their opinion on a clearly stated situation, question or concern? Cause, what else do they need to do? Is that not what votes are used for, to elect someone to be their voice? To speak on their behalf, because the citizen cannot or because we can't have 7 billion people talking about solutions. 

Or can we? Well, what if there was something like the internet that allowed everyone everywhere to do just that - to have a civil, constructive dialogue about our needs? You know, all that supposedly complicated stuff that all our politicians and diplomats are TRUSTED with, but with no success over the past, oh, century or two? Maybe it's high time we reinvent the concept of a vote, together: YOUR VOTE IS YOUR VERY VOICE ON WHATEVER TOPIC WE DECIDE MATTERS.

WELCOME, TO OUR NEW REALITY - ONE THAT WE CAN BUILD TOGETHER! ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS HAVE AN OPEN DIALOGUE ON WHAT WE ALL NEED SO THAT WE CAN BEST DESIGN A BORDERLESS PEACEFUL WORLD THAT LEAVES EVERYONE HAPPY. EVERYONE. EVERYWHERE. NO EXCEPTIONS.

I know we can do this. All we have to do is participate in this exchange until we have ourselves a blueprint of where we want to go - what do we want our world to look like? Once we've really included all community pockets everywhere, and covered all our human needs within this single shared earthly environment, then we can start mapping out transition plans so we can migrate and cutover to the desired life we want for us and our children.

Nothing can stop us from doing this, except ourselves - if we don't believe we can do this, we won't. Let's try to practice what we teach our children for once. That there's power in unity. That we shouldn't judge a book by its cover. That we should love and forgive one another. That we should treat others the way we want to be treated. Anything else that you would like to add to this list?

We got this. I know we can do this. We, got this.

== What’s the alternative to this seemingly mad, and arguably ignorant, “Let’s all hold hands and sing kumbaya” proposal? ==

=== GLADIATOR STATES === 
Let’s for a moment imagine there once existed something we called ''gladiator-states'' (our modern day ''nations'').<br>
<small>⇒ Based on a [[Roman Gladiators | short thought experiment entitled Roman_Gladiators]] that I wrote back in August 2022</small>

These gladiators primarily competed for economic growth, asset acquisition, military might, property and land ownership and control. The stronger the state was in these terms (often quantified by a simple layman term such as “economy good” or “economy bad”, or perhaps by a single indicator such as their GDP), then the more comfortable a living standard and quality of life its leaders (slave masters?), citizens (local slaves?), and groupies (expats?) got to live. The worst off the economy, the worst off the quality of life, at least for its common citizens (..not slaves?). Each gladiator state comes with its own brand logo (flag) and team chant (national hymn). Each team uses a slice of its collected contributions (taxes) and forced donations (hidden taxes such as inflation or some awareness-based debt that often seems to trickle back down to the… common citizen to pay). Lines are drawn amongst gladiators and amongst members everywhere, ensuring that no gladiator nor any part of a gladiator state ever become too unified and strong. There can always be a reason to compete (run into conflict).

At times, an initiative might be spawned, with the attempt to take care of all gladiator members’ health using their collected contributions, but then some of these same members might complain about how they shouldn’t pay for other people’s well-being and convince everyone not to use the collections for such a (public) service. Some have said that the prosperity of a nation is reflected in its ability to treat its weakest members. How can that ever be achieved if each individual is solely looking out for themselves and their own interests with no care for the community? Mathematically, that goal (caring for the weakest) seems clearly unattainable with such a mindset (me first individualistic mentality). Perhaps some may fairly ask why they should we care about others who don’t work as hard as them? The question I would then have is, has everyone been given caring, attentive and loving parenting in their first 2yrs since their birth? How about the safe learning spaces conducive to positive cognitive development? Is the world really fair to begin with to judge others for what they do, without knowing anything about what has made them who they are?

When it comes to military investments, the gladiator state does not hesitate for a moment to invest in such research and development without any real challenge from the members. They take from the (publicly) collected contributions and place them in (private) military toymaker pockets. These toys make the gladiator state leaders (slave masters?) so strong, that a single leader can at a whim erase an entire region and its members from existence. Side benefit, they develop and distribute military toys that they then give back to the common citizen, so that they can go fight members of another gladiator state in the name of honor, patriotism and a flag. They are defending their fellow citizens and their families from these other scary neighbouring gladiators. They speak different languages and eat different foods and sing different tunes and dress funnily and act without etiquette; and so we should make fun of them, and also, remain alert and fearful of them; well because, though we can have trade agreements with them to improve our economy today, we may have to fight them tomorrow; Us vs Them.

What if these gladiators had invested all of their military budgets in making learning fun, and interesting, and enlightening, and empowering? That would be spending (public) collected contributions back on the citizens who primarily contributed this money. Would not doing the same thing with healthcare just as much sense, regardless of the variances between individual needs? What if all gladiator state members had embraced neighbouring cultures all along as opposed to fearing them, perhaps learned their language so that they could communicate better and understand one another; discussing their way through conflicts rather than battling it out? All sharing in their knowledge and understanding so they can all learn more from one another and take better care of their health and growth overall? Alternatively, we can accept that both parents will likely need to work only to (try to) ensure the future security and safety of their children, by contributing a large portion of their earnings on (low quality) education and healthcare, with the dangling carrot of a dream that is to make their kids’ lives better than their own.

I can't help but wonder if I could possibly lose my citizenship and passport for writing such a text; whether this may be considered the equivalent of blasphemy in a church setting, or worse, high treason and unworthy of the queen or king now or whomever slave master I apparently might belong to now days? One can only wonder just how free I am to speak under the Freedom of Speech act, if I'm not engaging in defamation, libel or conspiracy - none of which I aim to encourage. I simply care to empower everyone who is currently alive by promoting the idea that we we all need access to living, learning, growing, communicating and collaborating.

=== A NATION IS BORN! ...BUT WHAT DID IT COST US? ===
The century old Israel-Palestine conflict is all of a sudden the new hype in 2023; it only took a disaster on the Israeli side of the border to trigger it ([https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-amid-humanitarian-disaster-in-gaza-sanders-urges-world-to-act/#:~:text=Then%20came%20the%20October%207th,including%20young%20children%20and%20grandparents. October 7th, 2023]). 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Goodbye Ukraine]! Hasta La Vista [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97qRUqYLNu0&t post-covid excess deaths]. The newest and latest talk-of-the-''global''-town is here; no different from the use of buzzwords like ''The Cloud'' and ''AI'', while the majority of ''debaters'' hold a prestigious degree in ''Youtube-TikTok-Certified Understanding'' of the given matter.

...and so just like everyone else in this self-proclaimed ''informed citizens'' majority, all of us who are quick to get sucked into ''being in the know'', I too had to try to inform myself on this new hype! A friend eventually shared this seemingly objective [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Q2t5r5o_k&t YouYube documentary (oh the irony) recounting the views of Israeli and Palestinian individuals] (officials and civilians) who were there in 1948. 

Now if we (the people; the masses; the 99.9%) can somehow manage to avoid sympathizing with either side for only a moment, reason and logic alone would tell us that this cyclical (if not circular) endeavour appears to be endless (if not pointless) in nature. 

'''...and then we may ask, how can ''good'' young men ''anywhere'' exercise such a devastating form of brutality against life? '''

No, sorry. It's not because ''they'' are monsters, and ''we'' are good. That's just what some very influential psychopaths want you to believe. Don't just take my word for it, in 1988, Noam Chomsky (who some of my younger, self-proclaimed and well-educated Canadian friends call "a loon") co-authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing%20Consent Manufacturing Consent]. This book was so threatening to the establishment that it was forcefully pulled off the shelves by the umbrella media conglomerate (it owned the small publishing company at the time). Chomsky tried to hit back back with dozens of well-researched publications, including the mindboggling content in Profit Over People (1999) and Failed States (2006), just to name a select few that dared to challenge the Goliath that the U.S. of A. has proved to be. 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daron%20Acemoglu Acemoglu is another brilliant writer who co-authored Why Nations Fail (2012) and The Narrow Corridor (2019)], underpinning the frailty that is involved in spawning and maintaining a well-balanced nation (or a "Shackled Leviathan", as they called it); a nation that can truly champion freedom and justice for all its citizens. 

One might consider, what about the authors' incentives behind authoring these books? Were they working for the Russians or the Chinese? Well, a professor of mine at Carleton University, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal%20Marlin Randal Marlin], also published ''Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion'' (2002) discussing the various manipulation techniques that have been in use for millennia. His course wasn't only eye opening; it was well needed wide-awakening slap in my face. Randal, whose classes I attended in the flesh, also happened to be part of the Clinton Administration back in the 90s; so, even if my younger friends want to label him another basket-case, Goliath himself certainly did not. 

Endless other authors like them have written on such topics and yet their proposed perspectives and arguments remain almost entirely absent in the typical ''educated'' conversations that seem to take place, as if unbeknownst to the average citizen. Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%20Against%20Fire Black Mirror's ''Men Against Fire''] presents the most modern and crystal clear approach to how collective illusions can be weaponized and targeted to generate individual perceptions that are completely rooted in inculcated myths, aiming only to cultivate intolerance, hate and division. I recommend everyone watch at least this episode (if not all of them) and then reflect on our comparable, inconsistent and often questionable human tendencies and behaviours. That's all, just, reflect.

Back to the seemingly unresolvable Pal-Israel conflict(s), I had to wonder, how are nations formed in the first place? I mean, did it look any different when settlers took over indigenous lands? Does the creation of a nation always entail devastation? It turns out that Columbia University professor and historian Rashid Khalidi had already examined century old primary sources behind this particular conflict and thought to ask these very same questions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hundred_Years%27_War_on_Palestine see his title ''The Hundred Years' War on Palestine'', 2020]). Obviously, this author was criticized for minimizing the Palestinian aggression. 

As a third party observer, I just finished watching the a council meeting of concerned nations alarmingly requesting a cease fire of the ongoing brutal Israeli retaliation, labeling it as an inhumane war crime, guilty of unjustifiably murdering thousands of innocent children (I write this passage now, on 11 Nov, 2023; over a month since the 7 Oct Hamas attack). I'm no theorist, but I think I'm equipped with enough neurons to recognize that Israel's ''current'' behaviour, today, right now, aligns perfectly with Khalidi's claims. No, it's not as complex as you're made to believe or think.

== Don't Take Either of Sides A or B; CREATE YOUR OWN OPTION C, Be a REFEREE, or Turn Off That TV! ==
Read such historical books for yourself; use apps like [https://www.blinkist.com/ Blinkist] or whatever affordable and digestible version you can find of such content. I do not suggest theology books be considered for such research and understanding; only factually evidenced history books, and only ones that rely on primary sources to support their arguments. Make sure to include contrasting opinions to help form a balanced (and still humbly ignorant) perspective. 

For example, before even discussing the aforementioned topic of Israel and Palestine, I would at the very least read the aforementioned books, as well as Daniel Cordis' ''Israel'' (2016), Nur Masalha's ''Palestine'' (2015) and Tom Segev's The Seventh Million (1991). I would then contrast and compare consistency and incoherence, questioning and dismissing any premise, opinion or argument that the author does not validate with credible primary sources or reasonably reliable evidence. 

I would try to link my investigation to new material that may involve slightly varying concepts, like interviews with the late journalists Christopher Hitchens and George Carlin, TED talks or Audio Sessions with psychologists and philosophers, like Alan Watts. I may wish to visit both Palestine and Israel while reading yet another book such as David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace (1989). To some extent, the findings usually indicate guilt to be held by most stakeholders and parties, much of it being rooted in misunderstanding the other side, or the bigger picture as a whole, and therefore failing to see the simple solutions that may be lying under our noses. 

Regardless, when I finish my research I may want to remember that there isn't a need to ''pick a side'' (or to form a one-sided opinion), but rather to enjoy the insights gained that give me a slightly more educated viewpoint while admitting my limitations. This helps us better filter the opinions we otherwise quickly absorb or deny when coming from our favourite friend, parent, role model or TikTok video. 

That sounds like a lot of work, right? Well, unless I can find some reliable reports and documentaries that can do all this work for me without any personal agendas promoting them, this may very well be the best and only approach to entering into any worthwhile discussion on the topic. I can not form an opinion without access to information and the understanding of it. I can only regurgitate someone else's opinion. If we look around us, such pre-formulated opinions come in rainbow colours and addictive emotion-filled packages, easy to absorb as our own. 

Easier for me to consider my opinion to be the same as someone else's than to do all that investigative research work myself before I create my own opinion. If that public opinion leads me towards [https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/the-three-types-of-binary-thinking Binary Thinking], I would be doing the world a disfavour if I join the conversation. Everyone would be better off if I hit the books and try to understand the topic on my own - or otherwise, admit that I am ignorant of the topic and choose to listen and referee arguments without acting like I know about something that I do not.

I think all humans can agree that war is to be avoided at all costs. What we think we disagree on, is that we think some people deserve war - that there's no other way to ''remove their extremist points of view from '''our''' humane existence''. What we fail to see in this situation is that every last one of us is a product of our environment. Having permitted an environment that created such people is not their own doing, but '''ours'''. If we keep digging through the past we find that we created such environments and we permitted them to continue to exist. 

War is never a solution; not for the people. It's not about Islam vs Christianity or Capitalism vs Communism. These are seeds that turn our lizard brains into hate machines, feeding the oldest ''Us vs Them'' tribal mentality, playing into the dichotomous nature of the ''Divide and Conquer'' tactic of the ruler. The people are weakest when divided.

Have we ever considered whether we have been duped into playing a losing game all along? Maybe, there's been a better way to do things but, we just never stopped to think.. '''how'''? We may have given up thinking it's simply too complicated, or there are simply too many ''bad'' people out there. No. There aren't. I've only ever met good people, or simply ignorant, insecure or annoyingly selfish people who do bad things; not because they want to do harm, but because they want to survive, thrive, shine, win at whatever it is they think they need to win, or do whatever else it is they think they're being smart about doing. They're simply abusing other people's trust, thinking that it takes skills, brains or smarts to do so, patting themselves on the back for it, when in fact, it's the absolute, easiest thing to do! 

Why? The obvious answer is that it's because our human nature is innately kind! At least at the beginning of our growth. Think back to how we to tend to be considered naive or gullible when someone takes advantage of our trust. All we were doing was being naturally kind, trusting, loving. How many of us forgive such acts? How many of us are jaded by such acts? How many that take advantage fall into such a greedy cycle that they have too hard a time to escape because it's so easy to take advantage of people's kindness? It seems as it really only takes one rotten apple to ruin the whole lot, and many of the environments we have created over time, whether we like it or not, make it far too easy to teach one such apple to rot.

== What If... It Was All a Man-Made Nightmare and a Solution could be to Simply WAKE UP? ==
Instead of thinking the world is too full of varying perspectives and therefore world peace is a joke of a dream, why not think that our past has been a man-made nightmare just because we've never taken the time to truly discuss our differences, choosing the faster and easier way to resolve our differences by fighting, dominating and imposing, or losing, migrating or assimilating.

A starting mindset that I would encourage stems from an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20 old speech made by Charlie Chaplin in the Great Dictator]. Black and White ancient and yet very relevant today - soldiers need to put down their weapons. Have a listen, it's only a few minutes long.

I've also heard of the [https://thenetworkstate.com/ Network State] amongst other pilot programs attempting at sustainable societies. I'm a fan and contributor to the [https://LinkPower.eco LinkPower] movement that's just taking fruition in Vietnam. I love what Wikipedia and Open Source are about, and how Jimmy Wales refuses to take the billions that he could (although there may be a darker side to his story that I'm oblivious to? If so, please enlighten me). 

What do you love? What are you a fan of? Is there a way that we can bring all of our good ideas together to make something absolutely, unprecedently, monumentally amazing - something that works for '''all''' of us? 

Why not start right here and right now? Until we come up with something better, together.