Change in Power Dynamics in 2025-2050; Afghanistan Consequences

[DianeHB]

From a private session on 8/17/2021:

 

Note: Michael mentioned in the earlier part of this session that "There are many planning a return for 2025 to 2050 as these years mark dramatic turns in power dynamics on the planet." 

 

DianeHB: I'm curious about what are the dramatic turns in power dynamics in 2025-2050?

 

MEntity: The most dramatic shifts are likely in terms of the United States losing a great deal of power but also a shift toward greater sharing or equalizing of power. This may come turbulently or peacefully, but this shift in evening out power is fairly inevitable and helps to anchor the Mature Soul Age like never before.

 

DianeHB: Sounds like interesting times.

 

DianeHB: I'll be here.

 

MEntity: Events are already unfolding that put into perspective the necessity of shared power to care for each other and to move away from isolation. The events in Afghanistan are an example of this as it cannot be addressed by one country or superpower. It will require multiple sources collaborating.

 

MEntity: The same is true of Haiti.

 

MEntity: Humanity cannot continue determining the value of life based upon conveniences or arbitrary values of currency.

 

DianeHB: Yeah, and we can't "help" in order to get access to their resources

 

MEntity: Between 2025 and 2050 comes a Turning Point of total "reset" or continuation toward solutions together.

 

DianeHB: Oh dear.

 

MEntity: We have not seen a "reset" in probabilities, yet.

 

MEntity: Correction: We have not yet seen a "reset" probability come into existence. But it is still a probability.

 

DianeHB: Can you say more about Afghanistan? If Troy is up to it.

 

MEntity: What questions do you have?

 

DianeHB: I didn't have a question prepared about it, but maybe potential consequences? What can we do to help?

 

DianeHB: Consequences of a Taliban government?

 

MEntity: The consequences appear to be fairly contained in most probabilities, but the suffering is likely to be immense among those locked within the region. An elevated approach to resolutions are likely to be found in diplomacy and communication in a way that helps bring some liberation to those who wish to leave. There was resignation to a great extent when the Taliban was in power before, but we do not see this as the case this time. The resistances will likely show up in many different ways that either force the Taliban to reconsider its tactics or leave them with few to govern.

 

MEntity: We offer this as an assessment during a period when no probability is clear.

 

MEntity: In other words, we do not know what will happen.

 

MEntity: We cannot predict.

 

DianeHB: I see, thank you.

 

MEntity: Ways to help would be through verified organizations that help refugees and supporting any coordination for evacuations. In the long term, holding your leaders responsible for contributing to solutions, communication, and help is vital, even if it seems meaningless.

 

DianeHB: Got it.

 

MEntity: This is a region of early Baby and early Mature Souls in conflict, much like the United States. It will take the Young Souls to "side" with Mature Souls to make a difference.

 

MEntity: We will conclude here then for today. Good day to you, Diane. Goodbye, for now.

 

DianeHB: Thank you so much Michael and Troy.

Edited August 17, 2021 by DianeHB

[Maureen]

Thanks @DianeHB. We needed more on this. So much has been said, already, and is being expressed about what's going on in Afghanistan I don't need to add to the mix. I've been overrun by emotions... that I didn't know were there. I broke down last night and wept uncontrollably, Instinctive Centre heaving, when I saw this specific photo from Pete Souza on Instagram. At the time I thought it was a little boy and I wrote in a comment: "The photo of the little boy with bags under his young eyes, who has seen too much in his young life, is breaking my heart. I can't stop crying." I can see now, in the light of day (I just couldn't go back and see it again last night) that it's a little girl. It's copyrighted so I don't feel entirely comfortable copying it and (even) showing it here on TLE. My heart is still breaking. 

 

Photo by Pete Souza: Northern Afghanistan, October 2001. 

 

[petra]

@DianeHB  I am very grateful for your questioning, I could finally cry and let Afghanistan through and out of me a bit.

For the last 2 days I could not sleep, because of it all. I had to write a post about it, this goes sooo deep under my skin, and I think the old ways will not help much or solve much.

It is unbearable anymore for me to witness so much suffering of children and woman for such an insane long time, with no hands on solution in sight, I am just falling apart, Afghanistan was the straw to break my back.

Brazil has declared its indigenous people not worth protecting nor the Rain Forrest etc. etc. etc.

I know I am not alone with this, somehow I have to get my act together in balancing this out, for right now I have to cry and scream.

 

Thank You @Maureen  for the picture, if we but could give them a future that recognizes their beautiful selves.

 

[Jackie]

Thank you for asking the question......I have also felt a deep sadness when the Taliban took control so quickly....it made me hopeless about the state of the world and that maybe we will not move forward into Mature soul age...I felt hope when Biden was elected and now with everything happening in the world I don’t know what to think.....2025-50....well I will either be dead or too old to care anymore......really wrong century to be incarnated.....I don’t know if we can hold on another 25 years in this state of chaos and uncertainty...no wonder so many are choosing to transition.....

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, DianeHB said:

The most dramatic shifts are likely in terms of the United States losing a great deal of power but also a shift toward greater sharing or equalizing of power. This may come turbulently or peacefully, but this shift in evening out power is fairly inevitable and helps to anchor the Mature Soul Age like never before.

 

Events are already unfolding that put into perspective the necessity of shared power to care for each other and to move away from isolation. The events in Afghanistan are an example of this as it cannot be addressed by one country or superpower. It will require multiple sources collaborating.

 

The same is true of Haiti.

 

Humanity cannot continue determining the value of life based upon conveniences or arbitrary values of currency.

 

Between 2025 and 2050 comes a Turning Point of total "reset" or continuation toward solutions together.

 

We have not yet seen a "reset" probability come into existence. But it is still a probability.

 

This is from a MICHAEL SPEAKS – Chaos, Consciousness & Current Events – November, 26, 2016

 

MEntity:  There are 10 scenarios that come up as highest probabilities from this point that lead to an "unrecognizable" future, 7 of which are not appealing. We can cover these in further exchanges. The top 3 include the decline of power in the United States and its move toward isolationism while China rises in power and aligns with Russia; a complete overhaul of government that leads to global unification represented by a complex, but profoundly enriching kind of global democracy, acceleration of technology, and implementation of a resource-based economy; and a global catastrophe due to collision with an object. These are high probabilities within 50 to 100 years.

 

They also said this in the same session:

 

Maureen:  I think, as many others do, that we are headed for really difficult times unless many people, pivotal people, do some things that NEED to be done. The problem, for me and many of my friends who are Older Souls, is that we feel powerless to help in any way that feels consequential. I have been a pivotal person in other lifetimes so I know what that feels like. In this lifetime I am not pivotal or at least not in the way that I have any political power. I do know we all have personal power and I do speak up and act when I can. Is that enough? Is personal power and just genuinely helping others where and how we can going to be enough? Is it enough?

 

MEntity:  We know it is not an easy position to be in when among millions or billions and trying to make a difference, but we can only say that you do make a difference, no matter what you choose to do or not to do. You cannot do more than you can do, but you can do all that you can do. If there is more that you can do and you are not doing it, then you can consider the question of "enough." You must determine this on your own.

 

There is no standard for how much is enough. We can only say that "enough" is either when the necessity for action has ceased, or you have exhausted your possible contributions.

 

If you are concerned about "enough," it is fair to examine where you may not be doing something when you know you can. It will still be your choice to do or not to do, but if the question of "enough" is meaningful, this must be considered.

 

Keep in mind that what you do matters in many ways that are not always obvious:

 

What you do matters to you.

 

What you do matters to those close to you.

 

What you do matters to your evolution.

 

What you do matters in time.

 

What you do matters in space.

 

What you do matters now.

 

And keep in mind that you are not the only one doing it.

 

The more visible you are in terms of encouraging paths that you know bring well-being and healing and recovery, the more you find the network to support you.

 

[Uma]

I just saw this article in the NYTimes about how the Taliban have changed, from their press conference today. They are speaking like rational humans, not the brutes we saw before. This was news to me:

 

"1. The Taliban urged the world to look past their brutal history as they began to sketch out what Afghanistan under their rule could look like.

The group’s leaders took to Twitter, appeared on international cable networks and held a news conference to provide assurances that they would not carry out reprisal killings or seize property. At their first news conference, a spokesman said they would allow women to work and study — but “within the bounds of Islamic law.”

 

Here's the article

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=57&emc=edit_ne_20210817&instance_id=38139&nl=evening-briefing&productCode=NE&regi_id=77127502&segment_id=66492&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F6a3d8ad4-55f9-5cfd-8a71-86d2dcfe9d36&user_id=9a288151d4dd9a3ddb256b53579eedc5

 

Could the shift be happening there too? Something is different this time. It's not Vietnam. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/17/pentagon-defends-us-afghan-airport-505489

 

 

[WolfAmethyst]

A link to Michael Speaks on Chaos, Consciousness and Current Events from 2016, but it feels especially relevant this week. 

[Zahra]

1 hour ago, Uma said:

“within the bounds of Islamic law.”

That phrase just means anything that they wouldn't like lol

Iran is like this too.

The Quran is by no means a perfect set of rules, then they interpret it however they want to, and it all goes downhill from there. The result is suppressing woman and silencing dissent.

 

I could see Taliban becoming like the Islamic Republic AT ITS BEST. An Islamic Dictatorship that puts up a front for the international community. I would urge everyone not to be fooled by them. That's how the voice of the people gets smothered. When the international community thinks the once terrorists are now "normal"

 

Terrorists are terrorists. Their ideology doesn't change.

 

I read this on twitter about Taliban today: "they are called terrorists only when they kill westerners. they can kill as many locals as they want, and it'll be called Internal conflict" 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Zahra

[WolfAmethyst]

I've long thought of the Taliban as a bunch of "Wahhabi Whack-jobs" regarding their interpretations of so-called "Islamic Law"
I mean, wasn't their interpretation of "Islamic Law" how they justified willfully harming so many others in the past?

In the same aspects of life and humanity they're saying "you can trust us" now? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism (a few excerpts below)
Senior Wahhabi leaders in Saudi Arabia have determined that Islam forbids the traveling or working outside the home by a woman without their husband's permission – permission which may be revoked at any time

Wahhabism also forbids the driving of motor vehicles by women.

Sexual intercourse out of wedlock may be punished with flogging, although sex out of wedlock was permissible with a female slave until the practice of slavery was banned in 1962

 

the banning of women's images in the media

money to the religious police to enforce conservative rules of behaviour

the type of clothing that should be worn, especially by women (a black abaya, covering all but the eyes and hands) is specified.

gender mixing of men and women is forbidden

 

[Maureen]

It’s times like this that I’m, yet again, blown away with how the Caretakers looked after us when we were younger souls. Did they feel they had more control in the world with us than we feel we do at this time? Maybe we were just Taliban-lite (???) but, frankly, I don’t know how they put up with us. Maybe that’s why they had to distance themselves every few thousand years, or so. I feel like many of us need a vacation from Earth. I wonder if I could hitch a ride on the next starship.

[Anirudh]

2 hours ago, Zahra said:

"they are called terrorists only when they kill westerners. they can kill as many locals as they want, and it'll be called Internal conflict" 

There is some truth to that, though. It should be called terrorism when the intent is to terrorize for a political or ideological gain.

 

You can call 9/11 terrorism because they wanted all Americans to feel extremely unsafe (terrorized). That's why they targeted civilian infrastructure rather than army bases. If it was the latter, it would be an act of war.

 

The Christchurch shooting was an act of terrorism, because he wanted Muslims in Western countries to feel unsafe and stop coming, and also effect change in immigration laws.

 

But things like the Native American genocide, the Holocaust, the Sri Lankan Tamil massacre etc. aren't acts of terrorism. They're classified as ethnic cleansing.

 

When the Taliban kills Westerners by public beheadings or bombings, they want the West to feel like they're unsafe due to their meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world. They want Westerners to feel terrorized and pressure their governments to stay out of Afghanistan because the cost is too high. That's why they largely target Americans instead of Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians etc.

 

But when the Taliban kills Afghans, they're just meting out their twisted versions of justice. They may want to terrorize a few individuals who are thinking of helping the West, but there is no direct political goal there, so it isn't terrorism.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Anirudh

[Maureen]

Lawrence O’Donnell Tweet:  Too many people who were not old enough to watch our exit from Vietnam on TV seem to believe that the U.S. can invade a country, lose a war, then exit without chaos & dishonor. No one in the Pentagon or on TV knows how to do that which is why it's never been done.

 

From The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell — August 17, 2021:

 

‘Everything about Vietnam was much worse than what has happened in Afghanistan’

 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-o-donnell-says-vietnam-was-much-worse-than-what-s-happening-in-afghanistan-118917189630

[Evelin]

6 hours ago, Zahra said:

8 hours ago, Uma said:

“within the bounds of Islamic law.”

That phrase just means anything that they wouldn't like lol

Yeah, I also read their statement as basically: ”You are free as long as you do what we say”.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Evelin

[Zahra]

6 hours ago, Anirudh said:

political or ideological gain.

Hasn't Taliban taken over the government though? I think that's political gain. What you mentioned was foreign political gain. This would be Internal political gain. Now Afghans are terrorised, specially girls so they hesitate to make a move against them. 

 

Iran is a terrorist government too by that definition imo because they killed more than a thousand protesters to terrorise the people so we would hesitate to protest again. Which is why i'm not allowed to do that. My parents would kill me first

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Zahra

[Anirudh]

5 hours ago, Zahra said:

Hasn't Taliban taken over the government though? I think that's political gain. What you mentioned was foreign political gain. This would be Internal political gain. Now Afghans are terrorised, specially girls so they hesitate to make a move against them. 

 

Iran is a terrorist government too by that definition imo because they killed more than a thousand protesters to terrorise the people so we would hesitate to protest again. Which is why i'm not allowed to do that. My parents would kill me first ">">

 

Everything you said is true, but the other determinant of terrorism is whether the establishment does it or not.

 

When Iran and Pakistan use non-state actors to commit acts of violence, that's state sponsored terrorism. When the establishment is openly admitting to using their own resources to commit violence, that's not terrorism. So North Korea is an oppressive regime, but they're not terrorists.

 

When the Sri Lankan government committed ethnic cleansing of the Tamils, that wasn't terrorism. The Tamils formed the LTTE (non-government) and bombed government buildings. That's terrorism.

 

A lot of what the Taliban did before they grabbed power was terrorism. But their act of grabbing power, and anything they do openly while using government machinery isn't terrorism.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Anirudh

[Zahra]

4 hours ago, Anirudh said:

but the other determinant of terrorism is whether the establishment does it or not.

I didn't know about this one. Makes sense

However the meaning is a bit different in Farsi. We say someone was "terrored" instead of assassinated. It's interchangeable.

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Zahra

[Zahra]

@Anirudh Thinking about it more the Taliban is not an "Establisgment" yet. Most people wouldn't consider them eligible so it all depends on the opinion of the majority. For those opposing governments, everything that government does could be viewed as acts of terror. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Zahra

[Anirudh]

1 hour ago, Zahra said:

@Anirudh Thinking about it more the Taliban is not an "Establisgment" yet. Most people wouldn't consider them eligible so it all depends on the opinion of the majority. For those opposing governments, everything that government does could be viewed as acts of terror. 

There is truth to that, but it's more a question of perception rather than definition in that case.

 

Think of it this way. You called Iran's government a terrorist government because they killed over a thousand protestors. The Chinese did the same thing at Tiananmen Square, but it's described as a massacre rather than an act of terrorism.

 

The Taliban is very capable of massacre, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. But from a seat of power, it's oppression and authoritarianism rather than terrorism.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Anirudh

[Anirudh]

 

[Maureen]

10 hours ago, Anirudh said:

Everything you said is true, but the other determinant of terrorism is whether the establishment does it or not.

 

When Iran and Pakistan use non-state actors to commit acts of violence, that's state sponsored terrorism. When the establishment is openly admitting to using their own resources to commit violence, that's not terrorism. So North Korea is an oppressive regime, but they're not terrorists.

 

When the Sri Lankan government committed ethnic cleansing of the Tamils, that wasn't terrorism. The Tamils formed the LTTE (non-government) and bombed government buildings. That's terrorism.

 

A lot of what the Taliban did before they grabbed power was terrorism. But their act of grabbing power, and anything they do openly while using government machinery isn't terrorism.

 

I think this is all semantics. Terror is terror. This is why we now use the term domestic terrorism to describe terror used against citizens from within a country.

 

Domestic Terrorism is the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens. "domestic terrorism plagued the country during a time of high political tensions"

 

The lynching of black people, the inhumane caging of brown children at the border, police brutality of people POC and other disenfranchised from society like the homeless and their support of White Supremacists, and so many more examples, are all forms of domestic terrorism. Even wife-beating or wife-raping in these so called civilized countries was just assumed to be a "domestic quarrel". We know better now. These are forms of terror within a group of two. In Canada if you report spousal abuse or and/or an assault from a spouse (male, female or other) you can "walk it back" but it won't make any difference. The police will still charge the guilty party. Until we call something terrible what it is, and deal with it, we will continue to disempower ourselves and others we could be helping.

 

Interestingly, I found out there is even a new term for domestic genocide. It's called Democide. I was looking for a word to describe what Trump was doing to the children at the border and I came across this definition a couple of years ago. 

 

Democide is a concept proposed by U.S. political scientist Rudolph Rummel to describe "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command." According to Rummel, this definition covers a wide range of deaths, including forced labor and concentration camp victims; killings by unofficial private groups; extrajudicial summary killings; and mass deaths due to governmental acts of criminal omission and neglect such as in deliberate famines as well as killings by de facto governments, i.e. civil war killings. This definition covers any murder of any number of persons by any government.

 

Rummel created the term democide as an extended concept to include forms of government murder not covered by the term genocide. According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.

 

[Anirudh]

6 hours ago, Maureen said:

 

I think this is all semantics. Terror is terror. This is why we now use the term domestic terrorism to describe terror used against citizens from within a country.

 

Domestic Terrorism is the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator's own country against their fellow citizens. "domestic terrorism plagued the country during a time of high political tensions"

 

The lynching of black people, the inhumane caging of brown children at the border, police brutality of people POC and other disenfranchised from society like the homeless and their support of White Supremacists, and so many more examples, are all forms of domestic terrorism. Even wife-beating or wife-raping in these so called civilized countries was just assumed to be a "domestic quarrel". We better now. These are forms of terror within a group of two. In Canada if you report spousal abuse or and/or an assault from a spouse (male, female or other) you can "walk it back" but it won't make any difference. The police will still charge the guilty party. Until we call something terrible what it is, and deal with it, we will continue to disempower ourselves and others we could be helping.

 

Interestingly, I found out there is even a new term for domestic genocide. It's called Democide. I was looking for a word to describe what Trump was doing to the children at the border and I came across this definition a couple of years ago. 

 

Democide is a concept proposed by U.S. political scientist Rudolph Rummel to describe "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command." According to Rummel, this definition covers a wide range of deaths, including forced labor and concentration camp victims; killings by unofficial private groups; extrajudicial summary killings; and mass deaths due to governmental acts of criminal omission and neglect such as in deliberate famines as well as killings by de facto governments, i.e. civil war killings. This definition covers any murder of any number of persons by any government.

 

Rummel created the term democide as an extended concept to include forms of government murder not covered by the term genocide. According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century.

 

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. 

 

I'm not trying to diminish what the Taliban is doing. But if we start using the word "terrorism" in wrong contexts, we diminish the severity of the word and the act.

 

The lynching of Black people by White Supremacists is absolutely domestic terrorism which is racially motivated. There is the intent to terrorize, and a clear political goal.

 

Caging of brown children, police brutality, and other atrocities are examples of authoritarianism and human rights violations. By clubbing then together with terrorism, we reduce our ability to tackle these problems separately, as vested interests can whatabout a lot more effectively.

 

Wife-beating and wife-raping are examples of domestic abuse. They are grounds for divorce and jail time, but what is the political agenda here?

 

I completely agree with the definition of democide, but democide is a form of genocide and not a form of terrorism. I'll state that Donald Trump and Hitler were racist, bigoted, authoritarian, genocidal, democidal, maniacal, narcissistic, and sociopathic. But they weren't terrorists.

 

Are words like abuse, genocide, or human rights violations any less or any more powerful than the word "terrorism"? Why do we feel the need to label every heinous act with the name of terrorism?

Edited August 19, 2021 by Anirudh

[Felicitas]

Maybe simply because it comes across as terror. I am all for the correct use of words. The terms terror and terrorism have been given legal definitions, they have also been heavily politicized, but they also are, still, terms that have a subjective element in them. And for me these terms express very accurately what the Taliban are doing to women and to everyone that does not do what they say. It is terror and it is terrorism.

[Felicitas]

18 hours ago, Maureen said:

It’s times like this that I’m, yet again, blown away with how the Caretakers looked after us when we were younger souls. Did they feel they had more control in the world with us than we feel we do at this time? Maybe we were just Taliban-lite (???) but, frankly, I don’t know how they put up with us. Maybe that’s why they had to distance themselves every few thousand years, or so. I feel like many of us need a vacation from Earth. I wonder if I could hitch a ride on the next starship.

@Maureen you just expressed exactly how I feel right now: I want to hitch a ride out of here, away from earth for a while.

[Hunter]

14 hours ago, Anirudh said:

 

This just looks like victim blaming to me. This video is from at least over 4 years ago, so this may not be a representation of what the preparedness of the Afghan military now, or just a few days ago.

 

All I'm getting from this is that those men don't really want to fight. And it's really important to note that the Taliban is a lot more popular than what the western media or western influenced media will let us know. That's not to excuse the Taliban. I suspect the Afghan army posed no resistance because they just want the civil war to be over.

 

And history has shown time and time again that the rule of a totalitarian dictatorship has potential to be a lot more stable than a region swept with a perpetual civil war. Are the Taliban good? Mostly not. Is is what the people want? Maybe, we can't tell for sure. Will there be a chance to work with the Taliban to improve material conditions of those living under their new rule? More so than before.

[Anirudh]

4 hours ago, Hunter said:

This video is from at least over 4 years ago, so this may not be a representation of what the preparedness of the Afghan military now, or just a few days ago.

Everything else you said, I agree with. 

 

But 4 years ago, the US Army had been there for 16 years. Now they've been there for 20 years.

 

4 years of additional training during the Trump administration is unlikely to have changed much, because he was downsizing their presence.