1) Ice hockey offseason 2026 and 2025 democratic capitalist society essays, made for laymen  2)  Situations that think they're special

1) Treatises on not strictly *me* the Identitarian--it's on ALL OF US, the DCSers!

   October 2025 to June 2026

A 250th Party for America (In a Way that’s a Steal for the Value, Affordability-Wise)

“The very thought of you is like a dream come true”, goes a crooning song marching into our new millennium. Or indeed done with a deviating subject as a substituting focus, a nightmare “come true”. So with a mental image, a mountain can be made out of a molehill. Yet why have market democracies thrived in maintaining at least some sense of this intuitive appeal? Arising, despite certain people experiencing real-life side effects from them beyond mere “thoughts” experienced and ideas adhered to: unaffordability over housing and food combined with the Iran war’s disruption to oil export supply chains. To further elaborate on this inveterate enchantment the market economy more or less still wields, no one is finding refuge in the world’s last planned, Soviet-style economy in North Korea as a solution to the problem of “oligarchy”. The premise for democratic capitalism isn’t just resting on people being freed from all this real-time inflation and poverty. Rather, it’s for posterity to also have that same assurance—let all, no matter what the point in time, be free from uncertainty. 

This ideal is being challenged with Generation Z and Millennials lagging behind the wealth of Baby Boomers now have. This affordability issue—what the Democratic Party in the U.S. are setting to capitalize on--drives younger cohorts down the unforeseen road of debt. It is also hazy on the other side of table: lenders, lacking visible collateral in Buy Now, Pay Later transactions, charge higher interest rates. Then the two parties trying to whip inflation each clearly claim to best represent what “America 250” is. So the whole notion over what the United States ought to be is the concept that keeps things going—including price quagmires. Is there any way to improve on this current economic debate? Try improving the circumstances underpinning human conduct, regarding if one pays up or not. Perceive vital situations to be like a horseshoe by being legitly critical at a person on their three sides. That is, press the other individual from every direction except for the fourth “side”—the space permitted for open thinking. As the right to be flexible is just as a key to winning the game of life as Constitutional entitlements such as being immune from excessive bail or being enfranchised to vote at a particular age.

       *   *   *

Money matters had been different. For it used to be that armed conflict stimulated economies, like the Second World War that saved humanity from the Great Depression. Yet at home, bad fiscal spring 2026 news like that of the status of Strait of Hormuz and that which ensues is ammunition for one political side to targeted against—and suffered from. Still in military struggles, certain groups will be out merely for survival, namely one already active: the Iranian regime. In taking on a superpower, the Tehran government paid quite the price in staggering losses ranging from the Supreme Leader’s life to its navy—on top of feeling the domestic and global heat turned up on them in reaction to their Tiananmen-style crackdown earlier in the year. Yet the Islamists here rather “win” by not losing everything. From the perspective of Washington, the obvious speed bump to “victory” in this conflict is the Strait’s effects on inflation. So if we’re fighting for consumers here, what do they really want? A chicken in every pot? Where do they exactly wanna go with that cheaper gas? 

When directing these questions to the side of the Iran war that has the biggest population, these simple concepts thus may not have widespread answers. To collectively straighten matters out, a bridge from Detail A to Detail B to generate such a reply may help. Such affairs may lack formal rules—like there’s no public policy on how to comb your hair. But the more one experiences life—despite all its warts—the more one episode’s many, many details get resourcefully lent to help build institutions, thus mediating individuals. Hey, you never know: so much in the world would not be possible without the past, without even unintended consequences. As the need for the United States defense establishment to have a decentralized, invulnerable hub for wartime information & communication led to their ARPANET initiative. The Cold War never became full-blown hot. But humanity eventually reaped the benefits from ARPANET’s heirs in the Internet—and the World Wide Web is a spoil of war further dictating the terms in how the 21st century is shaped. 

       *   *   *

Additionally with technology, if data was regarded as just science and not technology, then there would be less of artificial intelligence to fear about. Yet Thing Y uses technology to become the byproduct Thing Y1. Or reinvented Thing Z. So in this rapid process, can you see if the AI boom will burst a bubble or actually avert a bad economy? To draw a parallel, Europeans lacked foresight over how the path of World War I unfolded. The same could be said about how the trajectory of artificial general intelligence presses on into the future. One work of literature on that conflict’s broader, historical context noted that, in the Great War, “it is almost impossible to comprehend why, for the scale of the slaughter was out of all proportion to the grievances of either side.” Could the “grievances” element pointed out in “The Life Millennium: The Most Important Events & People of the Past 1,000 Years” title at least have been worked on—that is, be able to adjust the political ideologies has spurned people, non-robots and all, into the crucible of combat? In a mass society, consumerism is widespread. But the courage to boost your exercise of rights bestowed is not a good that just gets picked off the shelf. Yet if humanity as whole isn’t undaunted and becomes on functionally on the verge of being eclipsed by AGI, preempt matters so that there’s one doctrine to rally around where the one moment of the Singularity finally arrives. Abiding by this way, the world will be prepared: all the negative and random AI spinoffs ensuing like those that similarly erupted from the post-World War I power vacuum won’t tie down this species down for the next millennium to come.

Before a brave new future, legitimacy must be earned in present time. And if not, it’s up for grabs—like the citizens who, as if they were millions of jurors, made their varying verdicts on Immigration Customs Enforcement though the video showing Renée Good. In a land noted for born-again Christianity, second chances to start anew mark American life—including for those “the convicted” in a trial by media. Yet because an industrial society is by now fast paced, the window could be closed quickly on such opportunities once started. Can institutions thus step in to level the playing field? They may can be constrained in how they are shaped, as modernity today lacks serious outside friends or foes. Thus, civilization’s pain is self-inflected, as no outer space aliens started any world war. A specific, lone individual caught in these demons might be advised to put forth personal boundaries for their own personal identities. Why not have similar measures--similar boundaries--be erected around collective identities? It is said that the 3 c’s of personal boundaries are that they must be clear, communicated, and consistent. Are both sides of the current immigration debate throughout all the West sustaining those elements amid the polarized, gridlocked noise? Or all they impulsively breaking through in projecting their hopes & fears about what globalization’s migrant empowerment could mean on the opposition? Action from within, rather than debate with others, ratifies these barriers before the world—starting with self-restraints and boundaries on one’s actual self, one psyche at a time.

       *   *   *

Amongst the struggling for self-control, Artemis II and the hosted World Cup were a throwback to the old-fashioned, feel-good patriotism of the Cold War. Seeing this fervor as electoral potential, a number of politicians in the United States and around the West have channeled such flag-waving vibes into today’s touted ideology of right-wing populism. Yet the Iran war has set a number of its adherents apart: Donald Trump from Tucker Carlson in one arena and Giorgia Meloni in another. These quarreling national conservatives still carry the same tools of trade, the shared focus of their political preoccupations: the nation-state. This entity arose over time, including crucially to bypass the regulations of meddling feudal lords—economic forces nonetheless, which coincidentally undid the Viktor Orbán’s government centuries later in a Hungarian election beset over inflation. Eventually, wherever politics takes place over the globe, it all goes back to help around the house: kitchen-table issues.

This notion was displayed by, to fulfill a promise for white rural supporters at home wracked by fentanyl, narcoterrorism motivated Donald Trump’s actions regarding Venezuela abroad. The slogan of “the business of America is business” indeed illustrates how the whole American nation outproduced its World War II rivals to victory. From industry comes property comes rule of law. This is shown by, to take from an event of the years of “America 250”, the Free Soil movement opposing the expansion of slavery more like it was a contract violation than a moral outrage. That which involves the free market arguably defines the United States culture the most at its bisesquicentennial. Despite the primacy of the entrepreneur-friendly policies of the past 250 years, 2026 marked the ascent of Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and democratic socialists to challenge American capitalism as we have known it. Regardless of how far they go, it still affirms the decisive role the material forces of dollars and cents that both the left & right must contend with in order to make American dreams possible in the first place. 

Moreover, it shows that liberty at exercised at the ballot box leaves less of an imprint; American ratings on democracy indices, even before the ethical controversies of the Trump administration, was below that of Scandinavian countries. But populist movements in North American and Nordic societies alike in the 2010s capitalized from actual resentment stemming from the financial crisis. If such organizations may create more ethereal concepts for the distant future, then its flame could keep on burning. It is difficult, however, to get beliefs done right across the commonweal. For such is the grip a vague idea has over even your ordinary employee, like “geez, everyone will be looking at me at this presentation!” Conversely, to nail down the future—uncertainty—how does that sound when the certainty of specific journalist investigations, in pursuit of the certain hot scoop, results in these firebrands given more cornered rope than imaginative room to fittingly build for the complexities of tomorrow?

       *   *   *

At least for now, Project 2025 just had its namesake year. The organization sought less to change ideas as a whole and more to sway—by remaking the civil service—the people who implement ideas. Implement promptly, like before the entrenched “deep state” could obstruct their Christian nationalist aspirations. The left also wants to place key “people” in position: throw the bums out, as it pertains to the 2026 midterms. But then a political platform’s personnel clashes with those of the other side—how would a particular political player transcend this all? To rise above the gridlock, let one think in a sweeping way. At the same time, though, that may end up with that individual having an absolute mindset, imagining broad throngs when what we’re talking about here is specific bureaucrats. Yet, an aim in all of this grand talk is to secure your fate: have everyone else all share in yours, that is. Otherwise, who’s your everyday kismet-violator in a faceless populace that has swarths of people you would otherwise supposedly care less about? How then, when it comes to fate being possibly sealed, could you apprehend a particular aider and abettor drawn from a vast democratic capitalist society? Thus, if a nation can fight a total war over its survival, then let a person similarly go out of his or her way for an inclusive gameplan involving all earthly forces determining their destiny.

       *   *   *

We got to “America 250”—the leading superpower by now in the new century—by choice. By, over its history, granting the citizens of the United States free elections and free markets to select as they best see fit. But bring up the new challenges of the 21st century: an ambitious China, a belligerent Russia, what to do with the issues of AI and climate change. In facing all these tasks, should we run it back with the strategy of Enlightenment-based liberalism that won the 20th century? Using a Swiss army knife that is public policy encounters picking, as well—including uncertain selections. Ones, where in order to claim a firm idea, entity, or supporter for one’s own benefit, a grey zone of a complex society must be first operated in. Seemingly, we all by now inhabit a world of digital information and symbolism rather than premodern subsistence and dogma. Here, democratic norms in globalization insist that rather than by brute force, people must be won over by consent. 

Yet in this hazy, data-based realm, the notion of what’s voluntary can be hijacked—a form of hybrid warfare, but not just a situation involving Russian drones testing the resolve of Northern European states. The values of post-industrial society can, through modern telecommunications, lure us into believing the latest rumor on social media or opportunity to cash in on cryptocurrency. This everyday appropriation of hybrid warfare is furthermore tied to the “cultural hegemony” concept of the Italian Marxist author Antonio Gramsci, in how civil institutions at the top eventually get captured by mere way of shaping the perceptions of citizens at the bottom. Faithful to the nature of grey zone-like conflicts, the means a person is using to resolve issues—voting, buying—comes without a shot fired, just as with cases of disinformation and foreign election interference. Likewise, conforming to the demands of the services economy and subsequent middle-class convolutional prerogatives like the work-life balance arises sans kinetic warfare. Doing something particularly about this is elusive, as such precepts—think kindness as a widespread example--come about by invisible hand-like forces and thus melt into the social contract-derived landscape of what is accepted and not taboo. So what is trying to bring you in line--like an algorithm--goes off scot-free.

The U.S. has managed to succeed at this own game of grey zone subtilty, attaining global power not through the outright satellite colonies that Europeans possessed, but spreading influence indirectly through markets and proxies. But did it alert itself to nuanced consequences on the way, when initial national security concerns dragged America into the nation-building of Iraq, Afghanistan—and perhaps next Iran—that they didn’t see fully coming? Counter all this science of hybrid warfare—like the ability to technologically spread fake news through viral sharing—with that of art. Beauty here is then seized upon, dodging emanating social constructs that could by way of ambush & surprise have the collective might to spoil that experience originally felt by you, the cog in the machine. With a Gallup poll showing 23% of residents satisfied with the state of the country at “America 250”, this spirit gives relief to the frustrated and disenchanted. Given enough patience and focus, how one stylistically and swaggeringly sees reality & the world may be the only role one really needs—an identity formed into order to further mobilize one’s life towards a higher, more important level. To move everyone into another 250 years, come what may. 

Closing In: Can Globalization Holdout Against its Own Global Peoples?

Considering what was goin' on from October 2024 to August 2025...

World order flashpoint, 2024: We didn't vote primarily to make the world better. We voted because it was seemingly the most fair thing we could do right then and there.  Fitting, as a claim for injustice against “election integrity” was put forth by one side four years earlier.  What if fairness is lacking?  See the invisible hand of capitalism as also the driving force of the liberal electoral system: give the voter the room to make his or her political pick, and the upshot would seemingly trickle down to the commonweal.  Yet if that society has an external problem--like the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects that ended two separate presidential terms in a row--the premise returns to the private moment a person has at the ballot.  

But collective groups manage to factor in all of this, particularly the male demographic that was decisive for Donald Trump in 2024.  They voted, for they had something hanging in the balance: their place in an increasingly professionalized workforce, with women now more ready to thrive in it than before.  As with this particular figure from educationalpolicy.org, females went from 42% of college graduates to in 1970 to 57% today.  Arousing voters on this very gender issue—turning to African American men, Latino men, and Generation Z men—was decisive in the Republicans offering their answer to the charges that the GOP can’t adapt to an increasingly diverse society.  People draw battle lines in free society, but not each person is free from the potentially unintended consequences of such drawing—including Kamala Harris voters, somehow, someway.

Harris, representing the party already in office, was not alone in all this.  Trump retook the White House as a part of a 2024 global backlash against incumbents that brought fed up people, from first time voters to Generation X members, into the fold.  Wasn’t the 21st century—offering less war after 1989, extended life expectancy and yet still more technology—supposed to win people over, not turn them off?  Maybe these listed feats came about in an unnatural way.  What seems quintessentially natural—and prevailing as a societal force for today—is that which spared science from dogma: the Enlightenment.  Despite humanity living in one physical world though, the Enlightenment’s ever-more setting of intellectual things apart results in people imagining themselves in splintered worlds.  Assuming the role of a parent is one envisioned world that comes easily.  This deep into the new millennium, however, such societal detaching has taken a life of its own.  Juggling all these parts to play—being a citizen, an employee, a student, a voter belonging to a political party— it can make the role one is caught in like a struggle to gain agency over.

       *   *   *

The subjects get frustrated in finding a niche, leaving with globalization with a bad rap these days.  No wonder, because such a system is toothless to exactly strike back; there are no formal, planetary-inspired jurisdictions that could vote a leader out of office.  But individual countries, size wise, are invisible districts—like an MP representing a constituency larger than another one.   Specifically, these are states large enough to stack up successful elements like innovating green energy but have the iron hand to crush societal tension like dissent: China and Russia.  Is the United States under Donald Trump, to bring up imperial power-ambitions like that over Greenland & Canada, warming up to this model?  Unlike Beijing and Moscow’s steady, seasoned heritage of “managed democracy”, it has gone more back and forth in Washington.  

The September 11 attacks stemmed from American under-imagination in implementing national security policy. In contrast, the Iraq War displayed over-imagination over weapons of mass destruction. The unintended consequence of George W. Bush’s invasion was his political demise, paving for the rise of Barack Obama. But the see-sawing wasn’t done yet—Donald Trump owed his ascent to activism regarding Obama’s birth certificate.  And by now in the summer of 2025, could Trump himself be next to chafe from scandal stemming from the Jeffery Epstein investigation?  Or could Obama again be sidelined by national conservatives, this time with Tulsi Gabbard leading the way?  Whoever is next to prevail, count that it be the one that has bonafide popularity for just a hot moment. However, that all may come at a cost.  By casting a lone vote in the game that is a presidential election, one must assume that he or she knows what’s good for millions—hundreds of millions--of fellow citizens and even more throughout the globe affected by the American superpower.  But why be preoccupied on how that collective process plays itself out, when that American can be fascinated by their own milieu, developing an outcome-independent philosophy of life?  This means a fixation on the journey rather than the destination--better fuel for a finite life than going back and forth over zero-sum political trophies.

       *   *   *

Nevertheless, there is the duel between the nationalist right and immigrants in the West: is this town ain’t big enough for the both of them?  Yet, if those like the AfD and National Rally were to win landslide elections on a local, federal or European level, that may not suffice for them.  To fully curb immigration, they’d also have to affect the proliferation of the airplane that enables migrant travel.  The media, as well, would need to halt being a promising pull factor to awaken foreigners to come to “a promised land”.  Awakening them, which would thus release pent-up feelings accumulated in their home countries.  This really centers today’s immigration issue to be on the past: the threatened heritage built over time by MAGA patriots in their homelands versus migrants fleeing their troubled backgrounds.  In regards to the planetary economic machine behind all this, wasn’t free trade supposed to be mutually beneficial for both the global north & south?  The promise of better, cheaper products was good for the individual in the developed country.  

But good for that individual’s place in the world?  Walter Shapiro in his essay on the post-Cold War world noted that “steelworkers didn’t want to become x-ray technicians, even if they could.”  Perhaps there is not enough of an ideal offered by material democratic capitalist society, to motivate a professional over the hump.  But for the here and now, aim to let no “past” of a particular individual involved here to intrude on that of another.  Set sights on interactions that are marked by the participants’ clean slates: that is, social experiences unaffected by the memory of one’s own respective “bad apple” moments.  This way, individual mingling by right wing populists and multiculturalists will involve as little baggage as possible, in turn mitigating the distaste that can individually spread and undermine the broader commonweal.  

       *   *   *

Yet the commonweal presses on with discord. To find effective ways to hinder an president of the United States, the strategy is clear: undermine him on the economy.  It resonates, for to be accorded the trappings of the American Dream, one must participate in its market mechanisms.  Shows when voters spoke their minds, America’s superpower status and how to use it came behind kitchen table issues like the soaring price of car insurance and taxpayer use for gender-affirming services for detained migrants.  Indeed, each presidential election following the Cold War has been--except for the 2004 race overshadowed by 9/11 and the Iraq War--standard of living-first. Thus, naturally, the objective for Republicans to go after Joe Biden during the 2022 price spike.  And now in turn, the Democratic opposition is quick to sound the alarm of what they think are repercussions over Donald Trump’s tariffs.  Yet the trade consequences go off in unseen directions, demonstrated by the improbable center-left victories in Canada and Australia.  

Could the economic direction be harnessed so that it’s win-win for both protectionists and free traders?  Start by finding a way around technology: Democratic capitalism allows its nationals to be free.  Subsequently, have citizen Y be free to develop his or her own quirks.  Now let another subject of modern liberalism, Z, attempt to size her or her up.  “OK, here I go”, says Z, and then whoops—Z gets a notification on his smartphone that his Amazon Prime box is going to be late.  Figuring out exactly how idiosyncratic Y can be mobilized to serve the greater good thus takes a hit. Yet nothing may get in the way for artificial intelligence to process its results. With this hand impersonal technology already has in a cold, featureless market society, strive to attach more meaning to business transactions. As AI can provide intricate details of a certain subject but may lack insight into how that topic is placed in the grand scheme of things.  Upon the rejections inevitable in such economic exchanges, don’t allow the loser here to succumb to the un-meaning forces of technology as a quick fix.

       *    *   *

Even if that outcome is avoided, gadgets will be still laying around.  In the 21st century, we’ve ushered in technological marvels like quantum computing and 5G connectivity.  But merely convincing the other side of the political aisle seems to be more and more too formidable for us to pull off.  It seems that the new century has found us to be divided—or are we really?  Consider what Yuval Noah Harari once touched on that while Israeli and Iranian societies are ideologically at odds with one another, certain vocations in both places can offer common ground.  Physicians, for instance, in Tehran and Tel Aviv would concur that using anesthesia prior to surgery as a shared principle in their respective fields.  This is a far cry to the premodern, primitive remedies such as variolation and the local shaman to somehow pray the illness out of the patient. Interesting to note that while contemporary behavior of people everywhere is increasingly becoming similar, the reasons that justify such acts vary widely.  Vary to account for a stance on abortion or decide from a multitude of consumer options on what to do for dinner. 

A specialist-based society spawns this situation of diversity and choice; as a contrast, generalists like subsistence farmers would offer a more monotonous, precarious hand-to-mouth toiling.  Yet pre-industrial communities have been intact for millennia; republics like the United States and France only postdate to after the late 18th century.  How could these modern entities measure up in a World War III if Western nations are embroiled by Iranians and Israelis who further use their talents for war rather than peace?  Look at the training source of the services sector of the economy: contemporary education and its division of labor-like nature such as a college major.  Strive instead to aim post-secondary and onward intellectualism to be ultimately less for training geared for a narrow purpose like a 9-to-5. Instead, establish the criteria for learning to be more like this: can this subject I’m immersed in contribute to making my world safe for how I relate to others?  Furthermore, aim to understand & connect to those who oppose your politics: this “know your enemy”—know your universe--mentality can peacefully drive the thirst for information, resulting in a live-and-let-live global outcome.

       *   *   *

And the planet is counting on the leaders of the Anthropocene not to screw it up. Such humans, possessing the behavioral modernity lacking in animals, believe in ideas and act upon them. But the winds of the modern world blows in ways that greatly shape such decisions—shaping beyond any one person's control.  To adapt to this, whole fields like marketing are geared to make customers to somehow decide in an enterprise’s favor.  And then there were the consultants to influence the voters of Decision 2024. To make the best possible choices is to be responsible—and not make rookie mistakes while you’re at it. Yet to develop—whether that’s of emerging economies or up and coming kids—may leave something behind.  

This “rookie mistake” scolding can actually walk away from a lofty “children” of God spirit: all of us acting as dependents bound together, erecting a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.  Either way, people are already tied and sustained by an entity; they do not all exist in a vacuum.  Animals display this in how they live off their habitats; humans, in effect, live off their incomes.  Our own universal “habitat”, in trying to derive from it ways to make a living, can demanding.  Demanding, for instance, is demonstrated when seeking employment: two hundred job applicants can go after one opening.  The rejected—99% of them—are left unhappy.  Yet at the end of the day, the company, job board, and the resume filtering software successfully have filled their roles. 

With that being said, as long as one consumer gets their fix, then the status quo system for how people support themselves will persist.  So too will persist, is the adding of focus towards what the mission of life is. Is such a mission ultimately doomed by one’s own mortality?  Aim to be independent of what the world around can do to you by this: reframing one’s own reality.  Thus, seek an internal solution to turn the tide from a strained worldview by giving meaning to as many elements surrounding you as possible. Moreover in this story of life, cast adversity in a leading role; owe larger-than-life gratefulness to the existence of looming hardships you bounce back from.  This presents the notion of acting out a rather shallow, parochial part in this narrative: at least that’s one prevalent role to bring to its decline, one “flipping of a political office” worth pulling off within a globalized society.

2) When Identitarian living gets ad hoc-ish

         I

+ Talk about something to rule itself? Like the Constitution rules the United States?

Identity gets to the core of it. As it gets invoked for both an individual person or a entire nation.

Since I use--confusingly so, to others--countries as a metaphor, this identity thing...

...sounds appealing to name my "Identitarianism" after.

But see what identity is NOT. Like don't deeply heed ^the unknown^ into forming your sense of self! 

Building your life around the Kosovo model helps. Here, when ^the known^ is found, it gets subordinated to the aim of...

..of further action. 

As to mobilize against the ominous air raids, a thing just can't be an end in itself.

Plus connect one known to another--alike with the Latin idem "the same", as the root of identity.

And get uplifted to face the fear of guerrillas--experience is knowledge!

+ The laws of chemistry make for an ^inevitable^ synthesis. 

Why not expect similarly, for the rest of life, when thing A ^inescapably^ encounters thing B? 

Bring up, from the last thread, of conventional war--and that the technological power tends to prevail. 

What can you as...

...the Serbian role player, REALLY react to NATO infantry liberating Kosovo by force? 

Do nothing about it and like it.

Well, here's the "liking" part: go down swinging. When inevitability (will) back you into a corner, psychologically take yourself to the history of urban..

...warfare--its fortifications! 

See the 1990s Chechens: ^contact is finally made with a stressor^? 

Immediate cue for idEnt tips to pop into your head. Like ^a booby-trapped door going off^ in a Grozny building.

"Everything that was meant to happen does, eventually." -- Angela

+ "The world is simply too varied... for even the most knowing leaders to control everything effectively." -- Time mag, 1986

But telling #AsCon combatants that time’s up for "controlling" is hard. 

Ask that to Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam. Conventional wars, though, have clear...

...clear victors. And DRAW from them: some crises in life come *straight at you.* 

No deceptive surprises, like with guerrillas. 

Like my certainty of an agitated flight. Or a nervous first day at a new job. 

So play out a ground invasion thru this:

Invading Kosovo: A Battle Plan

https://www.newsweek.com/invading-kosovo-battle-plan-166880

..IRL Serbs, rightly so, succumb to NATO's high tech mobility.

But similarly 🎮, YOU will succumb to the power of the high tech material world. 

Yet sustain ^your identity^! 

"(Lester) may have lost everything by the end of the film, ^but he's no longer a loser^." -- Roger Ebert

       II

+ What is key in pursuing dreams? It's about ^believing in yourself^--or a lack there of. 

That you say on the public record can be, through cognitive dissonance, can be dismissed by the state of ^inner faith^. 

And at the core psyche, is big ambition to make up for big loss.

...Tell me about it, when I apply grand goals to ordinary behavior. See this: I earn a necessary salary for my work. 

And I also add the aim of my production to help the E.U.S. 🇪🇺🇺🇸.

Yet similarly offering an act that has one purpose to Person A, and another purpose to Person...

...B may be lose-lose. Each person wants their own need met!

When this individualizing of niches halts ... is when no more streaming platforms get added.

But take "these added goals", even unrealistic ones, and see how they are CHANNELED. 

Have you hit life's center of gravity?