Kraft vas Si'yah

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft If it is constructed by humans, relative to humans or a thing by humans then most likely yes. We act according to reality, draw understanding and direction for further actions. Unless we try consciously to change a certain naturally occurring thing then it will eventually happen as that is the idea how we define it. Even with trying to avoid or change something, they might still eventually lead back to the naturally occurring thing. It would just take time. Not saying it is a absolute inevitably to happen but something difficult to change all together. And even if people or things are different in certain functions/groups/society/etc they might and probably do act the same way in their respective areas. Just like in physics a we may be affected by certain phenomena that a microscopic thing might not. But at the same time that microscopic thing is affected by other things that could cause similar results and those in turn we do not even notice. It's quite interesting all together.

. @pk_zero If the real world naturally applies by default then the same efforts of those who oppose the status quo should apply. I would think the natural pecking order of society is cyclic. Every empire, every dictator, every society with power concentrated among a few eventually returns to the people until it is taken again by a central government or military leadership. French revolution, Haitian revolution, dissolution of the Soviet union, I can go on and on. Even in modern times we have examples of this like the 2014 Thailand military coup d'état or all those current civil wars in the middle east. Do you think this is a natural cyclic transfer of power that human society always goes through? Roman empire, this empire, that empire, they all eventually fall and a new season appears for those societies. Do you think this is a natural occurrence?

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft It is an occurrence very natural as things tend to happen to the extremes. With powerfull action there tends to be a similar counter force at the same time or later on. This again can be seen with other natural phenomena in the world. With us humans and our possibility to think and educate, I personally have the naive hope that we could finally reach at some point a balance. To avoid going to the extremes, to be able to see them so that we learn from them. Certain countries currently are closer to the balance as the radical momements and violence is low but even that is ever changing. So you need to have a constant eye on the situation so that it does not tilt too much on one direction at a given time. It is like a moral and harmony scale that we try to get to the middle. Even one small grain of sand or a drop of water can start to tilt it. Very draining to society which is why things have happened but which should not prevents us from trying.

. @pk_zero I can't verify if this opinion on current scholars is just a western centric thought process or not but their current theory which I remember learning is that there are (Going completely from memory here so bear with me) like 3 classes of countries. I don't remember the official wording for them but I'll just use 1st 2nd and 3rd world countries for now. (This is not my opinion this is just what I was taught so take it with a grain of salt because I have my own theory of it anyway) What they say is that 1st world countries "control" the resources and trade of the world, any previous 2nd or 3rd world that has a very strong influence in this is considered to be 1st world in modern times, also high GDP, and you know the usual stuff. 3rd world countries "have" the actual resources in them so their kept down as 3rd world on purpose by the ruling 1st world class. They said this explains why African countries with all their diamonds gold, certain middle eastern countries that have all the aluminum and other rare earth metals, and other similar countries are kept down so the 1st world countries can exploit them for their resources. The theory is that the world can't allow them to become a 1st world or else they will start using their own resources for themselves, so they keep them down so they can "control" the flow of that countries resources. But the new theory is that there is a new type of 2nd world country that is like a middleman, are like really developed countries that also "have" resources but they are not in full "control" of it. South Africa is a perfect example with their diamonds but the rich diamond families/companies control the flow of it being sold to the rest of the world. But they do not have the same influence that a full 1st world country has. Or the oil rich nations of the middle east also fall in this category. Basically its like they own the resource but are forced to sell it in the way the 1st world countries want so they don't have full control. Now that's what the theory says. I agree with some parts in that it makes sense that the 1st world countries can't survive without those resources the other countries have so they probably do exploit them to an extent to make sure they have permanent access for it. Now what ultimately determines 1st, 2nd, or 3rd I highly disagree because depending on who you ask its always skewed. But my point with this rambling is that if there is truth in this theory then this could explain why power is always imbalance in this world. A world always fighting for limited resources that wars, conflicts, and disagreements always happen. Idk just something I was thinking about the other day.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft That is a reasonable way of thinking and does fit for certain large countries in a sense. But there are quite a lot of countries too that are considered to be 1st world so to say but in my opinion have very little resources or even influence to other countries to make this thing happen. I would maybe add like one tier to this to make this work more. Top, 1, 2, and 3 for examble. The top control and have the major power. The 2 and 3 are like what you said. And then the 1 would be defined slightly differently. The 1 group would be highly developed etc but does not have much influence in pressure or own resources. But the way they are at 1 is because they have been let to be there by the Top as they are so neutral / similar to them + the lack of resources or not having unique ones as the top so the 1st does not draw the focus of the Top on them. This is like the some of the nordic countries for examble. We are in the system that the Top has let us be. Well that is how I view it at least. Might be completely wrong and that my coverment/companies in here are actually doing some shady stuff that I don't know of.

. @pk_zero You will have to click them to open them up and see the whole thing.

. @pk_zero You will have to click them to open them up and see the whole thing.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft Those comics come from satwcomic.com and there is usually an explanation on each comic on what inspired it. In general though what is represented in those comics is a funny satire of stereotypes to a extreme with the countries. Finland being the crumby and antisocial which is correct when we deal with other people at first, though later we warm up to them usually. And with sweden we have a back and forth friendly rivaly/bickering in a sense as we compete a lot with them in hockey etc but are at the same time very interested in their royals for example.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft The third one I don't really remember the whole reasoning with the comic as I saw it a while ago. Love the comics from that creator and read them as they are released. But what it shows is a traditional food in here called Mämmi that looks like poo. With Åland we have a odd relations as we have defended them but at the same time they are more swedish oriented in things. So we want to keep the region to ours and have given them all the freedoms one could give I think but still be in some way attached to us. But still they have some negative view on Finland and positive on Sweden.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft Basically we were proud how our president handled things. For Putin and Trump. Well the media and people in general I think felt that Trumb was a disappointment as he did not challenge/keep his ground on several issues. And that Putin got a free pass on things. Diplomacy is important and good relations but you can't be a yes man only.

. @pk_zero My guess on how they viewed it was spot on. Yeah I research world news alot and I notice a trend in the shifting of the status quo of alliances between the great powers. It's almost as if one side says wants 1. To keep the NATO countries vs everyone else alliance. Or 2. I think Trump is on the new set of thinking of teaming up with it's cold war rival to form some sort of super power alliance.

. @pk_zero It seems if you look historically the alliances formed originally during the 2 world wars and so that's why they existed in the first place. But it's been so long I think many countries are doubting if they need such an alliance in modern day society. I think regardless of what happens people will still band together if push comes to shove in the end.

. @pk_zero The only difference though... Nukes like Satan 2 and MOAB exist (Shivers!) I think thier existence alone is what is preventing anyone lately from drawing blood first.

Kraft vas Si'yah @mkraft Yup. The fear of mass destruction is such a deterrent that out right clear war between nations is not happening so easily. Now it is more nuanced toward narrative and control. We also don't really need the old style military alliances anymore if we can form close relations otherwise between the countries. Help thy neighbour so to speak will happen. In here we keep good relations with Russia even with all of their actions. But we do critize them and create some pressure where we can. Though we can do little so it might not bother Russia at all. Our main defence in the end is good reputation in the world and if anything would happen then the world would probably go in shock.