Mensajes para la Humanidad
Gracias por leer los mensajes para la humanidad, como regalo por leer el mensaje completo recibirá arte disponible para descargas gratuitas.
Mensajes para la humanidad:
1. Hoots primer mensaje para la Humanidad:
Tuve un sueño
He pasado muchos años estudiando y meditando sobre la idea de la no violencia. Me considero un practicante. He estado investigando en forma de entrevistas y diálogos sobre la noviolencia con la gente. He estado tratando de encontrar personas que resuenen con la idea o el ideal de la no violencia. Una noche mientras dormía tuve un sueño. En mi sueño estaba en una fiesta y estaba tratando de encontrar personas que pudieran resonar con la idea de la no violencia. Observé a una mujer que ya estaba hablando con un grupo de personas sobre la no violencia. Estas personas se reían de ella y decían: "¿Quieres decir que vas a dejar que alguien te mate y no te vas a defender?"
The woman was trying to respond that just because she didn't want matar en defensa propia no significaba que ella no se defendería, pero no de esa manera. La gente se reía demasiado fuerte para escuchar lo que ella decía. Cuando me acerqué al grupo, hice contacto visual con la mujer y asentí con la cabeza mientras decía eso es lo que estoy diciendo. Entonces la gente que se reía de ella empezó a reírse de mí y dijo que teníamos otro. Dije oh, ¿entonces crees que eso es gracioso? ¿Quieres algo de lo que reírte? Te daré algo de qué reírte. Te voy a contar el último chiste. Es el chiste para acabar con todos los chistes. Solía contar este chiste que menos pensé que era un chiste en ese momento cuando lo conté. la gente se reía Cuando se cuenta como una broma, la contradicción parece evidente. Entonces me di cuenta un día de que no es una broma, y que no tiene nada de divertido, pero cuando se cuenta con toda seriedad, se esconde a simple vista, no se ve ni se reconoce.
¿listo para el chiste? Aquí está la broma: descubrí cómo terminar con todas las guerras y tener paz en la Tierra. Todo lo que tenemos que hacer es matar a toda la gente violenta. Esa es la broma. Pensé que mi broma era una forma de resaltar una contradicción. Obviamente, si toda la gente violenta se fuera, entonces solo quedaría la gente no violenta. Asumí que las personas no violentas serían aquellas que no matarían bajo ninguna circunstancia. De ahí la contradicción. Sin embargo, resulta que muchos de los que reclamaron la palabra noviolencia para sí mismos no descartan matar como opción. Estimo que el 80 por ciento de todas las personas que usan la palabra no violenta no descartan matar en el peor de los casos. Esto no es consistente con las definiciones de no violencia del diccionario. No violencia - el uso de medios pacíficos, no la fuerza - la práctica de negarse a responder a cualquier cosa con violencia - no usar ni incluir la violencia.
It has been suggested to me that the correct term for what I am tratando de decir es pacifismo. No prefiero este término porque parece implicar pasividad, como para indicar que la única alternativa a responder a la violencia con más violencia o contraviolencia es la pasividad. Me sorprende la frecuencia con la que la gente asume que cuando digo no violento, en realidad quiero decir pasivo, lo que para ellos implica víctima, como si dijera que la única forma de no ser una víctima es ser un agresor. Este fue el punto de mi investigación cuando empecé a ser consciente de la brecha, la zona muerta, el punto ciego, el agujero negro en la conciencia humana. El vasto océano de inconsciencia que se encuentra entre los continentes de uno y otro. La entropía del pensamiento dualista. La transformación de la conciencia, el cambio cuántico, si es que existe tal cosa, tiene que ver con ir más allá del pensamiento dualista. La Condición Humana de hoy está tan enredada en perspectivas dualistas que está prácticamente en todas partes a nuestro alrededor y afecta todos los aspectos de toda nuestra realidad.
It may seem profoundly difficult to make this transition yet it is really fundamentally simple. Con respecto a la no violencia, se trata simplemente de reemplazar la contención por la empatía. La solución al conflicto es cuestión de tratar de comprender el punto de vista de un adversario. Cuando el énfasis cambia de tratar de probar el propio punto a tratar de entender el punto de otro, estamos capacitados para encontrar soluciones pacíficas a los conflictos. De lo contrario, cuando cada parte esté más interesada en probar su propio punto de vista que en comprender el punto de vista de los demás, no podremos encontrar soluciones pacíficas. -o perspectivas. Para prosperar como especie debemos hacer esta transición. Para mí se trata de proyectar mi conciencia de tal manera que imagine que yo soy la otra persona y que ella es yo.
_cc781905-5cde-3194-bbbad_58d_ _cc781905-5cde-3194-bbbad_15 No es necesario estar de acuerdo con alguien para entenderlo. A falta de comprensión, terminamos por malentendidos y, por defecto, los malentendidos conducen a conflictos que podrían haberse evitado. Para comprender verdaderamente a alguien debemos comenzar por respetarlo. Si le faltas al respeto a alguien, nunca podrás entenderlo. El respeto implica darse cuenta de que todos, sin importar lo que pase, están luchando a su manera.
In summary- empathy, compassion, respect, and understanding are key to encontrar soluciones pacíficas a los conflictos. Estos principios son aplicables en todas y cada una de las situaciones. Después de contar mi chiste muchas veces; un día de repente me di cuenta de que esta es precisamente la razón de ser de todas las guerras. Esa gente es la gente violenta y nosotros somos la gente pacífica, así que para que haya paz tenemos que deshacernos de esa gente violenta y entonces tendremos paz. El resultado neto de esto es que terminamos matando en el nombre de la paz y eso se llama guerra. Subyacente a esta lógica se encuentra la idea de que tenemos derecho a matar en defensa propia. A medida que marchamos a la guerra, esta idea es el motor principal de cada soldado en un campo de batalla. Esta es una idea que ha tenido su apogeo. Matar en nombre de la paz como estrategia puede haber funcionado temporalmente para gobernantes como Alejandro Magno y el rey David, por mencionar algunos. No funcionó tan bien para otros. Sin embargo, si continuamos desde este punto llevando la bandera del derecho a matar en defensa propia hacia adelante y más adelante en el camino de ladrillos amarillos de la Historia, puede conducirnos a nuestra destrucción mutua.
I am not challenging the idea of the right to kill in self- defensa de tal manera que afirme que nosotros o usted no tenemos este derecho; sin embargo, estoy afirmando que no es un derecho, es una elección. Esto puede parecer una distinción semántica, pero es importante en el sentido de que los derechos son cosas que asumimos como hechos. Cosas que damos por sentadas a menudo sin cuestionarnos. Las elecciones, por otro lado, son cosas que implican la necesidad de pensar antes de actuar. Es importante que hagamos la distinción de que el derecho a matar en defensa propia es una idea, no un hecho. Las elecciones, por otro lado, tienen consecuencias en ambos sentidos. ¡La idea de que es una elección y no un derecho devuelve la responsabilidad al individuo! Se convierte en una cuestión de conciencia.
Conversely an idea of a right that is taken to be a fact may ser considerado como algo más que un derecho se convierte en una responsabilidad y luego en una obligación y la responsabilidad por las acciones termina siendo eliminada del individuo. El individuo Actúa como si solo estuviera siguiendo órdenes y siguiendo órdenes debido al derecho a matar en defensa propia que se considera un hecho. Tenemos libre albedrío y esa es la libertad de elegir matar o elegir no matar. Como individuos, pensemos largo y tendido sobre las elecciones que hacemos.
When a government sends its armies to war it is virtually always described as un acto necesario de legítima defensa. Cuando los soldados van a la guerra, prácticamente siempre se basa en la idea de que es una cuestión de defensa propia. Piénselo: a lo largo de la historia, cada estandarte, causa, espada que se haya desenvainado, tanto ofensivos como defensivos, trabajaron bajo la causa de la autodefensa. Se ha vuelto difícil determinar si una amenaza es real o imaginaria. ¿Cómo determinamos qué acción es apropiada si ni siquiera sabemos si una amenaza es real o no? Hemos adquirido la capacidad de destruirnos a nosotros mismos en nombre de la autodefensa.
The idea of the right to kill in self-defense has brought us al borde de la autodestrucción como especie. Quizás necesitamos repensar qué es uno mismo y qué estamos defendiendo. ¿Qué es la conciencia y qué son los derechos? La idea de un gobierno del pueblo, por el pueblo y para el pueblo se basa en la idea de ciertos derechos inalienables que Dios nos otorga. A saber, el derecho a la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad. El derecho a la vida implica aire para respirar, agua para beber, alimento para comer y vivienda. Estas cosas son necesarias para sostener la vida.
Does my right to life give me the right to tear down the forest , generar plástico con cada comida y destruir hábitats de especies en peligro de extinción, etcétera? Sin darnos cuenta de que lo hemos hecho, asumimos que el hecho de nuestra existencia viene automáticamente con un conjunto de derechos que llamamos derechos. Parece evidente que debido a que tengo un cuerpo, también tengo derecho a respirar aire, beber agua, comer alimentos y tener un techo. En resumen, porque existo obviamente tengo derecho a existir. Es lógico entonces que si tengo derecho a existir, como respirar, beber, comer y tener un techo, también tengo derecho a tener hijos, el derecho a portar armas, el derecho a matar en defensa propia. . Todos estos son subconjuntos del derecho a existir y el derecho a existir es un subconjunto del hecho de la existencia. También se considera evidente que todos los hombres son creados iguales.
Yet in our world today there are millions that do not have adequate air , alimento, agua o refugio. Consideramos que nuestros derechos son una cuestión de hecho evidente y automática. Esto se da por sentado como un hecho establecido. A medida que realizamos nuestras actividades diarias, hacemos la vista gorda al darnos cuenta de que es prácticamente imposible ejercer nuestros supuestos derechos sin infringir los derechos de otros humanos, plantas, animales, etc. Esta contradicción se ha vuelto irreconciliable. La idea misma de los Derechos per se ya no es sostenible. Cuando nuestros derechos se ejercen de tal manera que otros que son nuestros iguales son infringidos o privados de los mismos derechos, tenemos una contradicción fundamental.
We understand now that the laws of Newtonian physics fail at the quantum level . En el mismo sentido, el fenómeno de nuestras ideas, que hemos asumido como hechos, se está desmoronando bajo la presión del tiempo acelerado, la tecnología y el crecimiento de la población. Hemos considerado que nuestros hechos, entre comillas, son leyes inmutables. Esto no lo son. Si el regalo de la vida no viene con un conjunto de derechos, una especie de dominio eminente automático incorporado, ¿con qué viene y qué es?
What the gift of life is and what it comes with is consciousness- conciencia. Con esta conciencia viene el libre albedrío. El libre albedrío es la libertad de elegir. La libertad de elegir no es un derecho ordenado; es un aspecto de la conciencia. La idea de libertad ha sido sobreinterpretada para implicar que hay un número infinito de opciones. Este es un concepto erróneo. En realidad, sólo hay una opción: la conciencia. Podemos elegir ser conscientes o podemos abstenernos de elegir y permanecer inconscientes. ¡Cuando actuamos desde la conciencia creamos Armonía! Cuando actuamos por falta de conciencia, creamos desarmonía y caos. La conciencia conduce a la compasión y la compasión es la solución. Lo que a menudo consideramos bueno y malo es simplemente conciencia e ignorancia. La ignorancia es la falta de conciencia. Cuando alguien actúa por odio o malicia, no es porque sea malvado, sino porque es ignorante, simplemente carece de conciencia o compasión.
As humans we are neither fully conscious nor are we fully unconscious. La conciencia, sin embargo, es un proceso evolutivo en el sentido de que no importa cuántas veces fallemos en elegir la conciencia, siempre tenemos la libertad de elegir la conciencia. La dirección del proceso evolutivo se mueve desde la inconsciencia hacia la conciencia. Cuando vivíamos en cuevas y era invierno no teníamos derecho a tomar la piel del oso. Era una cuestión de necesidad, no de derechos.
_cc781905-5cde-3194-bbbad3b5-153 evolucionamos en una cultura de dominio para sobrevivird. Como en la supervivencia del más apto, la agresión se convirtió en un rasgo de supervivencia necesario. En tiempos de escasez, nosotros, como individuos, teníamos que competir entre nosotros por la comida y el agua, etcétera. Luego aprendimos a cooperar entre nosotros para competir como grupos contra otros grupos. A este tipo de competencia lo llamamos Guerra. A través de esta guerra hemos estado seleccionando naturalmente para la agresión. Esta agresión nos ha permitido ser "exitosos", hasta el punto de que nos hemos convertido en la especie dominante en la Tierra. En efecto, hemos tenido demasiado éxito para nuestro propio bien. Inherente a nuestro éxito yacen las semillas de nuestro potencial fracaso como especie. En términos de tiempo geológico, tenemos solo un instante virtual para cambiar de un espíritu de competencia a uno de Cooperación. No la cooperación dentro de un grupo frente a otro grupo, sino la cooperación como una especie, como un todo, ya no dividido dentro de sí mismo. Somos como el bebé que primero aprendió a comunicarse; sobrevivir llorando para salirse con la suya.
_cc781905-5cde-3194-bb3b-15cf58d_ Todo esto de repente ya no sirve prácticamente de la noche a la mañana. Si seguimos llorando para salirnos con la nuestra, nadie quiere oírlo. Nuestro activo se ha convertido en un pasivo. Para sobrevivir, el bebé necesita desaprender el comportamiento que lo permitió hasta ese momento. Esta no es una discusión sobre el bien y el mal. En las cuevas sin agresión estábamos en un callejón sin salida evolutivo. La agresión era el conjunto de habilidades necesario para permitirnos sobrevivir en aquel entonces. Hoy, sin embargo, el conjunto de habilidades de la agresión se ha convertido en nuestro mayor riesgo. Si no logramos trascender, transformar, transmutar esta agresión en un espíritu de cooperación, comunicación y comprensión, nos encontraremos nuevamente en un callejón sin salida evolutivo. Es posible que desee argumentar en este punto que la supervivencia del más apto y la competencia es una fuerza de la naturaleza y que no somos más que una extensión de esa Fuerza. Esta idea es sin duda cierta hasta cierto punto. Sin embargo, si seguimos como si fuéramos perros peleándose por huesos nuestro futuro es, en el mejor de los casos, dudoso.
Beneath the Veil of a civilized world and a civilized society we still live en un mundo de perro-come-perro de muchas maneras. Ninguna otra especie en la Tierra es capaz del tipo de destrucción sin sentido que los humanos se infligen unos a otros y a su entorno. Perro come perro es la configuración predeterminada de La condición humana. Es solo a través de la conciencia y el razonamiento que tenemos la capacidad potencial de desarrollar un nuevo conjunto de habilidades que puede ser apropiado. para nuestra "era moderna"!
2.
Perilous Reasonings
When we as humans engage in a process of judgment, as in the determination of who is right, and who is wrong, and we proceed to act upon our decision, we may do so at our own peril.
You have heard that we humans are our own worst enemy. It is this process of judgment that renders us so. It is judgment which drives polarization and conflict. Conflict is the result of this polarization. It is as simple as two plus two. Judgment gives way to polarization, which gives way to conflict.
Through a process of endless conflict, we Homo sapiens have been subjecting ourselves to a repeating pattern, as in survival of the fittest, called natural selection. We have been naturally selecting for the qualities of aggression. Through aggression, we build empires, the Sumerian, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Greek, the Roman, the Austro-Hungarian, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the British, the Nazi. Every empire that has risen has fallen, and the bigger the rise, the greater the fall. Through aggression we rise, and through aggression or counter-aggression we fall. In this process, of the evolution of empires we reach a tipping point, a polarity shift, where shall we call it, our ‘attribute’ of aggression, suddenly overnight becomes our liability.
Like the baby who first learns how to survive by crying to get its way, at a certain point as the baby grows, it reaches a threshold where if the baby continues the skill set that it learned in order to survive. Its greatest attribute becomes its liability because at some point, if the baby continues to cry to get its way, it is no longer an asset, but a liability instead. The baby reaches a certain age and no one wants to hear it crying. And you can't cry to get your way anymore.
You have to unlearn the behavior that you learned and learn a new behavior that is antithetical to the old behavior in order to survive. And so this is an analogy where we're like the baby. The old program no longer works. Our asset has become our liability. And we're at the point where we need to make this quantum shift. It is a sudden rapid change which is required in order for us to remain a viable species called Humanity on a planet called Earth.
We are all familiar with the reasoning which claims that it is important for us to know history, that it is necessary to understand the patterns of the past in order that we not repeat them over and over again. Yes?
We have heard the claim that everything is predetermined, that there is no free will. Correct? Well, here is the lowdown on that. Predeterminism is the default setting for the human condition. There is a theory that everything is predetermined and there's no such thing as free will. Without free will, without change, without creativity, we are predestined to repeat the same patterns over and over again. Free will is the ability to create a new pattern instead of repeating the same old pattern over and over.
However, in order to change a pattern, first we must know the pattern. If we don't know what the pattern is, we don't know what to change. Not knowing condemns us to repeating the same patterns over and over again. It is a matter of inertia. Patterns persist through inertia. They have a tendency to repeat themselves over and over again. And a greater additional inertia is required to change the patterns. Without that extra spark of energy, we are prone to repeating the same patterns over and over again.
Metaphorically speaking, if you want to defuse a bomb, you must know what makes it tick. You must know how it works.
The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
If ignorance is bliss, then bliss may be our undoing. This is why it is critical for us to know our past.
We have heard that the victors write history, yes? And we have heard how we must all remember the Holocaust so that never again, correct? And finally, we have all heard that the Holocaust was a unique event in history, that nothing like it had ever happened before, nor can it be allowed to ever happen again, and this is why we must remember.
Well, I am here today to help us to understand that there is a very real and very direct relationship between what happened then, and what is happening now—although it may not be what you think it is.
We have heard the claim that history did not begin on October 7th. This claim is the springboard of the pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist movement. What is tragic is that those who claim that history did not begin on October 7th go on to behave as if history began in 1948.
There seems to be some kind of a barrier, like the event horizon of a black hole that prevents it, or somehow the global community has a kind of collective amnesia. As if there is a veil which prevents us from being able to see beyond 1948. And this is largely due to the phenomenon of how the victors write history. They left out a huge piece.
The Nazis were the active perpetrators while the rest of the world were passive participants, with the exception of whoever made an effort to rescue Jewish refugees from Europe. Refugees from Europe weren't just Jews. They were gypsies and others, but primarily the Jews.
To say that the Holocaust was a unique event that nothing like it had ever happened before is a fundamental misunderstanding. What happened in Germany in the 1930s, other than the scale of it. Nothing differentiates what happened. The history of the Jewish people was like a serial, horror story of expulsions and pogroms.
Pogroms happen when the victims are attacked, some get killed, and the rest are driven out of somewhere. A series of pogroms and expulsions of the Jews in the diaspora go back all the way to Roman conquest of Palestine in 70 AD, when the Jews were driven out of Palestine into the diaspora and went through a series of cycles. The same cycle has been repeating over and over again for these few thousand years where the Jews are driven out of some place and then they go someplace else. And they do okay for a while and then they reach this threshold where passive antisemitism becomes active antisemitism. It's because when the Jews came out of Egypt, they were the product of a genetic breeding program where they had been selecting for certain qualities. So, when the Jews came out of Egypt, they had acquired abilities to adapt. And they were very good at adapting.
And so when they were driven out of one place, they came to another place. And when they were accepted, they came in at the bottom strata of the society. And in a very few generations, with an emphasis on education, they migrate through the strata and end up being many of the people in government and in banking and in politics and the arts, the doctors, the lawyers, etc.
When the Jews came out of Egypt, they had this ability to adapt. These were the slaves that went through this process of selective breeding for various qualities that were the Jews.
When they came out of Egypt, they had the ability to assimilate and to adapt and to migrate. And when they would reach a point like, for example, in Germany, the Jews had never done better in the diaspora than they were doing in Germany in the 1930s. They were only 2% of the German population, but they were, give or take, 50% of the doctors, the lawyers, the politicians, the bankers, the musicians, the writers.
When it reaches that threshold, it's like a mathematical equation. When it reaches that threshold, latent antisemitism, which is always present, becomes active. There's a sudden shift, where all of a sudden, virtually overnight, the passive antisemitism becomes active, aggressive antisemitism.
This has happened over and over and over again. It's been going on for thousands of years. So there's nothing unique about what was happening in Germany in the 1930s. The Jews again had risen to the point of where they were at this threshold point of having migrated through all the strata and were at the top of the society. Then there's this reaction. They're expelled, they're driven out. A bunch of them are killed enough to make them leave. And then they leave and they go somewhere else. There was absolutely nothing unique about what was happening in Germany in the 1930s. What's different, what is unique, is that every other time in history that the Jews were driven out of somewhere, they went somewhere else.
In this case, because the world, for the most part, (there were exceptions), but for the most part, the world would not allow Jews to come to their countries. Th²ey didn't want them. Every other time in history when they were expelled from somewhere, some other place received them. This time there was nowhere for them to go. They were trapped.
It's that fact. This is the big, huge piece that's left out of history that we need to remember. We need to understand. There's a big hole in the historical narrative because it, for the most part, leaves out the simple fact that if the Jews had been able to leave, the Holocaust would not have happened.
There would have been pogroms, there would have been enough of them killed so that they would want to leave. They'd take it seriously and they'd want to leave because they don't want to be killed and they go somewhere else. And this time there was nowhere else for them to go.
How that connects directly with what's going on now in Palestine is because it's the same situation. There's a thing going on in Sudan right now. It's been going on for years and there's something like 20,000 people a day fleeing Sudan. And they go somewhere. They go from where they are, and they go somewhere else. In the case of Palestine, they're trapped. They can't leave. This mirrors the situation that happened in the Holocaust era. By not offering safety, by not offering sanctuary, by not reaching out to rescue people, by not making an effort to get them out of harm's way, to bring them somewhere where they're safe. We're repeating the same pattern.
Em:
Why were people not offering help for the Jews in that era? Why are people not offering help for the Palestinian refugees in this era?
HOOOT:
The same reasons—judgment, not compassion. Compassion and judgment are incompatible. Where judgment exists, compassion does not. You transcend judgment in order to enter the realm of compassion.
Em:
Why are people judging?
HOOOT:
Because our human brains are wired for binary thinking—we tend to simplify everything into categories like right and wrong, of either and or. This is the mechanism of judgment, and it's where compassion gets eclipsed.
In the Holocaust era, many countries feared accepting Jewish refugees because they thought that it would make them complicit in the Nazi goal of ethnic cleansing through forced expulsion. This rationale—based on judgment—overrode compassion.
There are theories about how antisemitism spreads or behaves like a virus. One map showed the spread of antisemitism in 1930s Europe next to a map of the spread of a virus—and they looked the same. Hatred is like a virus: it's always present somewhere and occasionally flares up into an epidemic or even a pandemic. World Wars I and II were pandemics of hatred.
Do you know the difference between a locust and a grasshopper?
There’s no genetic difference. A locust is simply a grasshopper that, under certain conditions—like crowding—transforms into a swarm. The swarm triggers this shift. The grasshoppers become locusts and destroy everything in their path.
It’s a perfect metaphor. One person is a grasshopper. A collective, driven by fear or hate, becomes a swarm of locusts. A hive mind emerges. This is what happens in war.
Those who say history didn’t begin on October 7th often act as if history began in 1948 with the Nakba. That line of reasoning supersedes all the events leading up to that moment, ignoring centuries of persecution. This selective memory allows people to cast the Jews as perpetrators and the Palestinians as victims.
The human mind craves binary roles—victim and perpetrator, right and wrong. That’s how, after a violent terrorist attack on October 7th, the global narrative shifted almost immediately to portraying the attackers as victims and the victims as perpetrators.
But history didn't begin in 1948. The pattern began long before. And if we do not remember fully, if we only remember selectively, we are bound to repeat the very tragedies we claim to abhor.
The Nazis clearly were the active perpetrators. But the global community—those who shut their doors and refused to receive Jewish refugees—became, by their refusal to act, passive participants. Ironically, in trying not to be involved, they became exactly what they were trying to avoid. Their refusal to be proactive in receiving Jewish refugees—getting them out of harm’s way—made them complicit. Without that passive participation, the Holocaust could not have happened on the scale it did.
There’s a denial of responsibility. History is written to leave an empty space around this—a black hole that swallows up thought and reflection. But we need to see it, because what happened then—when Jews had nowhere to go—is happening again. In Palestine, people have nowhere to go. In Sudan, people may not have anywhere to go either, but they aren’t physically trapped in the same way.
We have to recognize this connection. If we don’t see it, name it, and show it, we can’t fix it. We have to understand the nature of the problem: we are allowing judgment to take the place of compassion.
During the Holocaust, the reasoning was: “The Germans are trying to forcibly expel and ethnically cleanse the Jews. If we let them into our countries, we’d be participating in that agenda.” That logic—though aimed at resisting calamity—eclipsed the compassionate response: “People are suffering and dying. Let’s give them somewhere safe to go.”
In defense of those who refused to offer safety to Jewish refugees, they had no way of knowing what was coming. The process of genocide didn’t begin until after 1938. Before then, forced expulsion was the primary goal. But had the world accepted the refugees, it could have prevented much of what followed.
This is how ethnic cleansing works: first, make life unbearable. If people still won’t leave, start killing some of them. Then they’ll want to leave. This isn’t unique to the Holocaust—it’s happened throughout history. One group conquers another and drives them out through terror.
We’re repeating the same pattern now. We see what’s happening to the Palestinians every day—on YouTube, on the news. Whether or not it’s called genocide, it is ethnic cleansing through forced expulsion.
When Israel launched its invasion, it pushed the entire population of Gaza south, cramming them into Rafah, the southernmost point—right up against the Rafah Gate. What’s the goal? To kill them all? No. The goal is to make them go to Egypt.
But if Egypt lets them in, you can no longer accuse Israel of genocide. So the global narrative isn’t focused on preventing genocide. It’s focused on demonizing Israel.
Want to prevent genocide? It's easy: open the door.
You don’t want to be stuck with a million people. Ask the global community to help. Set up a program. Make it profitable. Get humanitarians from around the world to contribute funds.
Make it a business. You'd be doing humanitarian work, earning global praise—and making money too.
If Israel is committing genocide, that’s all the more reason to at least get the people who want to leave out of harm’s way—because they’re the real victims.
Victims of who? Israel? Yes—but also victims of the people who want to destroy Israel.
As much as they suffer from Israel’s actions, they suffer just as much—if not more—from extremists who value hatred over life.
People who would rather kill than coexist. To them, does destroying Israel matter more than their own survival? Those people are not innocent victims.
The true victims are those—who may resent Israel but don’t want to die or kill for it. They just want to live.
Those are the people we must protect—and giving them a life is how we resolve the conflict. That’s how we end it.
If we don’t resolve this conflict, the conflict risks escalating into a global one.
We're on the edge now. The U.S. could attack Iran. Imagine Trump ends the wars in Ukraine and Palestine but starts one with Iran?
If the U.S. bombs Iran, Russia will side with Iran. Then we face a direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.
The U.S. conventional military ability dwarfs that of Russia. However, Russia’s nuclear capabilities may be equal or even superior to that of the U.S. That imbalance makes nuclear war more likely. In nuclear warfare, there's no such thing as a "limited" exchange.
The doctrine is simple: strike first, use everything. First strike gives you a 20-minute advantage—enough to destroy a portion of the enemy’s missiles before they launch.
Then you suffer 20% destruction, while they suffer 80%, and you "win."
That’s how the logic works. And it’s been around since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Some in the military have always believed we should "just go for it."
If we want to defuse the conflict, we have to understand how it works.
The conflict in Gaza is a viral outbreak. Hatred spreading like a plague. Palestine is the epicenter—a potential trigger for global hatred to spiral into World War III.
It’s like grasshoppers turning into the locusts—triggered by a swarm of hatred, devastating everything in its path.
That’s why this must be resolved. And we’re already late. The escalation between the U.S., Israel, and Iran is climbing fast. If this goes off, humanity may lose its moral compass entirely.
Em:
Why is it that the global community did not accept refugees both in the Holocaust era and now?
HOOOT:
There are many reasons, but the primary one is judgment over compassion. Where there is judgment, there is not compassion, and vice versa. The global community chose judgment over compassion then, in the Holocaust era—and it's happening again now with the Palestinian refugee situation. And not just Palestinians—this is a global refugee issue, with acute examples in places like Sudan.
Specifically regarding Gaza: the Nazis, up until at least 1938, were trying to forcibly expel Jews from the countries they occupied. With each conquest, they had more Jews to expel. But when the world refused to accept them, the Jews had nowhere to go. That’s what made the Holocaust unique. Historically, Jews had been expelled repeatedly, but there was always somewhere to flee. This time, they were trapped.
In Germany in the 1930s, Jews were doing better than they ever had in the diaspora—only 2% of the population, but roughly 50% of the professionals: doctors, lawyers, artists, etc. This recurring pattern—a pattern of being welcomed, rising in status, and then facing rising antisemitism—was like a mathematical equation. Once they reached a certain threshold of success, latent antisemitism became active, triggering pogroms and expulsions.
What differentiated the Holocaust was that this time, no one would take them. The global community, in an attempt to not “enable” Nazi expulsion, refused to offer refuge. This judgment, ironically, helped lead to genocide. When forced expulsion failed, the Nazis only had two options left: let the Jews live (which would mean feeding and housing a population they had already displaced and dehumanized) or exterminate them. Between 1938 and the Wannsee Conference in 1942, this shift happened—the genocide became official policy.
To say Israel wants to commit genocide isn’t quite accurate—what’s happening is an effort to forcibly expel Palestinians, similar to what the Nazis attempted. But the issue is: there’s nowhere for them to go. That’s why this crisis continues.
So, how do you resolve it? The same way it could’ve been resolved back then in the Holocaust era. You identify those who want to leave—and help them leave. With all the energy going into protests and political pressure, imagine if that were harnessed to demand and organize refugee relocation efforts. The goal shouldn’t just be to stop funding or weapons—but to get people out of harm’s way.
The rationale back then was: “We can’t help the Nazis expel the Jews—that would make us complicit.” So no one let them in. But that “moral high ground” allowed genocide to happen. Today, we see the consequences of inaction live on our screens. It’s not about whether it qualifies as genocide—it’s about real people dying, children orphaned, medical systems collapsed. They need safety, they need help.
And yet, the global community hesitates—saying things like, “The Palestinians don’t want to leave,” or “Let the Arab countries take them.” But those countries—Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon—have consistently barred Palestinians since 1948. So they’re stuck.
Are they captives of Israel? Partly—but Israel is trying to push them out, not hold them. They’re captives of a regional and global refusal. And that refusal is rooted in politics. The surrounding Arab nations use Palestinians as political pawns, a means to sustain hostility toward Israel. Solving the refugee issue by enabling refugees to leave the conflict zone would undermine that narrative.
This isn’t to say that Israel bears no responsibility. But the lack of safe refuge is not solely on Israel. The humanitarian awareness that currently expresses itself in campus protests could be channeled into a solution. Why not build a fund to relocate those who want to leave, and provide incentives for host nations to take them in?
This is how the Gaza conflict could actually end. Not just by being against something, but by doing something. Refugee relocation isn’t just compassion—it’s practical. Once those who want to leave are gone, the conflict's fuel diminishes.
Judgment is the substrate—like mycelium beneath the surface. The judgments we see are just the mushrooms. Pull one out, and another grows. If we want real change, we have to change the substrate.
Just as global inaction enabled the Holocaust, our current inaction is enabling this crisis. But we have a chance to act differently now. Every one of us could play a part—if we choose compassion over judgment.
Radical fundamentalism—especially in its radical form—is a kind of hatred. And it exists on both sides. This process is called radicalization.
In the ’80s and ’90s, there were Palestinian suicide bombers targeting Israel. Now, we have Hamas. It’s the same ideology—just evolved. The core issue is radical fundamentalist Islamic radicalization.
The danger arises when we treat entire populations—like THE Palestinians, THE Jews, THE Blacks, or any group—as monolithic. When we view them as all the same and drive them out en masse, that becomes forced expulsion, which only perpetuates radicalization.
Right now, in Gaza, there are radicalized people and non-radicalized people. Many just want to live their lives peacefully. But one harmful narrative we often hear is that “Palestinians don’t want to leave.” It’s true some would rather die than leave. Some even identify as martyrs, believing they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife for violent acts.
This martyrdom is part of a radical fundamentalist belief system. Suicide bombers who kill 20–30 people are seen as heroes. But if we want to address this, we have to separate the populations: those who want to leave need to be helped to do so. That alone would change the dynamic. If people could leave, many would. Once the people who WANT to leave have been evacuated, the radical fundamentalist agenda is disempowered. The radical fundamentalist agenda would no longer be able to use non-combatants as human shields or human targets.
Forced expulsion isn’t new—it’s happened throughout human history. As populations grow and resources tighten, the potential for harm increases. Left unchecked, this pattern leads to an evolutionary dead end. We must change it to remain viable as a species.
As long as the global community fails to act—specifically, to help identify and relocate those who want to leave Gaza—this situation is likely to persist. Israel has essentially said, “We just want them gone.” They’ve said it for decades, and now they’re showing it through increasing pressure. They hope that making life unlivable in Gaza will prompt international intervention. If no country opens its doors, Israel will most likely continue to maintain its position.
This doesn’t necessarily mean genocide is the intention. It may not be written into policy. But the determination to ethnically cleanse, in the belief that humanitarian pressure will eventually force relocation, is real. It’s a dangerous game of chicken between Israel and the international community.
On the other side, there are elements—Hamas, and some within the broader Arab world—that also have an agenda: to destroy Israel. These factions don’t seek peace; they seek harm. They equate success with destruction. That’s Islamic radical fundamentalism.
By contrast, moderate humans can coexist and thrive. But the radical fundamentalists undermine the possibility of humans living together in harmony.
Zionism, in its core form, is the belief that a specific land was promised to a specific people by God. That belief alone isn’t inherently dangerous. But when taken to the extreme, where “the ends justify the means,” morality is lost. If someone believes divine promise grants them the right to displace or kill others, that’s Zionist radical fundamentalism. Not Zionism. It’s no longer about belief—it’s about domination.
On both sides, we have radical fundamentalism. And like sediment in a solution, the densest elements settle at the bottom. In political systems, these densest forms—radical ideologies—gravitate to the seats of power.
Think of society as a spectrum: on the left, moderates, activists, and the radical fringe. On the right, you have conservatives, fundamentalists, and radical fundamentalists. The difference between fundamentalism and radical fundamentalism is a system of rationalizations, justifications, and denials defined by a decision that the ends justify the means. Once that line is crossed, there is no longer any moral compass. Anything goes. Any and all atrocities, both imaginable and unimaginable, but real, happen. It's not about protecting people—it’s about using them as political currency.
There is a strategy which aims to portray Israel as genocidal in the court of public opinion. It's not just about physical war—it’s a propaganda war, where victimhood is weaponized.
This dynamic is made worse by politics. George Washington warned that the last person you want in power is someone who wants power. Power-hungry leaders make compromises to gain and retain their positions. And because radical thought forms are “denser,” they often dominate these spaces.
So, while maybe 20% of a population holds fundamentalist views, only a small fraction—maybe only 2% of the 20%—hold radical fundamentalist views. But they operate behind the scenes, manipulating the broader fundamentalist base, embedding themselves into the core of governments. These radical fundamentalists don’t represent the average person, who is by nature, more moderate. Yet the radical fundamentalists are often the ones shaping the world.
This is how conflicts spiral out of control. If Israel were pushed to the brink—if they believed their survival depended on extreme measures like nuclear weapons—we run the risk of desperation taking precedence over rationality.
And that’s the final danger: when desperation becomes the dominant force, both morality and reason collapse.