Russia Is Catalyzing the Transformation Age


My surface reply was “I don’t know, and only time will tell if it is enough or not enough.”

But then I realized that the question inferred a truth in my point. It’s not that I’m wrong, or that I’m completely whacko or off base or making things up. The question infers that I have a point, but also the opinion that I should not be addressing it in the way I am. Ironically, confirming the point I’m getting at. There is a strong refusal to look at or address ugly matters.
I don’t think this is a tamas, rajas, sattva issue - whether a person wants to build a foundation, light a bonfire, or sit and meditate in a cave - they still have to recognize why they are doing so. If a yogi goes to a cave to meditate because he is afraid to face war - that is not a “correct path”. If a man does not stand up to perceived injustice because he is afraid of his own anger, that is not a “correct path” (I specifically call out “men” because this seems to be an epidemic in the USA). If there was no injustice, the point is mot - but if there is perceived injustice and the reaction is avoidance because of a shadow, that is a major problem. Then we can go a step further and point out that it is even worse if the man who is afraid of his own anger not only withdraws out of fear, but tries to hinder another who is describing the injustice, again out of fear. If he is forced to recognize it - then he might have to face why he isn’t facing it. Much easier to tsk tsk others who are trying to describe problems.
So that’s what I’m concerned about many people who self-identify as Integral, but really have strong green shadows. Not whether they are actually taking action, but their reasons for not wanting to see the problems.

This leads me to a question that I don’t know the answer to, and I don’t think anybody does. Is a Teal society inevitable, or will it require blood? If not blood, at least a hell of a lot of sweat and tears.

Previous transitions have required blood. There were the American and French Revolutions that cemented the ideas of “freedom” and “liberty”, and later the Civil War was required to fulfill “equality”. The collateral damage of Liberty in France was Napoleon and his war against the entrenched Monarchies of Europe while the collateral damage of a Free and Equal USA was genocide of Native Americans. If we look back at the horrors of the religious wars that later allowed the Age of Reason, there seem to be numerous coats of blood painted as the base coat that enabled Green to stick.

That’s the frame I’ve been looking at the events going on in the USA and the world. Kind of always, but more intensely since 2000 and then again in 2012 and since 2016. I see those years as “branchings”, when humanity made decisions that set them on courses that could not then be undone.

What interests me isn’t whether others see the same thing, but the “why” behind what they see, and if their “why” is congruent with their daily activities. Usually it isn’t and we get things like “SUV driving Yoga mom antivax Qanon conspiracy theorists”, for example.

Since I could very well be wrong, if someone believes that humanity will transcend to Teal just naturally and without any struggle - I see that as a valid point also. Gautema believed this. All we have to do then is get everyone to practice Vipassana daily, lol.


@Michelle I know what you mean about the possibility of “autocracy winning.” There is a lot of information about its spread. This site tracks democracy, and how it is tending toward demise in some parts of the world, towards autocracy. In Europe, Hungary and Poland are sort of “on the edge,” along with a few other Eurasian places.

@raybennett I basically agree with @Sidra, that we’re all in the trenches in one way or another. The point I was trying to make, perhaps ineffectively, was that there are different kinds of trenches: the Ukrainians are in one kind of trench, protestors on the streets in Russia and elsewhere are in another, etc., and the intellectual/sense-making sphere is another kind of trench, where disagreements and different points of view and verbal conflict can and do arise. For socially conscious people who also have a dedicated spiritual practice, that is another “trench” of sorts, where suffering and injustice can be fully felt and addressed in particular ways (see Nomali’s episode in the other thread on the Ukrainian situation). As many trenches perhaps as there are people.


I think we probably agree then, except that I see a desire in many not to hear or see anything except what is immediately in front of their “trench”, and to pish posh reports from other “trenches” as “bad for morale” if we are going with the trench analogy.


When other stages emerged, the world was not so connected. Personally, I don’t see the transition to Teal needing to be bloody, it’s more the whole spiral never goes away and most of it is very bloody. What I no longer see happening is a Teal leadership that drives the world (I used to think this was possible). The world will be spread over vast levels of consciousness with such extremely differing realities that I don’t know how we can ever manage it all. A significant portion of the world believes that after the right person drops a nuclear bomb and creates the apocalypse, God will come to Earth, restore it to its original Eden state. Hopefully we never find “the right person” to do that!

For me the question I now have, since I no longer see it being possible that this many stages can communicate with each other, is can we coexist. The other question I have is why so many in countries that have systems that allow for higher consciousness to emerge, do so many stay in other levels. I used to think “helping people to evolve” was the thing to do, now I just don’t know what’s the right thing to do. There is level subjectivity to what is injustice. Is forcing someone to conform to a “higher level” the right thing to do?

My dad asked to participate in the thing the Pope called for which was to answer the question “why did you leave the church?” I hardly knew what to say, really because the church doesn’t want ME. I have had so many conversations with him about this and there is no where to go.

It’s an interesting time, sad and scary to feel at the real edge of evolution…I guess it will show us what it has instore.


@Michelle You packed so much thought-provoking material into this one post Michelle; thank you! Here is what came up for me.

I have relatives who believe this, stemming from their amber-mythic stage and fundamentalist religious belief. Whenever I hear it, I find myself alternatively thinking of the “theory of dissipative structures” (by chemist Ilya Prigogine–easy to find info about this online), which is (minimally) an orange-rational stage general theory of the dynamics of systems (including societal systems), and a “scientific model of transformation at every level.” According to the theory, instability is the key to transformation, with the possibility of a sudden (and non-linear) re-ordering into a higher order when the system is fraught with magnificent stress, crises, chaos, conflict. Of course, total destruction of the system/world is also a possibility rather than that higher order, if the stress, crises, chaos, and conflict can’t be “damped.” But, I do hold to the possibility of this (positive) “shift” if you will, and without sacrificing rationality, can connect, if not to the exact beliefs or means or end-product, to the desires of those fundamentalists for a better world. (Sidenote: I do have “agreements” (or requirements :slightly_smiling_face:) with some of these relatives that we do not talk politics or religion ever–not to dissuade communication or understanding, but because some of the more fanatical and bad-mannered do not talk with me or to me, but at me, loudly and with no understanding of what it means to ‘listen.’ I do have my limits :slightly_smiling_face:)

It’s a good question. Some religions have found that difficult if not impossible. And in nature, clearly some plants can’t co-exist in close proximity: pine trees and roses (the latter requiring much nutrient-richer soil), beans and beets (negatively affect one another’s pH levels), for example. But there is also history of different human groups being able to co-exist, although not without some friction/conflict/bad feelings. I’m thinking of school desegration, and other race-related issues like separate drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. of the past that have ended. As for stages of development, we are co-existing now, again, not without conflicts and stresses which may possibly, possibly contribute to that jump to a higher order.


There’s two sides to this, of course.
Can “we” exist with the other?
Can the other exists with “us”?

I think the degree to which these are not true determines the degree of conflict.
Also, I think failure to recognize the extent to which the other cannot live with “us” can lead to becoming overwhelmed by the other. An example is a temple of Buddhist monks being slaughtered by a group that refuses to allow them to live.

To a lesser degree, we see in the USA two opposite extremes that refuse to allow the other to exist, and have been escalating for decades.

When we take the stand that, for example, we will not tolerate bigots to exist in our society - we have to also understand that the bigot may not accept that. This isn;t to say that we should allow bigots, but we must know from the get-go that they might not just say “yeah, ok I will cease to exist”. Or to a lesser extent “OK, I will give up all my childhood heroes who were based on unhealthy male dynamics”, lol. When the stakes are higher and we are talking about high levels of power such as Putin and Russian Oligarchs, the stakes are much much higher and if we want to ante into that game we have to understand that before we join in.


I see the whole 2020 BLM crisis in this way. The United States as a society wants racial equality, but not enough of the population is willing to accept the costs of that.
In the beginning, the cost of recognizing a person’s right not to stand for the pledge of allegiance was a bridge too far. Equality, yes - but don’t get uppity just yet.
Then holding police accountable was a bridge to far. Equality, yes - but don’t complain about the dark secret of police brutality. We as a majority of society don’t want to see that.
And so on. The majority of US society is in favor of equality - just as long as they aren’t forced to see unpleasantness on their TV News.


It’s like when I first learned Integral in my 20’s, I was in a more green centered place and I interpreted it as a path for peace and more harmonious living. I think I see it all a bit more clearly now and see that even if I or a whole system can integrate the better sides of each stage that does not make the stage itself gravitate to only it’s healthy side.

I like your analogy to plants. I think that is really insightful. It would be interesting to use that in a way to think about cultivating more healthy communities. I tried that a bit with a school program I did years ago. It actually had some success, but COVID it and the rest is history!


I have read with great interest and attention your article Robb, and it has been very illustrative and valuable.

However, there are several issues I would like to comment on:

First: Regarding the question of the possibility of using violence and weapons and therefore of going to war against an aggressor country, you almost tiptoed. From my point of view, there comes a time when, due to the aggression of certain actors (invading armies, jihadist attacks, massacres in schools) you have to “you have to get wet” (a Spanish expression that means that you have to “get dirty” in whatever we are dealing with…!!! That is to say, there may come a time when, as if in a diabolical dilemma, we will have to resolve to take up arms to defend the principles on which we base our open and democratic societies if we do not want these die together with us buried under the boots of despotism and tyranny.

Second: The actions that can be carried out from the network society that you mention are not at all exempt from damages and losses. Especially for the population in general and much more so for those who live on the threshold of poverty… The first to suffer from these measures may be the people who have the least responsibilities in aggressive and belligerent actions…

Third: These actions of the network society have a slower pace than the actions of an invading army well equipped with military weapons… and so, in the case at hand, which is the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while we wait for the sanctions imposed on Russia are working, the Russian army has blown up a nuclear power plant with the danger that this implies of radioactive contamination and has bombed a maternity hospital with it is not known how many children died under its rubble among the many atrocities it is committing. .!!!

For all this, your article seems somewhat naive and deluded to me in the analysis of an episode such as the savage and inhumane invasion of an independent country like Ukraine by the armies commanded by an oppressive and tyrannical dictator and autocrat like Putin… !!!

I am not saying at all that violence, weapons and war are the first option, not even the second that we have to adopt in the face of conflicts like this, but I do think that it should be considered as an “in extremis” option when nothing remains to be done. to do, or when this is a lesser evil in the face of a much greater one…!!!

Of course, in this case, the possibility of a nuclear war is on the table and it is, by the way, a not inconsiderable trick, that Putin with perverse intelligence is playing… but that is precisely one of the dangers that we run as humanity when an “artifact” emerged at a certain level is used by lower levels or perversely from the level in which it arises. The final result of this, if that is so, is what seems to me that can put us on the verge of a true Age of Transformation… either we get out of it or we self-annihilate as a species…!!!


While I appreciate the importance of a 3rd+ person meta-analysis that the Integral community has been so brilliant with I can’t help but feel that there is a lack of 1st person experience in actually implementing Integral sensibilities into everyday existence in which one is interacting with people expressing themselves from all levels of development. I’ve spent years interacting with all levels and have attempted to find a common ground with people at Red, Amber, Orange, Green, etc. This has not been easy and I’ve had exchanges that went very poorly and even became dangerous especially with minds projecting from “Red.”

For decades I’ve had an underlying intuition of the unity of everything and that everyone was “all of it and none of it.” While my world view may be Integrally informed I’m still red, amber, orange, green, etc… I’ve learned in the 1st person that a person at Red doesn’t truly honour a person at higher(more expanded) levels unless they display a strong Red energy. Red looks at other levels as weak until you stand up to it with your Red energy. This is not to be misunderstood as a regression but an acknowledgment of the fact that we are online with all of it!

I just don’t see a true leader being someone in a disassociated bubble of academia or some corporate boardroom, etc. My idea of a leader is someone that can connect with every aspect of being that exists in the 1st/2nd person. In a past post I’d asked people to give an example of interacting with people from all levels while coming from an Integral level and I believe only two people responded(Thank you!).

If you want to run a country don’t forget to sweep the floors and clean the toilets… Once you polarise into a 3rd person perspective you lose touch with the blood, sweat, and tears of all that is! Know the GRIT yet hold the GRACE!

Best regards,


Mr Robb Smith.
A friend introduced me to Integral Dynamics , I like it , and share what little I have learned with friends , unfortunately when I pointed out the perceived limitations of the system I was labelled Cynical. OH HO!
Intergral disciples don’t like to be confronted or challenged about their viewpoint.
I like the system but some of it’s followers …honestly and truly I can only describe as Intellectual Idiots … please take note of this and do some self examination.

Now on the topic of Russia as a Catalyst . at first I thought I was reading from a CIA handbook on the evil Mr Putin. Or an essay by Boris Johnstone
I live as a meditator and a seeker of truth. Am totally fascinated by the Russia Ukraine drama and so have settled on the Russian point of view.

Rather better listen to what the Russians have to say about their Dramas than listen too what the west has to say about the Russians.
After all the Russia has produced some very Intelligent people.
Your integral description on Putin I cannot Debate . A man such as he is most probably required to deal with what Russia is facing viz a viz Ukraine and NATO interventionism.
Your predictions of Russia falling apart and almost every comment that you have made about Putin and Russia , I can only call Stupid and uninformed. Where the Hell do you get your Information BBC ? The Guardian ? Hillary Clinton ?

Honestly man !! Thats all I have to say
If you would like to further your education on what is happening there plz feel free to ask me…and then you can attempt to prove me misinformed.
with very little respect due.


…On another Note . I just watch part of Jeff Salzmans Putins War on Modernity.
Jeffrey Stares that Putin is Pre Modern Authoritarian …opposing the Modernism of.
The Ukraine
I say the opposite is true

I am sorry but I have to speak up.
You guys are so out of touch with what is happening in the Ukraine.
Have you seen the televised proof that the Nazi Azov Battalion has Zelenski by the balls.
Ukrainian children have been taught to Hate Russians since 2014
That Highly motivated Ukrainian Military have been bombing Donbass and Ludansk for 8 years , terrorising innocent human beings.
How about a Buddhist Prayer for the poor people of the Donbass.
You People have really got to get real …Seriously !
Gautam the Buddha died 2500 years ago there have been thousands of Buddhas since then , and apart from the Living lineages of Sariputta , Mahakashap et al . the numbers of mediocre Buddhists has been growing ever since,
Now we have Living Buddhas walking the Planet bringing light to Modern Human beings. Buddha was teaching to Indian people 2500 years ago
Osho, John de Ruiter , Vasant Swaha, Papaji, Mooji, Adhya Shanti, Baba Purnananda, Eckharte Tolle . People with Balls as well as Hearts.
I am not one of them but the pull of awakening is what drives me .
I challenge you to Authentically listen to the voice of the Russians rather than the very swift Popular Yellow and Blue Armband psychosis.
I like Integral Teachings but as a man who knows there Inner Cauldron I find people like Jeff Salzman Insipid and uninspiring



First off, welcome to the integral community.

You should know that this is a multi-perspectival space — meaning a place where we can exchange perspectives freely, and then do our best to fold these perspectives into each other so that we can walk away with a deeper and hopefully more comprehensive understanding of a given topic. We generally try not to be hostile to each other’s views, or insulting to each other personally, as there is a very good change that each of these perspectives has something valuable to be included, something that the rest of us are missing — and also some parts that may need rethinking. Which is why we try to engage with each other in good faith, without resorting to insults or personal attacks.

Integral is not an ideology. It is a framework, which each of us can use to enact our reality in different ways. What we see through that lens will largely be a result of our embodied familiarity with the framework itself, as well as our unique personal and cultural kosmic address (that is, our own personal levels, lines, states, and types, as well as those from our surrounding culture, and our overall informational terrain). Which means there will never be one “correct” answer when it comes to topics as complex as geopolitics, but rather an entire living stack of shifting views, values, and interpretations that all need to be accounted for.

The goal of an integralist is not to “be right”, but rather to “get it right” through a vigorous ongoing process of examination in all four quadrants, constantly pulling in new data as it presents itself. Mind differentiates, and heart integrates — and as far as I can tell, we need both a healthy integral mind and a healthy integral heart to navigate this amount of complexity.

All of which is to say, my advise to folks in this community is to focus more on trying to recognize the partial truths in each other’s perspectives, rather than writing them off altogether because you might disagree with some of the conclusions. Yes, there is a chance the author is missing something important. But there is also a good chance that you (or anyone else) may also be missing something in your own analysis that might be sitting in your personal or cultural blind spot.

As for myself, I find Robb’s contribution to be one of the most thoughtful and sophisticated analyses I’ve seen so far, and was also informed and encouraged by the perspective belonging to one of our own Russian staff members who lives in Moscow. But I also know it is meant to be the beginning of the conversation, not the end. It’s a cornerstone, not a capstone. So disagree whenever you feel compelled to — but let’s also use our integral minds and hearts to recognize, appreciate, and incorporate the partial truths that each of us are trying to bring to each other. Yes, some perspectives will be more partial than others, and we can have good-natured, good-faith debates about how to arrange those partial truths in relation to each other. But let’s also avoid the arrogance of thinking that any one of us has a full handle on a topic as vastly complex as this one, without also falling into total relativism where “your truth is no better or worse than mine”.

After all, “no one is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time”.

Well, almost no one.

tl;dr: Criticisms about another person’s capacity to think integrally that are not themselves presented integrally can usually be dismissed, because there’s a good chance those criticisms are coming from a perspective that has not fully grokked integral in the first place. So let’s keep the quality of disagreement as high as we can — as high as we expect our quality of agreement to be.


You are so good at this Corey:)

To Permsukh, I would like to say that you are right, from my vantage in the US, to us not knowing much about what’s going on in the Ukraine. I had to google the Azov Battalion. From what I read it sounds quite familiar to thing I know here in the US. An aggressive militia that was taking matters into their own hands and harming people. Sounds a bit like what happened here on January 6th, and what many of us fear is growing.

I still think what I see as the Russian response is not doing the world any good. I would love it if you could use the integral tools and express your side. This is where integral really matters.

Are there actions/choices in these situations that would be more integral, more aligned to our Buddha nature?


Great analysis, Robb. Friends and I are studying it carefully. One point of disagreement: it may have been politically wise for the US to stay out of the military conflict in Ukraine, but for the sake of the world I think it was unwise, as Biden’s announcement of his non-interventionist policy likely gave Putin the green light to invade. Biden’s reasoning was based on fear of inciting a nuclear response from Russia. Here is why that reasoning is flawed:

Joe Biden and the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction

Last night MSNBC’s Chris Hayes “dusted off” the old doctrine of mutual assured destruction to explain the US/NATO’s adamant refusal to engage Russia militarily in defense of Ukraine. Here’s the doctrine in its simple form, commonly assumed to govern superpowers’ policies and actions during the Cold War and afterwards:

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. (Wikipedia)

President Biden, as early as December 8, said he would not directly intervene in Ukraine. Fear of provoking a wider war by sending troops was the stated reason. By “wider war,” of course, he meant a nuclear war with Russia. Looks like good reasoning at first; no one wants a nuclear war as per MAD. Let’s not poke the bear. But let’s look more closely. There are two possible interpretations of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

The weak interpretation says that a nuclear attack - even a limited one - by a nuclear power against another would trigger an all-out nuclear Armageddon. The strong interpretation says that even a non-nuclear direct attack by one nuclear superpower on another would be answered by a nuclear counter-strike, resulting in the MAD scenario. The former is regarded by most analysts as true, even self-evident. But what about the latter interpretation? Not so obvious.

Suppose Russia deliberately destroyed a US submarine cruising just off the Russian coast in the Baltic Sea. Would the US immediately launch an all-out nuclear attack on Russia. Not likely. Conversely, if the US deliberately destroyed a Russian submarine cruising in American waters in the Atlantic Ocean, the Russians would not likely launch a nuclear strike. Why not? Because of MAD, of course. Leaders of the superpowers are not suicidal, not even Putin.

President Biden seems to be operating on the basis of the strong interpretation of MAD. If he sends US fighter jets to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin might respond with a nuclear attack on US bases in Europe or on the US itself. But why would he? There is no reason to believe he is insane or suicidal. If the US entered the war, Putin could easily take a few punches to the gut and then sue for peace on some sort of face-saving basis, thus avoiding destruction of his beloved Mother Russia.

Ok, so maybe Biden just thinks, better to be safe than sorry. But here is the flaw in that logic. He says, no US troops in Ukraine, but on March 1 in his State of the Union address, he said, " “The United States and our allies will defend every inch of … NATO territory with the full force of our collective power—every single inch.” That means presumably, in the event of Russian aggression against, say, Slovakia, the US will defend that country with its military even at the risk of nuclear war. Would he really? Sure, the US is obligated to defend any member of NATO, but it has a record of breaking all kinds of "obligations" when it perceives its national interests are threatened. But, given his belief in the strong version of MAD, he should not rally to the defense of Slovakia, despite the NATO commitment, for the same reason he is refusing to directly engage Russia in Ukraine - the danger of provoking a nuclear war.

Do I think Biden would not move to defend Slovakia or any other member of NATO if attacked by Russia? No, because his stated fear of a “wider war” is bullshit. He doesn’t really believe the strong version of MAD. He has simply decided Ukraine is expendable (green light for Putin) because direct involvement would have negative political consequences for him and the Democratic Party at home, e.g. soaring gas prices, hyperinflation. Biden has drawn his red line around the NATO countries bordering on Russia and is willing to let the chips fall where they may in the hope that non-direct assistance by NATO countries will make the crucial difference.

My point is, if Biden is willing to risk nuclear war (hardly likely as I argue above) in defense of a NATO country, why not risk* it in the case of Ukraine, which is a NATO country in all but name? Imagine the suffering that might have been prevented if he had been so willing from the beginning.

Putin continues to surprise. There is fear now that he will order the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, as he did in Syria. Will Biden continue to stand by and let that happen or will he redraw his red lines? Hey, we’re talking about people “with fair hair and blue eyes” here. (Go ahead, call me cynical.)

  • Very low risk. If Biden had acted during the full year of the Russian build-up of forces to mobilize NATO forces on the southern border of Ukraine and dared Putin to invade, this war would never have happened.


This is good. Now, let’s honestly and cleanly cut through all the BS and look at the basic facts of the matter, informed by some answers to basic questions.

  • Who has the right to decide the government of Ukraine? The Ukrainian people or Russia?
  • The same question with their constitution.
  • Who has the right to decide what alliances Ukraine makes and what countries they trade with?

The basic fact is that Putin believes Russia should decide these things for Ukrainians, and Ukrainians disagree and are willing to die over it.

If there are fascists in the Ukraine does not change this any more than if the President of the United States is in the pocket of fascists - Russia does not have the right to invade either the United States nor Ukraine if fascists are in either country.

Show me one Ukrainian who believes Russia has the right to decide the government, constitution, foreign policy, and trade policy for Ukraine. Just one who is born and raised in Ukraine who has this belief.
I’m not concerned with what Biden says, nor Putin, nor the BBC nor Russia today. NONE of them have the right to deny Ukraine democracy and self determination. It doesn’t matter if they want to choose communism, fascism, or any other -ism. If anyone believes Ukrainians do not have the right to self determination, then that is against 300 years or more of Western Civilization and Culture.

And you know what? Ukrainians and Russians are going to fight it out tooth and nail and whatever comes out of it is what the West is going to have to take - because people in countries like the United States are now too cowardly to stand up for the beliefs their nation was founded upon. The united States is a complete mess and completely impotent in deciding whether Russia or Ukrainians will rule Ukraine. And both Russia and Ukrainians know this.

Neither Biden nor Trump’s policy caused Putin to do anything, lol - he is the one who formed a plan that he has been putting into action for the past 20 years, and President after President has been reacting to HIM.
@Charles_Marxer Honestly I don’t think any leaders in either party have the kahones to be able to realistically bluff the MAD doctrine in the 2020’s. The generation that was able to realistically keep the Soviet Union in check are now dead. can you imagine if either Biden or Trump tried to face down Putin with nuclear Armageddon like JFK did? lol First neither has the hardness to do it and second both would be torn apart by the other side no matter what they did. Putin knows this. He has analysts and can watch all the same channels we watch, lol.

All this armchair quarterbacking is pretty absurd. “Oh, if Biden did this, then blah blah blah”. If Trump did this, then blah blah blah".
No - both Biden and Trump did what they did because Putin had already considered the options and knew how they would react to HIS actions. Any idea that either Trump or Biden has a strong enough character to push Putin to react to them is silly and naïve.

I agree with @Premsukh when he says something to the effect that nobody in here knows what they are talking about. Everybody wants to try to see it through the lens of US politics, but it’s not US politics. It’s Slavic politics that goes back hundreds of years.

I’ll tell you all a Slavic joke I heard back in 1998. If you don’t “get it”, you really have no business expressing opinions about Slavic vs Slavic matters. By “you” here, I mean anyone reading.

Joke: An American, a Chines man and a Russian walk into a bar. The bartender asks them what they will have and how it’s going in their country.
The American says "I’ll have a bud, and things are going fantastic in my country we are the greatest country in the world, the freest country in the world and everybody wants to be like us. It’s great to be an American.
The Chines man says “I’ll have a rice wine and things are going even better in my country. All the industry in the USA is moving to China and we are out performing the USA in all areas. Soon every Chinese person will have a standard of living better than in the USA”
The Russian listens to the other two politely, then smiles. He says, "I will have a Vodka. We will be win against both China and the USA.’
The bartender looks at the Russian and asks “How will Russia do that? All indicators show you are far behind.”
The Russian swigs all his Vodka down in one shot and says “Russia has nuclear weapons.”

If you don’t get it “in your bones”, it’s my opinion you can’t say you are informed about Russia, Ukraine or any Slavic country for that matter, lol.


ran across this meme today and thought of this discussion:



LOL. I predict my neighbor with the alarm system will have a false alarm before end of the century. But let’s leave out mention of all the negative scenarios that have a greatly increased chance of occurring tomorrow if I don’t have an alarm system.

I don’t see anything so “Integral” about positing 3 basic scenarios.

@raybennett Ray probably has the most realistic viewpoint, up to a point. Touches upon basic human desires like self determination, self governance, freedom of trade.

One tidbit is that Putin invades his neighbors under “highly advanced Integral” leadership.

But don’t worry folks, try as hard as they might, the DNC won’t be pulling off their “Great Reset” here in the US. Sadly, 100M’s of people on the risky borders - Kurds, Afghanis, Ukrainians, Uighurs, Taiwanese, Myanmarians, Kasmiris, Mexicans, maybe even Western Europe - will have their lives destroyed. But this will give them the opportunity to let go of those horrific Red/Amber/Orange ways and follow the Teal Glow.

And the beauty of “Integral Thinking” is that driving the world into SHTF apocalypse will result in a Great New Teal Noosphere of Bliss and Enlightenment. That’s a lot of horseshit to shovel, but we might as well start shoveling. Right?


Hey folks, thanks for the kind comments. As a long-time participant in integral forums as well as a Twitter power user, one rule I try to follow is to only comment on others’ perspectives when I can do so in a concrete, specific and useful way (even if it’s a challenge or criticism), and that’s also the rule I tend to follow when someone replies to me. I’m happy to discuss criticisms that are concrete and specific, but I ignore ad hominem, generic appeals to authority or claims to special knowledge.

In my piece, I’ve made dozens of specific, testable claims, many of which have born themselves thus far out to be accurate, and some of which remain to be seen; to be candid, I’m actually more interested in those I get wrong as all the learning is in the errors. For example, and to illustrate, I’m watching very closely for how China reacts to Russia’s public request of materiel and aid. I have predicted and believe that China will look for a substantive exit while maintaining narrative face, but I’m quite open to this being wrong, and will be really curious to see exactly how it is so: how it is wrong might indicate far more interesting possibilities about CN’s long-term strategy to generate a bipolar network (which I don’t believe will be easily to create until any of several triggering US-based crises, one of which indeed would be precipitated by a '24 Trump victory).

Thanks for being here.


Indeed … though while you say it I judge in sarcasm, I say it in sincerity.
We are seeing Zelinsky being far far more Teal than any other world leader I can think of. Crisis causes people to either follow their best or their worst natures. The harder the test, the more extremes will be brought out, giving people an opportunity to show their true substance.
It’s very unfortunate, but something that is well known and easily observable. Humans have a tendency to descend during times of plenty, becoming decadent and self indulgent, and as individuals and societies humans often need an event to push them out of their comfort zone.
It would be better if this wasn’t so, but there it is.
Sometimes in self development programs such as military basic training, this crisis in the individual is artificially induced and planned. The recruit is (well, in the USA was, lol) “broken down” and then rebuilt from the bottom up.
What we see in Ukraine is an opportunity for people to show either their best or their worst. Across the ocean in the United States there is a lot of best, but also a lot of worst. Many Americans could care less about Ukraine, except insofar as how they can spin this to make Biden or Democrats be somehow at fault, and from their “God Mode” awareness will save the world if only the world would listen to them from their echo chamber. Damn Biden, lol. If only he listened to @Charles_Marxer, Putin would turn tail and run.
The crisis for some Americans seems to be, in this crisis they are the sideshow. The second act. The United States doesn’t have an important role in this conflict other than support, but many seem unable to do even that well. The time for the United States to step up was in 2013. Better yet - where were all the social media posts supporting Ukranians when their President Yushchenko was poisoned by Russia in 2004? Now suddenly there is some action and Americans seem to be clueless about how they can get in on it now and lead late in the game. “Ohhh - I have no idea what is going on but I have the smartest ideas”.
Meanwhile, Europe is taking the lead in actually doing things that help on the ground. At Red with volunteers willing to go to Ukraine and kill. At Orange with seizing assets and closing down commerce with Russia, at Green with humanitarian support. All this while Americans engage in hypothetical debates and try to spin reality to fit their political views.

Ahhh … but that’s the beauty of humanity. It’s all part of the this chaos called the Universe.
@FermentedAgave I think one thing I’m trying to express is that In my opinion, a world of bliss and enlightenment with sunshine, unicorns, rainbows and waterfalls is a Green view. My opinion (probably vigorously opposed by many who believe they are Teal) is that at second Tier is more bittersweet, accepting death as necessary for rebirth and so forth. Sometimes that’s physical death of an individual or a people, but it’s always the death of identity. Part of that identity might be nationalism or religion or any number of things.
While at Green people might see this as accepting their own death and refusal to take another’s life, as in a Buddhist Monk dousing himself in gasoline and lighting it in an act of protest. I think many believe this is 2nd Tier, and I would disagree with them. I think at 2nd Tier there is an acceptance to allow others to be killed at your hands, or having mercy, or punishing them according to just laws, or giving them a big wet kiss. And accepting any of those as not just necessary, but the beauty of this sloppy chaotic human consciousness.