u/Anonymous_User1222

Too many days to be 30-32°C. Can’t imagine trying to sleep in the overnight temperatures as they stay close to 20°C. These warm nights are what causes heatwaves to feel much more draining because our buildings aren’t getting a chance to cool down. London needs to start growing more trees to help the entire city cope with the heat. I don’t think people actually realise the benefit of trees during heatwaves. I’ll list some below 👇🏻

- Trees provide shade that prevents the pavements becoming dramatically hot.
- The air will cool through the evaporation of leaves.
- Trees help reduce the urban heat island effect (concrete, brick, asphalt absorb sunlight during the day and slowly realise it at night - too slowly).
- Air quality can improve helping streets be more comfortable to walk through.

There are plenty of studies to support this if you don’t believe me! Heavily tree-covered neighbourhoods can be several degrees cooler than nearby built-up areas during hot weather. However, I’m not saying trees alone will solve the heatwaves becomes +30°C as we know the unnatural speeding up of climate change has made these heatwaves more common. London would also benefit from more parks, green roofs, lighter-coloured surfaces to reflect sunlight, better building insulation, and designs that improve air flow. It’s becoming much harder to live in these winter homes. They feel like ovens by the end of the week!

Starmer has a duty to protect life, but there’s also a danger in allowing our fears to become our organising principle of our society. We shouldn’t pacify Iran. We currently live in a world where conflict, aggression and violence unfortunately exist. Starmer therefore has the responsibility to protect us and preserve peace where possible. However, I’m deeply concerned that nations are becoming trapped in a cycle of fear. Our fears turn into militarisation. The military hold a greater fear which leads to a much greater militarisation. There’s a debate within NATO about burden-sharing and whether Europe should contribute more to their own defences rather than relying heavily on the US. Trump has pushed his allies towards spending targets of 5% GDP, while many of Europe’s governments argue this would require difficult trade-offs with domestic spending priorities. This spending will not reduce our fears and increase our sense of security. All this spending will do is move humanity further into an arms race mentality. Why are we not pumping money into diplomacy? International cooperation? Conflict prevention? Addressing the cause of war? I recognise that disarmament by one nation alone doesn’t automatically produce peace if others continue arming themselves. It’s such a tragedy in our modern politics. The world arms itself because they fear others arming themselves.

The world is dying as it is with the speeding up of climate change at unnatural levels. No country wants to be the one that sacrifices economically while others continue polluting. Defence spending works similarly: no country wants to be the one that disarms while others continue rearming. Both of these are examples of humanity acting from collective fears and separation rather than collective trust and cooperation. Life must always be protected where necessary. We all have a duty to seek peace wherever possible. Machinery of war should never be glorified. Our security will never come from military strength. Only justice, cooperation and mutual understanding. Our weapons may prevent conflict, but they’ll never create peace by themselves. We must ask our governments where they’re getting this money from to increase defence spending because what really needs this type of money is our healthcare, housing, infrastructure, climate adaptation and education. These all compete for the same public resources.

I find his stance interesting because he goes beyond the left v right economic argument. He’s arguing that taxation shouldn’t just maximise revenue but should actively shape the kind of society we want to live in. In particular, he’s proposed shifting some of the burden away from pubs, cafes, and high street business that bring people together and towards large warehouses and out of town developments. I wanna know what type of relationship does this economic system encourage? This system shouldn’t reward isolation, endless consumption, and hollow out communities. This is so unhealthy. But if this system is to definitely support gathering places, local communities, social life, and other social venues then I’m heavily in favour of this. The British society needs rebuilding. Our local institutions are disappearing. A pub, cafe, barbers, restaurants… these are more than just economic units. How many friends have we made in these places? How many of us are spared of loneliness because of these places? Communities used to organise themselves here. These are places where we hold our local identities. In these times, we’re in desperate need of connection and cooperation. There’s so much separation and isolation in the world. I hope this taxation will encourage the growth of places that strengthen our bonds. This is a worthy use of economic policy.

However Andy needs to be warned. His good intentions aren’t enough. His policy must actually revive communities. It must genuinely improve lives. He must be careful of the unintended harms elsewhere. I judge this system by its fruits rather than their rhetoric. But I love that Andy rewards activities that contributes positivity to our flourishing. Our society must align itself with the promotion of life, growth, protection, healing, and harmony. We will then see a difference between an economic activity that just extracts wealth and an economic activity that strengthens our social fabrics of our communities. I hope Andy’s proposal would actually achieve this. It’s about time the economy served us instead of us serving economics.

A small example of a much larger tension in our modern society. Efficiency is competing with identity, profit is competing with heritage, and centralisation is competing with community. The Lloyd’s Banking Group’s decision is largely driven by simplification and cost reduction. I can see from a business perspective, maintaining multiple brands that already share infrastructure, staff and systems can look inefficient. I don’t automatically condemn efficiency but I don’t understand what’s to be gained from this, but I can feel the loss. It won’t just the logo but the 173 years of history. Halifax’s roots were helping to build society by helping the working class buy homes. Each town it lived in had a connection to the people, and it was even named after a town that gave it its name. I personally place a great deal of value on Halifax. In my town, it was part of our identity. I’m weary of this world. So many institutions are becoming larger, more centralised, efficient, and less… human?

The spirit of this institution matters more than its name. Halifax has so much service and trust. It helped my family own a home and supported the community. I hope these continue under a different sign above the door, so the most important things survives. I also hope these values don’t disappear and the brand survives because the name alone will have little value. I conclude we don’t cling to symbols just because they’re old, and shouldn’t discard history lightly in the pursuit of efficiency. I see a wider lesson here. Our modern economy often rewards consolidation for fewer brands and branches, and larger institutions with more automation. Yes this may increase profits and reduce costs, but it’s gonna leave people feeling that similar parts of their communities are quietly disappearing one by one! So many people in Halifax have even expressed exactly that. They hold so much sentiment about the loss of the name. We should preserve what genuinely nourishes communities and belonging. We should also accept that forms and institutions do inevitable change over time. I have sympathy for the sadness many feel at seeing this 173 year old name disappear from high street. Doesn’t matter if the banking services themselves continue unchanged.

Two questions: does society have the right to expect contribution from those who’re able to contribute? Does the policy treat vulnerable people with dignity and compassion?

This is a proposal that appears to be that asylum seekers who’re eventually granted protection and later earn above a certain threshold would repay up to £10k towards accommodation and support costs before qualifying for permanent settlement, in a system described as similar to student loan repayments. The government argues this is fair to taxpayers and would only apply to those who can afford it. I have little objection to this principle. Those who’re able to contribute to the society that shelters them should do so. Reciprocity and service are themes we must support. However, a few more harder questions:

- Were these people fleeing persecution, war, or violence?
- Were they prevented from working while their claims were processed?
- Does this help them rebuild their lives or make this harder?
- Is the purpose contribution or deterrence?

Many refugees arrive with absolutely nothing. They spend years unable to work because of the government’s policy. They struggle to earn enough to repay the debt. The financial return to the Treasury is relatively small. Unintended consequences are brewing such as discouraging work and slow integration. Is this policy motivated by wisdom and stewardship? Or by fear, punishment and political pressure? The same policy can look very different depending on the mindset behind it. If the principle is when you’re established and thriving, contribute something back to the society that helped you rebuild your life, according to your means… I see this as reasonable. If the principle becomes you owe the nation money for the burden you placed upon us, then I see this as arising from fear and separation rather than compassion. Justice without compassion becomes hardness. Compassion without wisdom becomes unsustainable. A healthy society needs both. I judge this policy by its fruits. Does it help people integrate? Does it reduce suffering? Does it preserve dignity? Does it strengthen social trust? If you believe so then the policy aligns with life. If no then the policy needs reconsideration regardless of its intentions.

He wanted triumph but was met with defeat and controversy. The players are facing criticism and Scotland’s national expectations have died. I think his pride has gotten to him. His sense of belonging has been broken and the joy with it. He’s clearly very disappointed and angry. Hope is lost for Scotland. It’s a hostile tournament. However, I think Scotland do have something to celebrate. All that teamwork and dedication. Discipline and courage even under pressure. So much enjoyment came from this. Scotland fans should hold their hatred of their opponents steadfast and stop abusing their players also. No need for scapegoating and turning your nationalism into contempt for others. It’s just a sport. You shouldn’t treat it as determination of one’s worth. It’s only 90 minutes of your life. Your mindset remains with you before and after the game.

Another example of cause and effect becoming impossible to ignore. The heatwave we have experienced wasn’t just a few hot days. Did you know it involved record breaking June temps? Schools closed, rails were disrupted, people died from cold water shock, house fires even started from lightning. There were also so many health warnings for the vulnerable. The UK broke its June temp record repeatedly over several days! We need to focus on the reality. Our elderly are unable to keep cool in their homes. Families are mourning because of their lost loved ones. Children are trying to sleep through these tropical nights in houses designed to retain heat. We need to show more compassion. This is much more important than trying to win arguments about the causes of climate change. We need to ask ourselves what chain of causes has produced these effects? We need to take a stand on our energy policies, housing standards, urban planning, transport infrastructure, environmental regulations, economic priorities etc. These all affect how we experience heatwaves.

Climate scientists from the World Weather Attribution concluded that this particular event would have been virtually impossible only 50 years ago!!! without human-driven climate change because of our fossil-fuel use. This isn’t a tribal or ideological statement! The evidence is there. We need to decide what follows from this evidence. I’m deeply concerned with reality right now. Our comforts should be secondary to this. The Earth is dying. Humanity and the countless other forms of life that depend on relatively stable conditions are suffering. I know this planet has survive asteroid impacts and mass extinctions, but these are natural. Victorian schools, railway networks, agricultural systems, and densely populated coastal cities are less resilient to the impacts. If we were wise, we wouldn’t be denying climate change. Instead, we would recognise the change that’s happening and adapt before suffering forces us to adapt.

Britain is built for the climate that existed in the 20th century, so we’re struggling in the climate of the 21st. If you refuse to recognise this, it doesn’t prevent reality from being reality.

A very uncomfortable question: why are we accepting hereditary privileges as morally different from hereditary poverty?

Public funding for the Royals is set to rise substantially while many ordinary people struggle with housing costs, energy bills, and stagnant wages. We need to examine the unfairness and service. Reports say public funding through the Sovereign Grant could approach or exceed £100 million a year by the end of the decade! This is largely due to the funding formula linked to profits from the Crown Estate. I don’t condemn the monarchy itself but why does this institution still exist? It doesn’t serve the people. We serve the institution! This is something we should be applying to any concentration of wealth or status. Whether it’s monarchies, corporations, governments, religion, billionaires, political parties etc. I’m incredibly sceptical of entitlement based purely on birth or position. We need an enormous emphasis on service, humility, and usefulness to others. Our money is supporting an institution that doesn’t even contribute to our national life, diplomacy, heritage, or social cohesion. These aren’t benefits so don’t justify the cost. Wealth and privilege has become detached from service. They hold no service to us and so it’s a distortion of the purpose of power. We as a society are suffering under the cuts to our welfare, public services, and local governance, and now will suffer increasing support to one of the wealthiest families in the country. Why aren’t we asking this question regardless of our views on the monarchy?

It’s understandable to feel angry at this. However we shouldn’t direct our anger to individuals of the Royals personally. In their view, institutions are maintained because society collectively permits them, supports them, and even values them. So the question becomes a little more deeper. What does public support for this arrangement say about the values and mindset of our society that maintains it? Our systems reflect our mindset. If we change what we value, eventually the institutions change too. Doesn’t matter if you see the monarchy as an invaluable national institution or an outdated form of inherited privilege. We should be asking the same thing about all power and wealth. Does it serve life, dignity, and the wellbeing of many? Or the comfort and status of the few?

Two truths - the laws of nature and our responsibility. Thousands of people in France have lost power because of this heatwave, leaving retirement homes, vulnerable residents, and essential services under severe strain. Across Europe, the heat has disrupted transport, reduced electricity generation, closed schools and tourist attractions, and contributed to unfortunate deaths and injuries. The people are suffering. We mustn’t become so absorbed in debating the causes of speeding up of climate change that we forget our elderly people who struggle to keep cool, our children who become overheated, and our families whose homes are unbearable. We must show compassion rather than argue.

But to address the question… What causes have produced these effects? Our suffering arises through cause and effect. We should be investigating honestly rather than defend political tribes or preconditioned beliefs. We must take seriously the scientific evidence about changing unnatural climatic conditions, the resilience (or lack of) of our infrastructure, review our decisions we have made about energy, housing, and urban design, and look at our values that have shaped our decisions. We need to make our own personal decisions about our energy systems, building standards, public investment, and environmental stewardship… these all have real consequences! Politics won’t help us, so we must address the root - our mindset. If we swallow ourselves in fear, short-term thinking, greed, denial, and indifference, then we all become embedded in the institutions and policies that don’t help at all. We need to converse with each other, become wiser, hold some foresight, and compassion so we can shape this world to be a better place.

The power cuts themselves are just a metaphor. We live out of alignment with the creative principles that sustain life. As a society, we find ourselves increasingly vulnerable to predictable stresses (environmental, economical, social) and need to ask ourselves what systems we are building. Are they systems that work with the laws of creation, or systems that assume yesterday’s conditions last forever? Religion needs to stop preaching that this is a punishment from God. It’s not. We are being reminded that our actions have consequences. We need to face reality honestly and grow in wisdom so we can adapt to ways that protect life rather than just reacting after the harm has occurred.

HMRC is imposing 22% tax on interest with certain ISA arrangements. There’s a much deeper question than whether the tax rate is fair… what is the purpose of wealth? We shouldn’t be anti-wealth. Material abundance isn’t inherently wrong. What matters is the mindset behind it. We should always reject greed. The government wants to accumulate as much as possible regardless of others. There’s so much envy being bred from this. Nobody wants to have less than the other. This economic arrangement doesn’t serve our wellbeing. There’s a specific issue on these tax savings. People want to save out of prudence, security, preparation for old age, concern for family, and protection against their uncertainty. In this sense, I feel sorry for those people that are affected by these daft rule changes that are constantly shifting around long-term financial planning.

Be cautious about deriving your sense of security entirely on money. Your true security doesn’t come from your possessions, investments, or bank balances. Your savings are important, but not your ultimate source of peace. It’s concerning that our society feels forced to treat every asset as an investment vehicle simply to avoid insecurity later in life. Why do we organise ourselves in such a way that we fear poverty in old age unless we successfully navigate increasingly complex financial systems? Forget the question on tax rates. What purpose has this government given to the economic system itself? Taxes aren’t bad or good. But this policy doesn’t contribute to fairness, security, or our wellbeing. It increases our fears, anxiety, and instability. Both government and savers need to learn that a healthy society shouldn’t force people to choose between financial prudence and peace of mind.

Drop the politics, climate models, weather warnings for a moment and just actually LOOK, FEEL, HEAR, SEE what we are doing to our planet. Look at your own relationship with nature and its laws that govern existence. Europe is suffering under a blanket of extreme heat. Record temperatures are breaking. Buildings aren’t coping to keep us cool. We are growing more closer to a dangerous climatic tipping point. Our universe operates according to the immutable laws of cause and effect. Our suffering has risen out of our ignorance of these laws. Ask yourselves, what causes have been set in motion to produce these effects? It doesn’t matter if you agree with science or not. You need to give yourself an honest observation of the world around you instead of following your ideological attachments. Our actions are damaging the conditions that support life. How can we escape the consequences merely by arguing about them?? Humans have dominated, exploited, and extracted so much from nature without understanding that WE ARE PART OF THE SAME SYSTEM. Creation is an INTERCONNECTED WHOLE. How can you continually act upon a system without eventually experiencing the systems response?

Earth is dying from this heat and her life within drowns. She is vulnerable and is at a major risk of collapsing. Schools can’t even stay open! You can’t even travel. There’s so much pressure on the health services… our attention needs to be directed towards compassion. Forget the political point-scoring… we need to be critical of the two opposite reactions society is suffering from right now:

1. People are denying that climate change exists because they preventing themselves from observing reality.
2. People are suffering from their own fear-driven catastrophe thinking. They believe the world to be doomed, so why put any effort in anyway…

We all need to observe what’s happening honestly. Understand WHY this is happening. Act wisely. Stop allowing ourselves to be paralysed by fear. Earth is showing us that we can’t violate the laws governing life and expecting no consequences. Doesn’t matter if the issue is environmental, economic, social, personal etc… every cause produces effects. We shouldn’t be interested in finger pointing. We shouldn’t deny what’s happening, nor feel despair. We need to learn and understand how nature works on a deep level and be willing to live in greater harmony with these laws. Please remember all that suffers. Hold compassion for all affected. This is way more important than winning arguments about why climate change is happening.

He matters less than the mindset being expressed by everyone involved. This by-election has become much bigger than a local contest… it’s a vehicle for our hopes, fears, frustrations, and politicians power struggles within our politics. This victory is apparently a challenge to our PM and a response to the rise of Farage’s political stance. Are our politicians seeking power to serve us, or seeking power in order to prevail? 🤔… This question applies equally to them ALL: Burnham, Starmer, Farage, and all their supporters. I’m deeply sceptical of this political tribalism. I can see many voters aren’t actually voting for something, but against something. Some of us are voting against Labour, Reform, the establishment, any opposition… Our fears and resentments are poor foundations for our political decisions, even if our emotions arise from our grievances. At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore politics. There’s so much injustice, neglect, and suffering that still needs to be addressed. There’s so many communities that feel unheard, economically abandoned, and politically ignored… our concerns deserve honest attention rather than being dismissed.

Regarding the apparent leadership struggle within Labour, if leadership changes are being sought because people genuinely believe another person can better serve the common good, then this IS constructive! If leadership changes are driven primarily by our/their ambition, ego, revenge, or even the desire to defeat rivals, then the same mindset is but changing faces. We place too much hope on external saviours. We want certain politicians to win and others removed. No politician will ever solve our deeper problems of our fears, selfishness, division, and dishonesty within our society. These problems are arising from OUR MINDSET itself.

Democracy has spoken. This must be respected. But don’t imagine that salvation lies in Burnham, Starmer, Farage, or any political figure for that matter. Judge them not by slogans, promises, or tribal loyalties, but by the mindset they express and the effects their actions have on the wellbeing of others. The true measure of political leadership isn’t victory over opponents. Ask yourselves, are more people able to live with their dignity? Security? Fairness? And hope as a result of the decisions made? 🤔

It’s cause and effect. Domestic abusers experience disappointment, frustration, alcohol, tribal excitement, and anger, so intimidate, control, threaten, and assault others. Did the football match cause this or did it expose what was already present within the abuser? Sure, be angry if England lost, but it’s not actually an external event that created that mindset is it? Instead they trigger what’s already there. Millions watch the same match. Millions experience the same result. Only a minority abuse others. Therefore the cause isn’t the football. The cause lies within the abuser…

A 2014 study by Lancaster University examined domestic abuse reports during 2002, 2006, and 2010 World Cups. The study found a 26% increase in reported domestic abuse incidents when England won or drew. A 38% increase when England lost. An 11% increase the following day, regardless of the result. One particularly important finding is that the abuse increased not only after defeats but also after wins and draws! So the mechanism is clearly more complex than simple disappointment… abusers are more dangerous when their emotions are heightened. Mix that with alcohol consumption, gambling losses, tribal “us vs them” thinking, the existing abusive behaviour becomes more intense. Especially during major tournaments.

The real story isn’t that England lost (I hope they don’t!) but that a child became frightened, or a partner was threatened, and a home becomes more unsafe. We must protect the vulnerable and take responsibility for one’s own mind. Why do sporting events have the power to expose so much anger, domination, and lack of self control? The game is just a mirror that shows something society would rather not look at.

The World Cup is going to be a fascinating ride. I can’t wait to win so we can unite together, see strangers celebrating together, put down our social divisions, and feel our hopes and joys merge together… I think we naturally long for connection and shared identity.

HOWEVER. There is a dark side… when we lose, please can we keep our anger from erupting? Don’t scapegoat the players, turn onto the manager and turn our national pride into a national humiliation. People who were heroes yesterday become the villain the next day. Don’t put the worth of human beings onto a ball going into a net or failing to. Why do this? Think before you speak critically on social media about players… this also should apply to the media itself. A player won’t purposely miss a penalty and shouldn’t have millions condemning them. Don’t question their character and start dissecting their career. It only reflects onto your ego attaching its self importance emotionally to an external event. I see a lot of fans directing their ego outwards as blame onto others when their expectations are disappointed. Football is to be enjoyed. Enjoy the skill, the teamwork, the excitement, the sense of community, but let’s not derive our identity or self-worth from victory or defeat. We’ve got a long history of near misses. The suffering of fans doesn’t arise from football, but from our attachment to outcomes. Penalties are a great way for us to detach ourselves from our worldly experiences 😅… even though it’s challenging!

Bring it home lads ❤️

18 years old. A Southampton student. Murdered in a stabbing and shouldn’t have died. Putting politics aside, I think it’s important we focus on Henry himself for a moment. His life was cut short by a violent act. We should mourn the person before we argue about politics.

We shouldn’t turn this tragedy into ideological backgrounds and lose sight of the actual human suffering involved. The murderer himself is an expression of a destructive mind. He made a false accusation as the boy lay dying. Any exploitation of his death to inflame hatred against an entire ethnicity, religion, or immigrant communities should be condemned. Any attempt to minimise or excuse what happened because it’s politically inconvenient should face the same treatment. Truth must come first before tribal loyalty. Reject the lie that crime proves an entire group is dangerous. Also reject talking about the crime because it may be politically awkward. Look at the aftermath as an example of multiple layers of fear-based mindsets unfolding at once… violence, falsehood, political exploitation, collective blame, retaliatory anger, division between groups etc. No tragedy should be used to justify hatred. Genuine wrongdoing must be acknowledged honestly.

Henry was a child of God whose life had value beyond measure. His death should awaken our compassion, a desire for truth, and a commitment to justice. His death shouldn’t be a tool for advancing political agendas, blaming entire groups, or deepening social division. If you do this, then you’ve failed to learn the deeper lesson. The proper response to evil is truth joined with justice and compassion. Denial and hatred will only breed it.

RIP Henry 🌹🖤

Financial advice is less important than your mindset. Your security doesn’t come from your possessions, wealth, status, or material assets. I don’t condemn those who own properties, save money, or plan for retirement. I’m challenging your belief that external things can provide you with lasting security, peace, or fulfilment. Property may be your useful asset. You may appreciate it or not. It may provide you with shelter and income. But if your sense of safety depends entirely upon property values, then your peace of mind is resting on something inherently unstable. Your attachments create your fears.
- You’re scared of losing wealth.
- Scared of market crashes.
- Scared of economic change.
- Scared you don’t have enough.

The stronger your attachment, the greater your anxiety. I don’t advocate financial irresponsibility. I’m say use your wisdom. Plan ahead. Be prudent. Don’t make an idol of possessions or imagine that material accumulation is the source of your wellbeing. Be practical. I warn you - it’s unwise to place your deepest sense of security into any material asset, whether property, savings, investments, or income. Your true security doesn’t come from what you own. Your house isn’t guaranteed to be your pension. No material possession can be guaranteed. Use material resources wisely and don’t build your inner peace upon them because all external forms are subject to change.

Politics is secondary to the mindset behind this. The immediate issue is that senior defence figures (John Healey and Al Carns) have resigned because they believe the government isn’t committing sufficient resources to national defence in a period of increasing international tensions. But I have a few questions…

What is their true motive? Actions should be judged by the mindset behind them. Healey and Carns have resigned because they sincerely believe the country has been left vulnerable and they could no longer support the policy. This is an act of their conscience. If, on the other hand, their primary motivation was ambition, political manoeuvring, or personal advancement, the quality of their actions would be very different. There’s an enormous importance on honesty with oneself about motives.

Is fear governing this decision? Do they distinguish between their clear perception and their fear? They don’t want military threats to be ignored, but nor would they say spend endlessly on weapons. Is this decision being made from their wisdom and responsibility or from their fears and panic? Britain has a duty to protect its people. Society has become trapped in fear that’s become the dominant organising principle.

What kind of world are we creating? A much deeper question… We currently live in a world where armies and defence exist. This is realistic about our current mindset. But lasting security doesn’t ultimately come from military power alone. It comes from the gradual transformation of our mindset away from fear, domination, greed, and conflict. The resignation of Healey and Carns is neither good nor bad. What matters is whether those involved acted from truth, integrity, and genuine concern for others, or from their ego, ambitions, and fears. At the same time, we should remember that no amount of military spending can create lasting peace if the mindset that produces war remains unchanged. This is less of a story about ministers resigning and more as another example of our world struggling to balance our genuine security concerns with our deeper challenges of overcoming our fear-based mindsets.

If there are any who are taking part in the riots and see this post…

The original stabbing arose from a man’s mind dominated by his own fears, anger, violence, and other ego driven impulses. Such actions are contrary to love and respect for life. Justice should be perused through lawful means. But rioters, you are deservingly condemned in your retaliation of hatred, rioting, attacks on homes, attacks on migrants, petrol bombing, and mob violence that follows you. You can’t heal violence with more violence. You’re acting from rage, vengeance, prejudice, and your collective fear… you’re expressing the same ego that produced the original harm, even if you believe your cause is justified.

Every act begins in your mind. Your fears create fear. Your hatred creates hatred. Your violence creates violence. Whatever you send out into the world returns to you and society in some form. You’re suffering because you’re seeing yourselves as separate from one another. The attacker, through his violent and destructive impulses sees himself as separate from you. And you, rioters, see yourselves as separate from him through your hatred, revenge, and collective fears. Political actors and media figures are exploiting your fears for personal influence. People are spreading misinformation that inflames your anger and division.

Ask yourselves why you’re reacting the way you are. Allow justice to operate and protect the innocent. Refuse to dehumanise entire groups because of the actions of one individual. Replace your emotional reactivity with your clear perception and compassion. The stabbing was a tragedy, and so are these riots. You make it worse with your fears and anger which multiplies itself through your minds. Every person involved believes they’re responding to a problem, yet your own minds rooted in your fears will never create peace. Only your minds aligned with love, truth, and understanding can break this cycle.

Please stop and think about the consequences you’re reaping for yourself.