Key Points
- International law does not explicitly allow preemptive strikes, but research suggests they may be justified under strict conditions, such as an imminent threat.
- The UN Charter permits self-defense only after an armed attack, though anticipatory self-defense is debated and controversial.
- The Caroline test sets high standards for preemptive action, requiring an “instant, overwhelming” threat with no alternatives. UN Charter and Self-Defense
The United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against any state’s territorial integrity or political independence. However, Article 51 allows for self-defense “if an armed attack occurs,” which seems to imply action after an attack. This has led to debates about whether preemptive strikes—actions taken before an attack—can be legal. Anticipatory Self-Defense and the Caroline Test
Some legal scholars and states argue for “anticipatory self-defense,” where preemptive strikes are allowed if there is an imminent threat. The 1837 Caroline affair established the Caroline test, which requires the threat to be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This means the danger must be immediate, and there must be no other options but military action. Controversy and State Opinions
This topic is highly debated. Many states, like Germany and the UK, support anticipatory self-defense but only for imminent threats, while others, such as China and India, argue Article 51 is strict and should not be reinterpreted. The 2005 World Summit Outcome Document reaffirmed the UN Charter’s provisions, rejecting broader interpretations for preemptive strikes. Practical Implications
In practice, claims of preemptive self-defense, like in recent Israel-Iran tensions, are often contested. Their legality depends on proving an imminent threat, which is challenging and subject to international scrutiny.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Laws Justifying Preemptive Strikes
This section provides a comprehensive exploration of whether international law justifies preemptive strikes against another country, focusing on legal frameworks, historical precedents, and recent state practices. The analysis draws on authoritative sources, including the United Nations Charter, legal opinions, and scholarly articles, to ensure a thorough understanding, catering to users seeking detailed insights as of 06:57 PM EEST on Friday, June 13, 2025.
Legal Framework Under the UN Charter
The foundation of international law regarding the use of force is the United Nations Charter, signed in 1945. Article 2(4) explicitly states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This establishes a general prohibition on initiating armed conflict, except under two circumstances:
- First, the UN Security Council may authorize the use of force under Chapter VII, particularly Article 42, to address threats to peace, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression.
- Second, Article 51 recognizes the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This clause is critical, as it explicitly ties self-defense to an “armed attack,” suggesting a reactive rather than proactive stance.
The phrasing “if an armed attack occurs” has been interpreted by many legal scholars and states to mean that self-defense is only legitimate after an attack has taken place, not before. However, this interpretation has been challenged by the concept of anticipatory self-defense, which allows for preemptive action in the face of an imminent threat.
Historical Precedent: The Caroline Test
A significant historical precedent for preemptive action is the Caroline affair of 1837, involving a conflict between the United States and British forces in Canada. During this incident, British forces crossed into U.S. territory to destroy the Caroline, a ship used by American sympathizers to support Canadian rebels. The British justified this as self-defense, leading to U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster’s articulation of the Caroline test. This test requires that the necessity for preemptive force must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This standard has been cited as part of customary international law and is often used to assess the legality of preemptive strikes.
The Caroline test sets a high bar, emphasizing that the threat must be immediate and that there must be no viable alternatives to military action. For example, in the context of modern threats, such as weapons of mass destruction.
Estimating the probability that those accustomed to controlling narratives are deliberately initiating false narratives is inherently speculative due to the complexity of motives, actors, and evidence. However, I can provide a reasoned assessment based on the previous analysis, available data, and logical inference, while acknowledging uncertainties. Below, I outline the key factors, assign a qualitative probability, and explain the reasoning.
Key Factors from the Analysis
- Evidence of Coordinated Efforts:
- The previous analysis cites examples of state actors, such as Russian networks flooding the internet with fake news websites and pro-Chinese propaganda via AI-generated news anchors Washington Post. These suggest deliberate attempts by entities with narrative control to spread false information.
- Historical precedents, like Eastern European troll farms, indicate that groups with resources and influence have engaged in coordinated misinformation campaigns, now amplified by AI.
- Motivations for Narrative Control:
- Political influence is a clear motive, especially during elections. The analysis notes AI-generated content targeting elections in Canada Guardian and Slovakia, aiming to sway public opinion.
- Financial gain through fraudulent schemes (e.g., cryptocurrency ads) also motivates actors, as seen in the Canadian deepfake examples. While not always about narrative control, these efforts can overlap with broader disinformation goals.
- Ease of AI-Driven Misinformation:
- The 1,000% increase in AI-generated fake news sites since May 2023 Washington Post highlights how AI lowers barriers for creating convincing false content. This enables both state and non-state actors, including those with established influence, to initiate false narratives with minimal effort.
- Countervailing Factors:
- Not all fake content is from those “used to controlling the narrative.” Independent actors, such as lone scammers or small groups, also exploit AI for profit or chaos, as noted in the Washington Post article.
- Some misinformation may arise organically or unintentionally (e.g., misinterpretations amplified on social media), reducing the proportion driven by deliberate, high-level narrative control.
- Public and Institutional Awareness:
- The analysis mentions 96% of Americans wanting to limit false information Security.org, 2022, suggesting scrutiny on narrative controllers. This could deter overt manipulation by established actors, pushing them toward subtler methods, or conversely, embolden them to exploit chaos.
Probability Assessment
Given these factors, I assign a moderate to high probability (roughly 60-80%) that those accustomed to controlling narratives (e.g., state actors, political operatives, or influential groups) are deliberately initiating false narratives. Here’s the reasoning:
- Supporting Evidence (60-80% Weight):
- Historical and current examples of state-driven misinformation (Russia, China) strongly suggest deliberate intent by actors with narrative control.
- The timing of fake content surges during elections aligns with strategic goals of influencing public opinion, a hallmark of narrative controllers.
- AI’s accessibility amplifies the capacity of these actors to execute sophisticated campaigns, as seen in the 1,000% rise in fake news sites.
- Uncertainties (20-40% Weight):
- The exact proportion of fake content from established narrative controllers versus independent actors is unclear. The analysis suggests a mix, with no precise breakdown.
- Some false narratives may emerge without deliberate intent (e.g., viral misunderstandings), diluting the role of coordinated efforts.
- Detection challenges (e.g., NewsGuard’s methods) mean some attributed cases might be misclassified, though this is less likely for state-backed campaigns.
Qualitative Breakdown
To formalize the assessment, consider the following likelihoods for different actors:
- State actors (e.g., Russia, China): High probability (~80-90%) of deliberate false narratives, given documented cases and geopolitical motives.
- Political operatives (e.g., campaign groups): Moderate probability (~50-70%), as domestic actors may engage in subtler manipulation due to scrutiny.
- Independent actors (e.g., scammers): Lower probability (~30-50%) of aiming for narrative control, as their focus is often financial, though they may inadvertently amplify false narratives.
Why This Range?
The 60-80% range reflects the balance between strong evidence of coordinated, deliberate misinformation by powerful actors and the uncertainty about the full scope of actors and motives. The upper bound (80%) accounts for well-documented state-driven campaigns, while the lower bound (60%) acknowledges the role of non-strategic or organic misinformation. Without granular data on actor attribution (e.g., what percentage of the 600+ fake news sites are state-backed), a precise figure is impossible.
Additional Considerations
- Election Cycles: The probability likely spikes during election periods, as seen in Canada and Slovakia, where narrative control is most valuable.
- Technological Amplification: AI’s role suggests that even a small number of deliberate actors can have outsized impact, supporting a higher probability.
- Detection Gaps: If fact-checking lags (as noted in the analysis), the true extent of deliberate narratives may be underestimated, potentially pushing the probability higher.
Conclusion
It seems likely that those used to controlling narratives are deliberately initiating false narratives, with a 60-80% probability based on available evidence. The primary drivers are AI’s ease of use and strategic motives tied to elections and geopolitics, though independent actors and organic misinformation temper the certainty. For a more precise estimate, deeper attribution data on fake content sources would be needed, which current reports lack.
If you’d like, I can refine this further with specific scenarios (e.g., focusing on a country or election) or check for newer data on X or the web to update the assessment. Let me know!
Categories
Love Isn’t a Doing; It Is a Being
Key Points
- Research suggests love is more a state of being than doing, emphasizing receptivity to a divine source.
- Love likely flows through us when we are open, like the Sun nurturing planets.
- The evidence leans toward love being intrinsic, expressed naturally through actions, not created by them.
Direct Answer
As explored in your theme, love seems more about being than doing, especially when viewed through a spiritual lens. Here’s a breakdown to help clarify:
Love as a State of Being
Your analogy of the Sun being receptive to the Galactic Sun and Source God resonates with ideas from various sources. Love appears to be a state of openness, where we allow divine energy to flow through us, much like the Sun receives and transmits energy to nurture planets. This receptivity is not about effort but about existing in a state of connection to something greater.
Receptivity and Expression
When we are receptive, love naturally expresses itself through our actions, like kindness or compassion. It’s not something we force, but something that emerges from being open, similar to how the planets receive the Sun’s nurturing influence to support life.
Spiritual and Philosophical Support
Sources like Psychology Today suggest love is inherently free and cannot be controlled, supporting the idea that it’s a state of being. Similarly, Renee Cusworth’s blog describes love as our birthright, connected to a divine source, accessed through practices like meditation and kindness.
In summary, it seems likely that love is about being receptive to a divine source, allowing it to flow through us and manifest in our lives, aligning with your theme and analogy.
Survey Note: Exploring “Love Isn’t a Doing; It Is a Being”
This exploration delves into the profound theme presented: “Love isn’t a doing; it is a being,” particularly through the analogy of the Sun, Galactic Sun, and Source God, illustrating love as a state of receptivity that nurtures life. The following analysis synthesizes insights from philosophical, spiritual, and psychological perspectives to deepen our understanding, aligning with Ronnie’s query and providing a comprehensive overview.
Conceptual Framework: Love as a State of Being
The theme posits that love is not primarily an action or effort (“doing”) but a fundamental state of existence (“being”). This perspective aligns with spiritual and philosophical views of love as an intrinsic quality, often linked to a divine or universal source. Ronnie’s analogy—where the Sun is receptive to the Galactic Sun and Source God, allowing energy to pass through and nurture planets—suggests love is a passive yet assertive state of openness, enabling balance and harmony in all life forms.
This contrasts with more common views, such as those found in a Reddit post quoting David Wilkerson, which state, “Love is not something you feel. It’s something you do” (Reddit post). However, our focus here leans toward the idea that actions are expressions of an underlying state of being, not the essence of love itself.
Insights from Psychological Perspectives
Psychological sources provide valuable insights into love as a state of being. For instance, a Psychology Today article argues, “Love is inherently free. It cannot be bought, sold, or traded. You cannot make someone love you, nor can you prevent it. Love is not a substance, not a commodity, not even a marketable power source.” This suggests that we cannot manipulate love through actions, but it exists as a state independent of our efforts, aligning with the theme of being receptive rather than doing.
Another Quora discussion (Quora post) distinguishes between doing things “from love” (arising from a state of being) versus “for love” (seeking to earn it), further supporting the idea that love is an intrinsic state that naturally manifests in actions.
Spiritual and Philosophical Dimensions
Spiritual perspectives emphasize love as receptivity to a divine source, resonating with Ronnie’s analogy. For example, Renee Cusworth’s blog states, “Love is something already held inside, a birthright, bestowed by being a ‘speck of light, a beam of light directly from source energy.’ Source, The Divine, God’s energy is PURE LOVE.” This suggests love is our connection to the divine, accessed through practices like breathing, walking, meditating, and kindness, which enhance receptivity.
An article from United Church Homes describes divine love as “unconditional, boundless, and eternal,” offering security and acceptance. It highlights practices like prayer, meditation, and community fellowship that enhance receptivity and reshape self-perception and approach to life. This aligns with the idea that love is a state of being connected to and open to the divine, allowing it to flow through us.
A Goodreads quote from Aidan Chambers further illustrates this: “Love, being in love, isn’t a constant thing. It doesn’t always flow at the same strength. It’s not always like a river in flood. It’s more like the sea. It has tides, it ebbs and flows. When love is real, whether it’s ebbing or flowing, it’s always there, it never goes away.” This metaphor emphasizes love as a persistent state of being, with varying expressions, much like the Sun’s consistent energy despite fluctuations.
Receptivity in Relationships and Spirituality
Receptivity is key to intimacy in human relationships and with the divine. An iDisciple article notes, “Receptivity is key to intimacy in relationships. It involves a willingness to open up and be vulnerable. When we are receptive, we allow others to see our true selves, which can lead to deeper connections.” It also extends this to spirituality: “Receptivity also increases our intimacy with God. When we open our innermost being to receive His abundant riches, we experience a deeper relationship with Him.” This mirrors Ronnie’s analogy, where the Sun’s receptivity to the Galactic Sun enables it to nurture life on the planets.
A MeetMindful article discusses love as receptivity in relationships, emphasizing mindfulness and gratitude to accept others’ gifts, aligning with the idea of being open to love’s flow. Similarly, a Peaceful Mind, Peaceful Life article suggests cultivating compassion and loving-kindness to become “magnets for love,” reinforcing that love is a state we embody through openness.
Table: Key Themes and Supporting Sources
| Theme | Description | Supporting Source |
|---|---|---|
| Love as Receptivity to Divine | Love is being open to divine energy, allowing it to flow through us. | Renee Cusworth’s blog |
| Love as Intrinsic State | Love is not controlled by actions but exists as a free, inherent state. | Psychology Today |
| Receptivity Enhances Intimacy | Being receptive deepens connections, both human and divine. | iDisciple article |
| Love as Persistent Being | Love ebbs and flows but remains, like the sea, always present when real. | Goodreads quote by Aidan Chambers |
Practical Implications and Alternating States
Ronnie mentions that “all life has the opportunity for these alternating spiritual states of Love,” and that our physical bodies, built from parental chromosomes, are for experiencing these states, providing balance for our “Souls.” This suggests love’s state of being involves a dynamic interplay between receptivity and expression, aligning with the idea that “the doing is an effect of being.”
For example, practices like meditation and kindness (as suggested by Renee Cusworth) enhance receptivity, allowing love to manifest in actions like service or compassion, as noted in United Church Homes. This balance supports spiritual growth, resonating with Ronnie’s idea of alternating states for soulful harmony.
Conclusion
The theme “Love isn’t a doing; it is a being” offers a profound insight into love as a state of being receptive to divine love or source energy, allowing it to flow through us and manifest in our lives and relationships. This perspective is supported by psychological, spiritual, and philosophical sources, emphasizing love as an intrinsic, unconditional state accessed through openness. Ronnie’s analogy of the Sun and planets illustrates this beautifully: just as the Sun is receptive to the Galactic Sun and Source God, enabling it to nurture life, we can also be receptive to divine love, fostering balance and harmony in our existence.
This exploration, conducted on May 6, 2025, synthesizes various perspectives to deepen understanding and ensure a comprehensive and empathetic response to Ronnie’s query.
Key Citations
- Psychology Today What Is Love and What Isn’t
- Goodreads Quote by Aidan Chambers Love Being in Love
- iDisciple Relationship Prerequisites Receptivity and Attentiveness
- Renee Cusworth What Is Love Unconditional Love The Divine Source
- United Church Homes The Power of Divine Love
- MeetMindful How Receptivity Helps Attract the Love You Deserve
- Peaceful Mind Peaceful Life How to be Open and Receptive to Love
- Reddit Love is not something you feel It’s something you do David Wilkerson
- Quora Isn’t love what you say love is what you do
- Quora What does it mean to do things from love not for love
The battle between lies and truth shapes our perceptions, decisions, and actions in a world of information. Lies, with their seductive allure, can incite division, fear, and chaos. Truth, on the other hand, has the power to inspire unity, courage, and progress. We have the choice between inciting through deception or inspiring through authenticity. Let’s explore why we should reject the temptation to incite and instead embrace the call to inspire.
The Destructive Power of Lies
Lies are like sparks in a dry forest, spreading quickly and leaving devastation. Whether it’s misinformation on social media, manipulative narratives in politics, or half-truths in personal relationships, lies incite negative emotions and destructive outcomes. They prey on fear, anger, and mistrust, fueling conflicts and eroding the foundation of understanding.
Consider the ripple effect of a single falsehood. A misleading headline can spark outrage, a fabricated rumor can destroy reputations, and a distorted fact can sway public opinion. Lies incite because they exploit our vulnerabilities, clouding judgment and pitting us against one another. They thrive in environments where division is profitable, and their consequences are far-reaching, often leaving scars that take years to heal.
The Transformative Power of Truth
In contrast, truth is a beacon that illuminates even the darkest corners. It doesn’t just inform—it inspires. Truth has the power to uplift, motivate, and unite. When we encounter authentic stories of resilience, acts of kindness, or groundbreaking discoveries, we feel a spark of hope and possibility. Truth invites us to see the world as it is and challenges us to improve it.
Please think of the moments that have inspired humanity: a leader’s honest call for justice, a scientist’s unwavering commitment to evidence, or a friend’s vulnerability in sharing their struggles. These instances of truth don’t just change minds; they change hearts. They inspire action, foster trust, and build bridges where lies have burned them down. Truth is the foundation of progress, encouraging us to dream bigger, act bolder, and connect more deeply.
Why Incitement Fails
Inciting through lies might offer short-term gains—clicks, votes, or attention—but it’s a hollow victory. Lies are inherently unstable; they crumble under scrutiny and breed cynicism. Trust erodes when people discover they’ve been misled, and resentment festers. Incitement thrives on division, but division is unsustainable. It fragments communities, stifles collaboration, and leaves us all worse off.
Moreover, incitement is a lazy shortcut. It relies on manipulating emotions rather than engaging with reason or empathy. It’s the tool of those who lack the vision or courage to inspire through truth. While lies may incite a fleeting reaction, they lack the enduring power to create meaningful change.
The Call to Inspire
Inspiring through truth is harder but infinitely more rewarding. It requires courage to speak honestly, even when the truth is inconvenient. It demands humility to admit mistakes and learn from them. And it calls for creativity to present truth in ways that resonate and uplift.
To inspire is to see the potential in others and help them see it too. It’s about sharing stories that remind us of our humanity, presenting facts that empower informed choices, and fostering dialogue that builds understanding. Inspiration doesn’t divide; it unites. It doesn’t destroy; it creates. It doesn’t incite; it ignites.
How to Choose Inspiration Over Incitement
- Seek Truth Relentlessly: Question what you hear, verify what you share, and prioritize evidence over sensationalism. Be a beacon of clarity in a noisy world.
- Speak with Authenticity: In conversations or on public platforms, let your words reflect honesty and integrity. People are drawn to genuine voices.
- Uplift, Don’t Tear Down: When tempted to spread negativity or division, share ideas that encourage hope and collaboration.
- Amplify Inspiring Stories: Highlight acts of kindness, innovation, and resilience. These narratives remind us of what’s possible when we work together.
- Lead by Example: Show others that truth and inspiration are more potent than lies and incitement. Your actions can ripple outward, creating a culture of authenticity.
A World Built on Inspiration
Imagine a world where truth is the currency of communication, leaders inspire through honesty, and individuals uplift one another with authenticity. This isn’t a naive dream—it’s a vision we can build together. Every time we choose to inspire rather than incite, we take a step toward that reality.
Lies may incite fleeting reactions, but truth inspires lasting change. So, let’s reject the easy path of deception and embrace the transformative power of authenticity. Don’t incite; inspire. The world is waiting for your light.
From Freedom to Compliance: Are We Repeating Soviet History at the Hands of Big Tech?
Apr 25, 2025
After being subjected for years to abusive censorship by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and others, I have come to realize something deeply troubling:
We are beginning to normalize this behavior and collectively develop symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.
Even so-called “free speech” platforms are implementing questionable practices, where favored individuals are propped up while others are quietly suppressed.
For example, on X (formerly Twitter), establishment accounts reach millions with ease, while once-organically popular voices are quietly buried—trapped inside algorithms of silence that erase their historical reach.
Substack, a platform once praised for neutrality, is also beginning to show cracks. Establishment figures have entered the platform boasting hundreds of thousands of “subscribers” overnight—despite these numbers being impossible without institutional sponsorship or artificial manipulation, thus violating the spirit (and arguably the rules) of the platform.
This slow drift (or overnight in the case of Google/Youtube) toward manipulation leads me to a disturbing conclusion:
We are all being thrust into a psychological dynamic similar to Stockholm Syndrome.
What is Stockholm Syndrome?
Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological phenomenon where hostages or victims develop positive feelings, loyalty, or even affection toward their captors or abusers—sometimes even defending them.
At first glance, it seems irrational.
But it is actually a coping mechanism for extreme stress and powerlessness.
When someone is trapped, harmed, and dependent on those controlling them, the mind will reframe the situation to survive. By bonding with the captor, the victim reduces the perceived threat, builds hope for mercy, and creates a sense of emotional safety—even if the safety is entirely false.
Key Characteristics of Stockholm Syndrome:
- Emotional bonding with the abuser or captor
- Rationalizing or defending the abuser’s actions
- Distrust or fear of rescuers or outsiders offering real freedom
- Deep dependence on the abuser for survival or legitimacy
- Feeling gratitude for small acts of mercy (“they could have hurt me more, but didn’t”)
How Stockholm Syndrome Conforms to Our Situation — and Its Effects on Society
Today, many creators, journalists, and independent thinkers—having endured years of censorship, deplatforming, and economic punishment—find themselves emotionally and financially dependent on the very platforms that suppress them.
They rationalize censorship:
“It’s just business.“
“They have to protect their platform.”
“Maybe if I adjust my message slightly, they’ll let me stay.“
“I don’t care. It’s not affecting me“
They defend Big Tech even when their freedoms are clearly violated, and they show gratitude for small mercies—such as having a single post restored, or getting slight algorithmic boosts after months of suppression.
At the same time, they distrust true alternatives:
New platforms that promise genuine free speech are treated with skepticism or dismissed as “fringe,” even when they offer what these individuals claim to want.
This mass psychological shift has profound consequences for society:
- Freedom of speech is eroded internally long before it’s taken externally.
- Self-censorship becomes normalized, not just strategic.
- The spirit of rebellion against injustice is weakened.
- Corrupt institutions gain psychological control, not merely technical control.
- Society shifts from seeking freedom to seeking permission.
Many consumers of media assume censorship isn’t their concern because they haven’t been personally targeted—yet. But every time a voice is silenced, the boundaries of free expression quietly shrink for everyone.
The illusion of safety is temporary; once the precedent is set, no one’s voice is truly secure. Ignoring the erosion of free speech today guarantees fewer rights for all tomorrow.
History has shown us this pattern before.
During the Soviet era, Pravda, the state-controlled newspaper, became the sole arbiter of “truth.” Citizens knew much of what was reported was propaganda, yet they publicly accepted and even parroted it—because survival demanded conformity. Speaking freely meant risking exile, imprisonment, or worse. Over time, even those who privately doubted the regime internalized the propaganda, blurring the lines between what was real and what was safe to believe.
Today, Big Tech monopolies are playing a similar role. They act not just as gatekeepers of information, but as engineers of thought and loyalty.
The tactics are different—algorithms instead of gulags—but the psychological outcome is alarmingly familiar.
In the end, Stockholm Syndrome in the digital age is not just an individual affliction—it is becoming a societal disease.
A disease that turns once-free people into obedient captives inside systems designed to control information, thought, and dissent.
If we don’t recognize this dynamic—and fight against it boldly—we risk losing not just freedom of speech, but the will to even want it.
English