gendao

And yet more...! So, where is all the activist outrage now??? Anyone...anyone? *crickets*

I am also interested in purifying the deep bone level of blockages. Since there doesn't seem to be an authoritative written transmission for XiSuiGong (洗髓功), I wonder what the real deal is? Purported methods (alternately branded as "Iron Shirt," "Iron Crotch," "Genital Qi Kung," or "99 Power Qi Kung" (九九神功), etc) based on "oral transmissions" seem to suggest tugging your junk, smacking yourself with steel whisks, and then maybe mentally directing qi to the marrow? I can see how steel brushes could penetrate to the bone & marrow, but how exactly would the other practices tie in? Has anyone tried this? Is there a better, more efficient and/or effective way?

QI is IQ reversed... It is a process of deintellectualizing, and embodying experience instead. Centered in the lower dantain, rather than the brain. Although "stillness" is perhaps not the best term, as it still implies a localized position in spacetime. Whereas the desired state may be one without those dimensions at all, resulting in nondimensional "omnipresence."

...but activists don't care because it wasn't the White Male Patriarchy doing all the killing... Therefore, it's not a problem. Well, the results speak for themselves. If the police were the problem, suppressing them would have improved the situation. The fact that the situation has now gotten SO MUCH WORSE in more of their "absence," shows that they were actually part of the SOLUTION. Meanwhile, the real problems fester even more virulently unchecked now... So, congrats on the record bodycount now. Another GREAT JOB, Looney Boomers, LMAO!!!

What translation was this?

There are a gazillion threads on it here... It was immensely powerful, and I am still not entirely sure what all exactly it did? On a slightly more mundane level, it might trigger traumatic tension release through core shaking (like TRE). But, I think it does a whole lot more (spiritually & energetically) than that, too... I would say you do need to complement it with a good holistic healing module, though. I wouldn't consider Kunlun to be a "magic bullet" complete system. It shakes a lot of stuff loose, and it's best to have supplementary methods to help clean it all up. People that couldn't adequately find these on their own, were the ones who ran into trouble... Fact is, this technique is not for the faint of heart and is probably more on the level of Ayahuasca than weed, so to speak... And if you can't take that heat, then best to stay out of this kitchen.

Great analysis. How can you be pro-illegal immigration from Latin America...even providing social benefits without taxes, many to even criminals...yet be anti-Chinese labor from abroad? Why do Socialists brand Donald Trump a lunatic for being anti-illegal Mexican immigration...but Bernie not for being anti-Chinese labor? Maybe some resident Socialists here can explain their racial hierarchy and double-standards?

I hypothesis that Judeo-Christian-Muslims are still suffering from ancient ancestral strife with their "Anunnaki" alien fathers. That is why the Bible is all about Atonement with the Father...and it became the predominant religion in the West. Even though it's a pretty crappy piece of literature and ideology, to be honest...

Are these where closet capitalists all go to greedily prey upon the uneducated proletariats? Or do you redistribute all the winnings at the end to ensure income equality?

Just like all the illegal immigrants too, right? Nationalist Socialist = Fascist, correct? Funny though as the US has become more Socialist, its debt has ballooned and productivity declined. While as China has become more capitalist, its fortunes have dramatically soared from Communist poverty. Yet somehow...the party line still remains, "Socialism does work?" Well, perhaps it theoretically would in a closed loop vacuum of global Socialism - with zero capitalist competition to face. Whereas, capitalism works anywhere, and generally even better against Socialist competition... It certainly doesn't "need" the whole world to also be capitalist - to work.

To act out of a sense of fairness for all, rather than simply out of selfish greed...must be a radically foreign concept to you, huh? Well, corporate profits and policies are driven by the consumers who vote for them with their wallets on a DAILY basis and occasionally, ballots. So, the buck literally stops with the consumer - who exercises free choice in whose businesses and ethos they want to support - in actual DEED, not just WORDS. Because talk is cheap, MONEY talks, BS walks...and so the American people have SPOKEN. And yes, high taxes spur capital flight. But, shouldn't you be happy when the same class of job creators you demonize...finally leaves town? Problem solved then, right?

It's human nature to accept the existing status quo as the norm and thus "correct" due to having won out. The side that won, was the right side by virtue of winning (even if by force). But in reality, everything can still be up for debate at any point...and perhaps even should, with the added benefit of hindsight & retrospect. Now other than a temporary Civil War income tax, the US did not have a federal income tax until 1913. The tax code you complain about now to "keep the poor poor and wealthy wealthy" (despite the fact that half of poorer Americans already pay NO federal income tax at all, but OK?) was imposed by the Left back then with the very same debate as is going on in this forum today. This required the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, so was a completely radical change to the original "no taxes without representation" ethos of the Founders. And they really wanted to progressively tax the rich, but eventually settled for a flat tax on just the richest, for starters. Of course, this quickly spread down the slippery slope to more of the Middle & Lower classes...and the rest is now history.

How is my analogy inaccurate? A logical explanation, please? And, even IF Mitt Romney paid the SAME tax RATE as Marblehead, he would still likely be paying vastly MORE in actual amount. So, he would still be paying far MORE, even with a flat tax RATE, much less a far higher one. But I am questioning fundamentally why he "should" pay more at all to begin with - and am still waiting for a fair answer? Why should people get treated SO differently under the law...isn't that class discrimination? You also have interesting stereotypical presumptions about the rich. Which in fact don't apply to all rich people, and many apply to poor people as well. For example, Tony Hsieh is a massive job creator who provides MANY good jobs to Americans. Why should he be punished, rather than rewarded, for his immense service to this economy? Or what about these self-made millionaires? What exactly makes them worthy of your jealous contempt, sour grapes and price-gouging - much less high fives for jobs well-done? Reducing and dehumanizing their entire human personas down to a single number - their net worth??? And does not any employer have the right to pay whoever he wants with his money? If workers in China provide a higher value, then why shouldn't he hire them? Isn't that also promoting true global diversity - or is diversity only good in your local region? And what competitive choice does he even have when the consumer (rich and poor) will ultimately demand the highest-value product, wherever it is made? Whereas if he only hires Americans, in accordance with minimum wage & affirmative action government regulations, to produce a much costlier and marginal-quality product...but no one buys it - he will go out of business. As the saying goes, "the customer is always right." And the reality is, without low-cost/high-value goods, Americans would be suffering a MUCH lower quality of life right now. As far as illegal immigrants, Bernie Sanders supports them. So, if you support Bernie, you do too...and the "1%" who hire them.

So, you also advocate sliding scales for item costs at all consumer stores based upon each customer's net worth? How much these apples cost...? Well, how much you got? Or, based (loosely) upon our current tax code: There is no absolute cost for these apples, only variable % rates of your ability to pay. For example, they will cost 40% of your net worth if you are in the top 10%. But are free if you are in the bottom 50%. Bernie Sanders - Hey, that's not fair! They should cost 90% of the top 10%, and be free for everyone else! *90% roars in applause*

Well, Wu Ming Jen claimed that's what Bernie Sanders was advocating, although I think only a flat tax rate has been proposed - by others. It does raise the question of why every citizen doesn't simply pay the same tax rate, much less absolute tax amount, though? Isn't that vastly unequal and unfair, as it is? Why should the rich pay far more - especially if they draw far less government benefits?

Only the greedy would want everything truly for "free" (paid for largely by others). In this case, Bernie would like to tax the wealthiest at 90%+ to provide such "free" services to everyone else (vote bribes to the majority). Whereas if he were actually to apply a flat tax on them at the same rate as the poor & middle class, their taxes would actually plummet down to negative values half the time - as currently, HALF of Americans already pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX at all! Yet, he would like to vastly make tax inequity even greater???

^ Making some coherent arguments, does not negate the times you don't as I described (false defense). For example: Whereas 2 simple definitions in response here would have sufficed...but lacking that, you instead posted a wild goose chase: So, 3 f'n BOOKS & one thread...yet still no simple definitions... Ok, and in that referenced thread we have... 4 MORE books/documents...yet more pseudointellectual chest-beating...and still no clear answers to Karl's simple question. So at this point, someone is supposed to have tracked back & bought and read 7 books and...still not have YOUR simple response to a simple query??? Which of course doesn't exist to begin with - hence it's a wild goose chase diversion tactic. I mean, why even have debates at all then - when we can all just post different books to read? You post your book list, I'll post mine in response...and DONE!

Supporting references would be great...but the problem is when you post references INSTEAD of a coherent argument as a cheap cop-out. Because instead of admitting that you have no good answer, you can simply pretend you do by name-dropping and rest assured that no one with half a life is going to read through 600 pages of obscure text or watch 3 hrs of videos just to call your bluff.

Sibling rivalry and controlled opposition. The same reason why Jews hate Muslims, Catholics hate Baptists (yet both are Christians), & liberals & neocons agree on all the same core Zionist agendas... Exactly. I'm interested in possible psychological underpinnings beneath political persuasions. In this anonymous girl's case, I don't see a notable connection yet... No confusion. You ascribed certain values to a free market, and I ascribed them to Socialism. Of course, these are all moot points, since these rhetorical charges were merely pretexts for "appeals to authority (mods)" to hopefully silence my dissent. The irony here being that your disdain for authoritarianism...is contradicted by your own continual appeal to authority on every level, from silencing dissent to logical fallacy to desiring more Big Socialist Government regulation. Another interesting thing is how many other Socialists also tend to do that, vaguely replying with a long list of "approved" authors or videos to watch when pressed...rather than simply answering directly and succinctly in their own words and understanding. Perhaps that subjugate copypasta mindset is more suited to Socialism, than freethinking rugged individualists capable of independent thought?

I meant unfortunately "for your theory"... Personally, I see pros and cons to any position, including both selfishness and unselfishness. While the former is more popularly demonized (yet widely-practiced), the latter can also be very harmful to the individual (and more routinely seen amongst the "spiritual" crowd). Current State prop in the US as disseminated by the mass media is also actually Socialist - ergo the repeat election of Obama, Obamacare, etc.... So, it is far from blacked out - but actually the American establishment status quo now. That said, I am not opposed to the idea of pooling resources or any regulation either, in absence of common decency or sense amongst the consumer majority population. But, it must be done carefully under conducive circumstances and conditions to be fair & successful.

Unfortunately, psychological studies (see diffusion of responsibility & tragedy of the commons) have shown that most Westerners will choose individual self-gain over the greater good. So in these cases, Socialism is actually driven by greed, rugged individualism and selfishness...because it allows the individual to unaccountably reap what others sow and enjoy the fruits of their labors. ...And what is more selfish than stealing?

How is her relationship with her father? Well, pseudointellectuals can only name-drop & copypasta dogmatic rhetoric...(what David Icke would term "repeaters"). They can be considered a crude form of artificial intelligence and are the crucial "mob psychology" minions to Bernaysian agitprop by global dictatorships. Only the minute minority of true intellectuals are capable of independent thinking required to formulate their own theses - and see through the Matrix. They are much smaller in number though likely because they were routinely purged throughout history - thus leaving the mass sheeple as the predominant majority.

It's not just lethality, but armor-piercing capability. If a sniper is taking cover inside a car and the cops only had rubber bullets, he could mow them all down as their superballs simply bounced off his car. Whereas actual bullets could penetrate the windows, body, flatten his tires and immobilize the vehicle, etc... But all of this is secondary to the root issues that lie within the problematic communities as the1gza outlined...which reducing law enforcement ALWAYS makes FAR WORSE!!!

Dandruff. Sitting in a cave with no showers =

All of them represent artificial selection, not natural selection. Survival of the fittest is always determined by natural selection ONLY. The ones that survive were the fittest by definition - "fittest" is not predetermined and is unknown until that point. The minute you start tampering with that free market competition, you've already tainted the results and subverted the Divine natural mechanism of quality control and evolution. Simply put - MAN should not be the judge (as in all those examples), NATURE should!!!