Ukraine vs. Putin: Full court press plus artillery

The heavy answers continue to roll into Ukraine. The recent lull in hostilities presented the Russian irregular forces a chance to regroup and be resupplied by their Russian sponsors.

Comparisons between Hitler and Putin run rampant on the social media, likening Crimea and E. Ukraine to the Sudetenland. However hyperbolic the rhetoric, it is actually the case that the comparison is apt.

I have conversed with people in Ukraine on social media. They are frustrated and angry that little help comes their way from the US. However, I believe that definite resolve will be shown soon.

Ukraine has the right to self defense. Article 51 if the UN charter applies fully, here. If Poroshenko were to go so far add to request American military assistance, boots on the ground, the whole nine yards, that invitation would be valid.

Russia has invaded a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to Russian security. This is a fact. It is also the fact that Crimea has a large Russian population, and if a fair and open monitored referendum was held, it actually would very likely come out in Russia's favor.

Why does the Kremlin go this route? Russia believes that international law is stacked against them: a fixed game run by the West. The Kremlin cannot conceive of a world where the United States is not an adversary, so they plan and act accordingly. They want to grab Ukraine and shake the Maidan movement out of the country and install Yanukovich 2.0.

Ukraine needs strong support. They have the will, they know the terrain, but it is a hugely difficult effort. They face a hoodlum neighbor with considerable resources, whose leaders have a particular plan for them, and this democracy/Europe-facing Ukraine does not fit into that plan. Moreover, the Kremlin appears to be more than willing enough to pour troops into Ukraine until their objective is met.

Ukraine is low on capital, low on modern war materiel. They are going into debt to save themselves from being consumed by Russia. Putin seems to believe that the Eurasian Empire is Russia's manifest destiny, and he is putting his shoulder into realizing it. The Kremlin is sponsoring European candidates that are aligned with their grand scheme.

But, Eurasianism is thwarted by this realignment of Ukraine. The Ukrainian man in the street has no use for the glorious Eurasian enterprise.

I don't know. If I were in Putin's place, I probably would act to ensure my plan for a giant trade network throughout Eurasia. A new "silk road" might well revitalize my nation.  But: would my first option be the application of military force? No. It would be an appeal to the international community to understand that Ukraine does have some existing  obligations regardless of the gov't in place. While it might take a while, legitimate debts and contacts would be honored.

But then, again, if I were Putin, I might know that those contracts are designed to funnel money into particular pockets, for 'reuse' towards particular projects. Appealing to legal authorities invites a legalistic examination of the matter, which might expose more than would be to my advantage. So, Putin and advisors conclude: a hammer is in order.

This is only speculation with a dash of the benefit of a doubt, but in any event this node in our shared timeline lies on the vector that points to more, not less, war.

At the end of the day, the Ukrainian people are people, they have human rights per the universal code thereof.  They have stood up for these rights, which disturbed the plans of their giant neighbor: truly a David and Goliath story. Without stones in their slings, they're sucked back into the New Dark Age of the Russia-led Eurasian Empire.

Lost life, lack of liberty, and the flight from horror

An interesting story has been told regarding an exchange between Russian Leader-for-Life Vladimir V. Putin (VVP) and President GW Bush while the latter was in office.

Putin says to Bush "Ukraine is not even a real country", to which Bush responds with a smile. Whether this smile was knowing, strained or just a reflex for lack of any other meaningful response is left to interpretation.

But what  it indicates, in light of recent events, is that this "not a real country" determination is input into the Kremlin's calculus regarding their actions in Ukraine.

Therefore, what anyone who has an interest in these events should be asking themselves is, "What set of information and/or perceptions caused VVP to say that?".

If you would be so kind as to read this article about the evacuation of civilians from an Eastern Ukrainian town by Ukrainian soldiers, towards the end of it  there are some statements made by the evacuees that demonstrate a very sad point of view.

They are not able to "get to where their children are" so they cannot evacuate with them. They would like to stay in their village and live in peace; one says, "we don't care under which flag or with whom we live", one says.They just want the shooting to stop.

It is a very sad thing, for several reasons. Armed men were sent from Russia in order to bring this about. This is their goal, to achieve control over this territory of which 'their land, their houses' are a subset. As to "which flag", why wouldn't they understand that "which flag" is representative of the system that will recognize it as "their land"? For all practical purposes, it has been tossed up for grabs. Once they are forced out and lose control of it, how is it their land?

Also, why were they still there, and why weren't their children with them? Are they like people who stay despite the imminent hurricane, tidal wave or volcanic eruption: just taking their chances with forces beyond their control?
Or do they just not understand?

It illustrates some sad realities. Attempting to go on with life as usual while shootouts with rockets and shells are in progress around you, you are gambling that the whole thing will blow over before one of those projectiles finds you. Even worse, there are people in various places around the world in similar situations. Civilization is intended to protect people from wild animals, and the city walls to keep out marauding would-be conquerors. The wild animals have been pushed away with technology, and the marauding conquistadors by international agreements. Or so it was thought.

That is, until somebody rich and powerful enough decides that somewhere they'd like to control by fear is "not a real country" or is otherwise undeserving of peaceful life.

What is the difference between someone able to fund an option who lays a plan to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of other innocent civilians, and someone who plans to dispatch a column of weapons operated by drunken hooligans to rain a load of rockets onto a town of civilians? Both are supposedly educated, bound by norms of civilized behavior and faith. They are wealthy beyond the reach of the majority of humankind. Even so, both decide that, just this once/twice/few times, some significant number of people should die to suit their agenda, then plan accordingly. We even know one of them clapped his hands in delight at the outcome of his handiwork.

It seems the only difference might be complexion, clothing, stature, and facial hair.

Of rebels, insurgents, irregulars, drunkards and bears...

There has been some frustration on Twitter among those people who are supporting Ukrainian independence. This stems from the words mainstream international news uses to describe the combatants in the East. That is, when the news describes the armed people who showed up and took over various government buildings to start the war in Eastern Ukraine, they are described as if they somehow have a higher purpose than getting paid to brutalize the population and destabilize Ukraine.

So when CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, AFP etc. use any of the following, it's disconcerting to the people whose country has been targeted by propaganda and infiltrated according to a Kremlin plan in such a way as to appear this is due to a popular uprising.

"Rebels" is popular, but inaccurate. "Separatists", much the same.  "Irregulars" is more accurate, but kind of military-geeky. "Insurgents" seemed to be popular just briefly, but it's overused. "Militants", somewhat mild.  "Terrorists" is preferred by Ukrainian officials and which describes the actions of these people who started the war in East Ukraine. However, they are both more and less than that.

Basically, groups of Russian nationalists with some military experience and who thrive on cruelty and indifferent application of violent brutality were recruited by middlemen to fight in Ukraine. They were given the *wink wink* style of backing by various authorities who are allowing then to travel abroad, over the Russian border to Ukraine heavily armed. As these began to  violently take over various Ukrainian government buildings and industrial sites, they were cheered on by discontented ex-Soviet pensioners who somehow thought they were going to get their check increased by the Kremlin.

Because this doesn't fit into any real typical schema, mainstream news has for the longest time had the story as "armed disenfranchised ethnicities in eastern Ukraine trying to set up their own independent countries because they're unhappy" because that's the sort of story they know, and it's the type of story they know we know. 

Everyone was fooled: this was a geopolitical trick play that caught the world flat-footed and bewildered.

What could possibly be the benefit for Russia in this?

Then, pictures. Maps, showing how Russia depends on Ukraine to act as reliable pipeline operator and arms supplier. Videos, showing a drunken mortar operator cursing and shooting shells from inside a school sorts stadium. Deep-in reporting from Vice, Mashable.

From Russian media, shopped photos and videos of horrible scenes from other conflicts being tagged as happening in Ukraine, rather than where they actually occurred: Syria and Chechnya. Slathered with so much anti-Ukrainian rhetoric coming from Russian officials and their news outlets... well: it could only be a smokescreen for the truth.

As the story unraveled, we see that people who started the war in the East of Ukraine are Russians who laid the groundwork for the what has become a steady infiltration of Ukraine by Russian armed forces. A large depot had been set up just across the border in Russia, in a city called Rostov-on-Don.  The paid Russian fighters would be formed up and supplied from this depot. The initial infiltrators had linked up with local Ukrainian malcontents who now aid them, but much more as henchmen, less so as rebels.

But, western  news has been calling them "rebels". Because the phrase "infiltrators acting as the leading edge of a stream of Russian fighters comprising a de-facto invasion" is simply too long. Given that, any of these less accurate terms are probably for the best as far as the western audience is concerned, but you can see why it's maddening to the Ukrainian people who are all too familiar with really dirty Kremlin actions in their country. They think these murderers are getting near "freedom fighter" treatment, and that the west has been utterly taken in by Russian propaganda.

But what we are seeing is the evolution of a Kremlin plan to destabilize Ukraine, who are being shown they need to be good little gangsters and do the boss's bidding: never mind your future, deals have been made and plans have been laid.

As this plan proceeded, the stream of arms and fighters created a lake of built-up, heavily armed forces consisting of the armed infiltrators/Kremln operatives, Russian mercenaries, and Russian regular forces.

The primary purpose is to hold open a door for equipment and personnel that would be sent in by Russia and establish a means for discrediting the elected Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko. They are the vanguard of a "just enough" Russian invasion force to apply destabilizing force and topple the newly elected democratic government. 

These operatives apparently enchanted bitter pensioners of Ukraine's east into welcoming them. Now the Russian forces launch artillery strikes from apartment blocks onto Ukrainian army targets, demolish homes with rockets in order to get a better view of the battle zone, and any pensioners still left now live in basements, their pensions cut off, caught in the fire between the two sides. Russian soldiers and equipment pour into the area prepared by the vanguard.

It is the case that these paid operatives had their own agendas. The had hoped they would become kings of their little slice of Ukraine. But if course that's how it was framed to then, so they'd clear the way. At least one set of these warlords has been killed, ambushed, by the Russian army, because the hired thugs  are disposable in the grander scheme.

A fair summary, synthesized from multiple sources readily available at this point.

So, what you call them, when you only have about 5-10 minutes maximum on the "hour" news (much less minus commercials) that might be devoted to world events? Given all the things going on, maybe 3-4 minutes on this one subject, tops? It took awhile for anyone to figure out that the majority of these operatives really weren't local separatists, or rebels, or insurgents. So they stayed using these brief labels. "Rebels", two syllables. Then, everyone got wise to the plan, so this morphed into "Russian backed rebels" Because they'd already established these term, rebels, separatists. Switching it up more would only confuse things and the news channels would need to explain why: editorial sauce not worth the squeeze.

Not unlike most of my notes on this subject, this is common sense to people following the issuebut nobody reads this so I'm writing for myself, to clarify my thoughts.

At any rate, pressing for more accuracy is always good. Mainstream news might eventually amend this to something even better. But don't get too upset about these words. It's kind of like that pedestrian button on the stop light: you don't know if it's working, but you press it, eventually something changes. If the discussion is out there, awareness is spread.

Ukraine, "blows against the empire", 20150126

Today Putin (VVP) was quoted widely as saying the Ukrainian army was a "NATO foreign legion", attempting to deride the Kiev gov't as the illegitimate invention of western powers, "foreign" to an area rightfully under Russian control . Of course, Putin's aim is to install just such a government, subservient to him.

Poroshenko enjoys legitimacy that VVP will never have: he was elected democratically, carrying all regions. But VVP's statement does signal a new phase in the hostilities: Ukraine's war of independence from Putin's Russian Empire.

Identical to the American revolution in nature, there are several key distinctions:

1- The proximity of the Empire.

2- The backwards unwinding of events: 1st UA was a state fighting an insurgency, then fighting a proxy of an imperialist state. Now, fighting the VVP Empire for independence.

3- Loyalists and their dispersal. In the American revolution, these fled in hope of returning. Some were driven out. Others were brutalized, tarred and feathered.  Barbaric times. Some remained, serving as spies.

In this case, civilians remaining in place in theatre are "loyalists" to the Empire. The reality of any real loyalty is questionable.  Ideally, remaining civilians should be evacuated in a controlled way such that it is clear their freedom is a gift of the country fighting for independence. The Empire has amply demonstrated their disregard for these civilians.

4- Finally, the nature of the Empire is different.

But how does one win such a war? Not first by massive artillery. Not first by columns of armor. But by first simply realizing the disposable soldiers of the Empire only want to go home, and that their leaders must achieve goals or be disgraced. For the most part, they are functionaries of the Empire who would prefer to end the conflict . There is a sociopathic element that would prefer to stay and brutalize, which pose problems for the Imperial organization.,
Most, however, are disposable soldiers preferring to avoid disposal.

The more often they can be given the illusion the conflict's end is right around the corner, and then have another corner appear, the better. Every opportunity should be made at various levels to appear to be *almost* ready to give VVP what he wants, then to pull back. Ukrainian soldiers are already home, they can rotate in and out.

So, Ukraine should use intelligence, knowing what goals should be thwarted. Knowing the Imperial troops morale, their leaders' styles. Knowing which supply lines should be cut when. Allowing them in, and cutting them off. Reminding the Imperial troops they are disposable by dropping leaflets or broadcasting messages.

Also, by not matching Imperial tactics. British soldiers  fought in ranks, the Americans tried that and failed. Then they shot from concealment and avoided concentrated formations, inflicted damage then dissipated, preferring to harry rather than confront continually. This was an outrage in the eyes of Imperial military leaders, but it showed the revolutionaries' resolve.

So, if the Empire likes to fight with artillery, let them get close, capture a few. This leaves the others fearing they'll never get home. If they like armor, fight with fire, with traps and mines. If they like aircraft, anti aircraft, appeal for help. The use of aircraft will be a major escalation for which a Lafayette style assist is needed. For Britain, the escalation of using naval bombardment was something of miscalculation, because it was deemed unseemly of such an empire by rival peers.

Putin has miscalculated in his rhetoric, indicating Ukraine is an "internal affair". Why? Because if this is so, he demonstrates how he has no hesitation in killing "internal imperial subjects". Two things occur: cowardly sycophants cling to him, adding nothing substantive, while resourceful, independent thinkers find a way to abandon the Empire and seen the discourse they need to maintain their sanity.

The empire's proximity ito the nation seeking independence is what it is. This is good and bad. Imperial troop movements facilitated by the proximity, but also can be readily tracked. While the British had to reinforce from across an ocean, bordering Canada was also a staging area, so this is similar.

The nature of the Empire is that it is ruled by a tyrant who has a particular goal but who also needs to demonstrate progress to his support network. An important note,  for the majority of it's history this empire's rulers have died under questionable circumstances. In addition, it was often the case that succession had not been established and factions would form.

In terms of the Empire's operational doctrine, changes in overall strategy are seen as backing down. Experience in fighting wars on multiple fronts is limited.  Deception and disinformation on several levels introduces complexity. These are significant weaknesses.

If "revanchist leaders" are reduced "kinetically" as a recent expert has said, then this empire indicates fertile ground for this type of occurrence happening more likely from within. The Empire is all too aware of this, and has increased the violent depression of dissent.

Maybe most importantly, in theatre, it seems that successes are gauged by holding territory. Demonstrating success to imperial subjects is emphasized in order to maintain order. The number of soldiers under arms in theatre and their ability to remain a cohesive force is not emphasized, because of the nature of this "masked"-war. What is important is the perception of their having control.

This leads to any disruption of the illusion of control within the area of claimed Imperial control as being a victory for the Revolutionary Ukrainians.

As it was in the American revolution, this is a terror campaign where the country attempting to gain independence is provided with demonstrations of the Empire's brutal intent in an attempt to achieve psychological impact and reduce revolutionary resolve.

During the American revolution, when Washington retreated tactically across a river and into the frontier for a time, this was a moment of control enjoyed by the Empire.  The Continental Army was in a difficult situation. However, when Washington followed this retreat with a surprise raid on Trenton and captured a large German mercenary garrison, this was catastrophic for the Empire. 

However, almost every imperial setback was downplayed, as the Empire had superiority in all respects. In effect, the American revolution was just as much a series of nuisances as battles for the Empire.

In Ukraine, although the Donetsk Airport Cyborg unit was overcome, the cost of this to the Empire was inordinate. As a result, there is no doubt in the Imperial disposable soldier's mind that the chances of going home are minimized as the effort goes forward. The Ukrainian unit also thwarted the Imperial leaders' goals. The outcome was disadvantageous, but the action provided a focal point for foreign attention and illustrated the brutality of the Empire and the disregard it has for the country and it's people. This was a clear demonstration of Ukraine's determination.

In the US revolution, the Imperial forces operated with impunity, except when they didn't, and when they didn't the revolutionaries would exact a price. Giving the Imperial leadership the illusion of  being able to operate with impunity is key.

When a town is an an Imperial objective, there is no regard for that towns' residents, even though they may be ostensibly "loyalist" to the Empire. Unfortunately, the practice of attempting to match the Empire in artillery bombardment only induces casualties among the loyalists instead of inducing loyalists to switch sides.

An article has cited a previous Kremlin adviser as saying VVP wants to secure Ukraine as a satellite state before the end of 2015. In this light, every Imperial setback is amplified, where Ukrainian setbacks are expected and are temporary.

When the Empire chooses to install hard points, these should appear as unassailable. When the Empire chooses to move once across a route, they should be allowed to do so once or twice with confidence. When the Empire sees opportunities to attack in concentrated force, they should make these decisions with confidence.  This way they are induced to commit concentrated resources to using routes that are not as safe as they seem. The disposable soldiers lose faith in their leaders, and their leaders fail to meet goals.

Another imperial weakness is that captured disposable soldiers will often not be reclaimed. They know that going home to a normal life is an unlikely option once neutralized by capture. In addition, wounded Imperial disposable soldiers place an inordinate burden on the Empire. A wounded regular officer even more so. As a result, when the Imperial force moves outside of their "loyalist" human shields, wounding multiples, capturing multiples is key.

If the civilian shields could be surreptitiously evacuated by night, then artillery could be used to great effect.

An interesting point is that the empire's irregulars and regulars are not unified. In the American revolution, this was actually a weakness of Revolutionary side, which used citizen soldiers.  The British regulars could be very brutal to these if captured.

In Ukraine, the Imperial regular army leadership finds the irregulars tiresome. They are overt war criminals, undisciplined: a liability.  These tensions are all areas where confusion can be sown.

Finally, regarding the nature of the Empire: all of the most important cities of the emerging American state were occupied by imperial soldiers to some extent. The restraint used was different, Americans were still subjects in the eyes if the Empire, but those that fought were treated cruelly if captured. Fewer Ukrainian cities are occupied, but little similar restraint is seem here. There is no concern for human suffering if it serves the goals of the Empire.

Addendum: while the conflicts may be similar, the empires in question are very different. A key core value of the British was the notion of a subject's rights. These notions not only carried over to the independent America, but sharing these values ensured rapprochement after independence: the Empire still could use viable trade with a like-minded partner.

This notion of citizen subject rights was also a key core value of the Roman Empire. Which makes the notion of Moscow as somehow being a 3rd Rome even stranger.

Recent events in Ukraine 20150126

So there's been a lot of news from Ukraine. Many Americans still don't know exactly where it is, but there is bad news from there. The Russians are invading it, they are helping some separatists, and many ordinary, civilian people are dying. That's what the news says.

Why don't Americans care more about this? Is it because Ukrainians get kind of a bad rap in American popular culture? There are some WWII movies that deal with the holocaust that portray them like apprentice Nazis. That must be it.

But if that's the sort of yardstick we're using, then all Americans are Lt. Calley and Abu Gharib guards. Which is decidedly not true. But let's go that way.

If all Americans were like that, we'd want to beat on less powerful neighboring countries, like hard, because we have no regard for suffering, so they would be totally under our control. "You do that already", some might say, "you did that." Do/did we really? Yes, there were some bad things. But not super-mean! No, not like "no regard for life" mean!

What I'm thinking is, we would send people into, say, Mexico. They would be Hispanic Americans, and pretend to be Mexicans, and starting shooting things up. They would take over towns, and murder people. They would kill the police, and take up their offices, and then start making lists of people and torturing them. Some of the Mexicans would see this and say, "we need to support these guys or they will kill us" so it looks even more like the people we sent are all Mexicans. Plus they'd make friends with other drug lords, so it would seem legit. Like they belonged there!

They'd be like super nasty mean killer drug lords, but they'd be *our* drug lords! And we would send reporters to interview them on TV, to thank them for doing such a good job and show us pictures of dead bodies.

The rest of the world would be like "oh no! Super mean drug lords in Mexico!" And we'd be like "Yeah, what a shame. If only we could do something!"

Our President (who is, like, the super duper ultra nasty bad ass) would say "this is terrible, we must help the victims of these horrible people" when all along we'd know that *he was the one who sent them*! It would be hysterical!!

Then the Mexican people, their government, would be like "Please, stop sending these awful people, you have given then weapons and they are killing us. We will need to send our Mexican army to defend us."

That would have us just in *stitches*, because there is no way! But we let the Mexican army attack. Then, we have our drug lords, who we call "separatists", start making it look like the Mexican army is killing their own people with artillery!  That would make the people in the towns our drug lords run really mad, and really start liking our drug lords more and more.

Our president would say "these separatists are dissatisfied with their government, that's why this is happening! We must help them!"

We'd be ROFL by then, because our bad ass President would start sending tanks, and missiles to the drug lords. But, on the down low. Just because he can, because he wants Mexico to do what he says, and he knows best. We'd be such bad asses!

Also, get this, we'd let the Mexican army win for a while, and then send in our troops, a bit at a time, over months, to support the separtists.  They would have all the badass weapons that the Mexicans don't, and they wouldn't have to care who they'd kill with them.

Other countries, like Canada and Spain would say "wait a second, you are sending them weapons and troops!"

And our badass president would say "no! That's simply not true!" They would grumble and start looking more closely. But we wouldn't care because we're such bad asses, we are so scary!!

Then one day, a French airplane would fly over our part of Mexico and our troops would shoot it down!! With one of our bad ass missiles!! YEAH. Just for grins.  "Serves them right, we're having a war here" our guys would say, and shoot anybody around the crashed plane, and not allow the French people into our part of Mexico to get the bodies. We'd be sooooo tough!

Oh wait, did I mention: WE STOLE BAJA CALIFORNIA! Yeah, that happened before a lot of this. We sent soldiers in green uniforms, no insignia, they took it over. They were like whoa, and we were like "don't even try it!".  Also, we made any Indians who lived there leave. Why? Because it's CALIFORNIA, so it's part of America!! And our super bad ass president would visit there and make a speech how it was our right and how we are bad ass. Super Bad Ass!

Because all of our troops and separatists would be Lt. Calleys and just killing whoever whenever. The  generals, they'd plan which civilian areas to bombard, and "boom" they'd get it. Because they are professionals, real brave soldiers and glorious. They'd sneak up to a city that wasn't even doing anything, but *boom* rockets rockets rockets they'd kill the kids, blow then up right in the school! Ha ha ha, it would be so bad ass.

We'd be just like Russia in Ukraine!

Deep concern with how things seem to be unfolding, worldwide

There is a mystical "theory" wherein the world is a living organism, layered with various other organisms, each with a level of consciousness, where sentient beings have the highest level of consciousness. In addition, consciousness itself has layers, where there is a universal, shared underlayer, then a layer for each type of being, then a layer for individual beings in the case of sentient beings. 

Whether or not this can be proved empirically is not the point, but if we consider that it may be true, we can see some very interesting things that unify what we are currently experiencing.

What are we currently experiencing? For one, climate extremes that are often alarming: places where extreme weather occurs are experiencing more extremes. Destructive storms are more destructive. The sun has been steadily decreasing in solar activity, which has certain effects .on our atmosphere. More powerful earthquakes are striking at record rates. Population continues to grow, and grows fastest in those areas of the world least capable of feeding themselves. Rather than walking hand in hand with reason and holding out hope, religion is tending to defy reason and dashing hopes in a way that drastically impacts those who are most disadvantaged. These trends are readily apparent for those in those areas with access to the internet without in-depth research, yet countless millions wander around in ignorance. The gap between "knowers" and "not knowers" steadily increases, and the gap between "haves" and "have nots" is at an historical high in every society on earth from the most to least modern.

There are three qualities of countries that are emerging on earth. Free, Totalitarian, and Satellite. Satellites align themselves with either Free or Totalitarian powers, and take on the characteristics of that which they align with to some extent. They are too small to be entirely self sufficient, needing to import critical items of one or more types. Free countries import critical items, but if need be they could be self sufficient by sacrificing to some extent. Totalitarian countries are capable of self-sufficiency in a like manner, where sacrifice will be demanded of the population if it suits the plans of the dictator.

There are three qualities of religion that are solidifying on earth. Hyper-paternalistic, Free-form spiritualism, and Materialism. They are not divided in an obvious manner, where one can say "this one is that, and that one is this". Some sects of the same religion may be one or the other. Hyper-paternalistic religions demand that human father figures be obeyed-- there is no encouragement of open debate, inquiry or spiritual searching. Free-form encourages open debate, inquiry and spiritual searching, and tends towards more nebulous definition of concepts in favor of continued spiritual refinement. Materialism is based on legality, ethics and functional concerns revolving around enhanced earthly achievement. Any religious activity is an adjunct to these overriding concerns. Religion suggests to us what is a good path to take, but politicians and the political system are the real power. The legal system serves as the conscious, and what one can get away with is acceptable. Those who are caught by the legal system are condemned as scapegoats, although they may have been doing exactly what many others are doing that were not "caught".

So while those on a Free-form path may be in search of a spiritual purity and universal truths, they are disengaged from actually improving the world. Materialists are engaged in improving the world, but purely for their own advantage. Hyper-paternalists discourage "improvements" that do not perpetuate their system.

As all of these forces push and pull in opposing directions, they generate vectors of probability. There is no intentional system of checks and balances that ensures progress occurs on a desirable path other than those imbued in governmental systems. Vectors are established based on the outcome of pushing and pulling. Materialists who hold control over the tools of finance have risen to unassailable positions. The mechanisms of society have become more arbitrary, and are aided by the random Hyper-paternalist outbursts of violence that are particularly disruptive to emerging societies.

As a result, probability vectors are being trimmed that would result in an overall benefit: possibilities that might be are being extinguished by these solidifying and cross-reinforcing trends. Perpetual conflict zones have been established in various portions of the world, both intentionally by totalitarian design and inadvertently through the continuance of traditional conflicts and there is no real resolution to these. 

An interesting trend can be noted in America, it is a trend that is brought about by naivete and belief in the fundamental principles of the founders which are being put to the test. Large amounts of immigrants are being trained to become skilled Materialists, gaining the controls and abilities that this training entails. However, they are often Hyper-paternalist or Totalitarian in terms of their native beliefs, and as such are imbued with those characteristics in terms of their conduct, underlying motivations and attitudes. Paradoxically, then, we have Free-form spiritualists and from Free societies being placed in a position where they are lorded over by Totalitarians and Hyper-paternalists with elitist views and self-seeking tendencies in the service of Materialist controllers in a country that is ostensibly politically Free by definition and Free-form in their underlying beliefs. This results in a further erasure of vectors that lead to better outcomes in the Free and Free-form area of possibility.

Vectors that lead to the expansion of the Free quadrant of outcomes result in the branching of possibilities in a potentials space that is self-expanding and boundless. Vectors that lead to the expansion of Materialist, Hyper-paternalistic and Totalitarian quadrants are finite and self-extinguishing. 

The identification of these forces began as something of a mental exercise for me, but genuine concern about that the struggle between these influences is afflicting me. Could it be the source of various disruptions worldwide? We cannot completely prosper and grow by reason alone, but reason is an important component which has been enslaved by influences that do not act in the best interest of the development of mankind.

If you have difficulty understanding this, understand the manifestation: a crowd of protesters whose righteous indignation brings them together comes under fire from Totalitarian police using live ammunition. Each of the protesters represents a range of possibilities, and as they die those possibilities disappear. This is what is happening in the world at large, where the totalitarian police, protesters and bullets are analogs for various components and forces on a macro scale.