Linkey

https://spectator.com/article/britain-is-facing-huge-demographic-change/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1twt9zv/matt_goodwin_new_uk_school_data_out_today_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1l5l9g1/white_british_children_are_now_minority_in_one_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1u5s505/white_people_blocked_from_jobseeker_schemes/ Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

Then why the price of oil is currently only 86 USD, not 200 USD per barrel?

The simplest solution for Trump would be to publicly announce to Putin, that the US will lift some sanctions on Russia, if Putin holds a referendum in Russia proposing peace with Ukraine and the West, unblocking YouTube, and lifting internet blocks of messengers. Both offers and threats could be made ("carrots and sticks"): for example, he could offer to give Russia some Ukrainian territory, or threaten that if Putin doesn't hold the referendum, the US will begin supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles. If this plan doesn't work, another one could be chosen: block the Strait of Hormuz again, ban Venezuela from exporting oil (and perhaps bomb some oil facilities there for effect), raise the price of oil to $200, and then publicly offer China and India cheap American oil if the dictators of these countries agree to hold referendums proposing an alliance with the West and democratization of their countries.

I tried to read, analyse and interpret your post for answering it, and the only thing I can say - how does the statement you said contradict the one I had said?

In my observations, there's always a common goal, but it's usually not recognized. Besides obvious goals, there are also hobbies, which are also similar to goals. I believe that what I'm writing about is mostly true for people called autistic. Sometimes they're also called "Indigo Children." I'm one of those people: in the past, I was very lonely, I had no friends because I couldn't develop usual hobbies, couldn't get involved in the kind of nonsense that allows other people to connect. All my life, I was always observing around me that the socialization is 95% determined by people's hobbies, not by qualities like intelligence and altruism.

Moderators*

I am sorry that I hurried and missed to write full name of the thread: "p-adic numbers and the Ramanujan summation". It seems that the thread name can not be modified by me now, can I ask moredators to modify it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan_summation It is interesting, can this summation (1+2+3+4+5...=-1/12) be obtained in p-adic numbers?

I think that now I have a clear understanding of what friendship is. The human psyche is "developed" in such a way, that friendship always requires a shared, noble goal. The absense of such a goal ("the meaning of life") also triggers a need for alcohol and other drugs (people say that they drink because of "boredom"). And when normal, non-sectarian companies of friends arise, people in them inevitably become interested in politics, then some of them begin to criticize authoritarian governments, and then the governments punish them for it—I'm talking about Western autocrats (deep state) too. Consequently, normal and natural friendship is usually replaced by sectarian and drug-fueled "friendships." I know women who go to dance clubs and make friends there; it seems obvious for me, that dancing itself is of no use or interest for anyone, but making friends is essential for everybody. Thus, dancing is a very effective way to improve one's social skills, but to use it, one must be sufficiently irrational— he or she must internally believe that dancing is a wonderful thing, which can save the world. Overall, I believe that dancing for women is roughly the same as beer, football, and fishing for men. What I have described above is the cause of "idiocracy" and injustice in general; as the singer C C Catch sang, "good guys only win in movies."

The ideology of the Left emphasizes protecting the weak. Initially this was a continuation of European humanism, but now this has become exaggerated (a reason why the Right constantly criticizes the Left). The Left appeals to various groups of people, whom it calls hurt by "white supremacists," and promises to force these supremacists to pay compensations to these minorities. Thus, leftist governments pay all sorts of subsidies to ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and disabled people; to some extent, the Left also tries to include all women among these hurt groups who are "protected" by the Left (feminism). The final result is that white working men are forced to pay money to all these minorities. If we think about it, this is nothing more than vote buying—the Left simply buys the votes of these minorities. And these minorities collectively become the majority. I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

A spoiler is a person who show themself being an oppositionist while in fact he serves the ruler. "Deep state", "Financial aristocracy", "300 families", etc.

Navalny was to some extent a spoiler of Putin. Al-Sharaa was to some extent a spoiler of Assad. For USA, it can be said that DeSantis was to some extent a spoiler of people who controlled Biden. And so on. This is a very common situation, which explains why often after revolutions the new power becomes even worse than the previous one. I am sorry for indeed far-fetched examples, but they still provide some insight.

All of you know very little about Russia. Of course I am against the Putin's autocracy and his war in Ukraine.

I have thought much on the question of why, often after revolutions, a new power becomes even worse than previous one. For example, in Russia after 1917 old authoritarian power was replaced by totalitarian one. Here is the answer: each authoritarian power suppresses the opposition, which pose a threat ideologically, more intensively, than rabid/extreme opposition, despite the second one often poses even bigger threat to the representatives of current power. The first opposition is a seculiar democratic opposition, while the second opposition is something with communist/fascist/fundamental etc ideology. This is very clearly seen on the examples of such countries like Syria or Russia. When protest against Assad started in Syria, firstly this was seculiar pro-democratic opposition. But Assad fully destroyed this opposition, giving more chances to islamic fundamentalist forces (al-Sharaa) - and suddenly in 2024 they came to power. I think, it can be correct to say that al-Sharaa was to some extent a spoiler of Assad. Similar things are happening in Russia: Putin unofficially declares that if he loses the power - instead of him cruel imperialists will take it. For supporting this statement, Putin always supported anti-democratic imperialists in power like Ramzan Kadyrov or Evgeniy Prigozhin. I think, Alexey Navalny was also one more of Putins's spoilers to some extent: as far as I know, firstly he collaborated with the presidency administration in Kremlin, but then he went out of control and Putin decided to finish him. Below I want to show you a picture from one Russuan website, relating Navalny; even those who don't know Russian, probably will understand the meaning of this picture:

I tried to open this link, and the site shows "subscription needed". I don't have a big experience of reading the news and so on in English. Do I understand correctly, that most websites in the English-speaking Web are paid? At one side, this seems good; but if I have to pay individually for each website like Forbes, etc., this is extremely unconvenient. Is there a way to pay once for reading all such news?