NorthWide

Already done in this post with a detailed explanation why. Each political element has it's own set patterns that it operates within. To define each element would be such an extra effort, that would make a demand too inexcusable. But, even to do so, moves the operating flow of the conversation towards groups or people rather than tackling the ideas and patterns that the groups operate with. Unsuccessful people talk about people. Successful people talk about ideas. I am more for getting people to address ideas than allowing people to move the talking points to an unsuccessful state where people are allowed to attack political groups, people or individuals. It is just like making personal attacks. You do not win, you just look mean. I have a firm belief that there is enough of that kind of thing out there on the net. Talking about ideas allows it to remain more neutral and mainstream rather than making any one group out to be bad. Let me clarify. When talk about bad ideas, I may talk about how they originated and how they are used. It does make anyone bad, it just shows that in the long term they were ineffective. Would talking about groups, defining them make it any easier to talk about the ideas? Or would it harden peoples hearts? Why would we ask who was being attacked when we are attacking ideas instead? Its not about people, it is about the ideas people come up with, right? Left means people who belong to the left leaning ideologies such as democrats, liberals, marxists, communists and social marxists. The term exists as a placeholder for where the ideas being attacked came from. Note: I did not use the term political right, because for all intense purposes the political right is dead through stagnant ideas. Conservatives... I used this term because it is more of a stringent minority that holds to less risk taking. In some respects their disadvantage is that they are risk adverse. Meaning that they are less likely to adopt risky behavior like using Economics to boost green technologies. There are other downsides, but, just like the left is also just as susceptable to corruption. They each handle things in different ways. Left leaning politics likes to use government funds. Conservatives like to use corporate funds to handle a project if they can. But, the origination of patterns is sometimes important if you address or attack those ideas. It was never my intention to allow groups to be attacked themselves but to acknowledge ideas and the effects these ideas had so that they can be evaluated. That is why my posts are carefully worded as such. When I use conservatives, it is often used to develop a type of contrast also rather than seeking some erroneous form of absolutism. When I speak of a group, generally there are hardened patterns of behavior that form the center piece of the use of an idea. Does not shifting the perspective away from ideas to groups devolve the conservation into attacks from the vantage point of those ideologies themselves? Yes. It does. Just remember that I will do everything in my power to show it for what it is -if it happens. That is not a threat, it is a promise. To bring you up to speed. I killed name-calling propaganda in this post here: Lets see what happens next...

What does corruption do for you, personally? If bringing attention to unsavory elements of society and how some organizations have been used in a corrupt way, in the rules of spirituality... Causes these to become unraveled and fall apart... How does this come into a discussion of light and dark? Am I deciding balance or does balance happen all by itself? With no matter of causation nothing would happen, but it impossible except in what is called a perfect vaccuum... Which does not exist. So, neither do I decide, nor do you decide balance or light/dark. But dark elements become unraveled when we shine light onto them. So, in a way it is not really deciding light or dark, but we understand what people are a part of by what they do and their actions show what is in their heart. I am trying to help people move past dark oppressive tactics and create new ideas that everyone can benefit from. Is that not what people who belong to the light do? Why would we make a discussion of light and darkness a trivial thing to the point of making light look oppressive?

I willingly concede my own hypocrisy. It is not an excuse when I say that many people have this type of hypocrisy. It is just that in the past especially when I was young I was given much to this kind of hypocrisy. This clouds the issue a bit. Suddenly things may seem murkier and that I may be wrong. That is the triviality of youth and I am above ad hominem because everyone has faults. What I am for is trying to get the word out on things in a meaningful way that expresses ideas that are not anymore governed by the techniques of the left. To begin with, this is kind of a lesson in political science in a way because we had to show a political group their failings by using their own techniques against them. SJWs gave rise to the Anti-SJWs who used social justice techniques against the SJWs. Yes, it looks like hypocrisy. But, it was more grounded in the truth of political science and Daoism because we took their energy, over extended it and turned it back upon them. Further, some groups have the inability to change. Once they latched onto our ideas, thought they had won... They went back to their old ideas and methods. This shows how ideologies die. Ideologies only exist when there are new ideas created and spread. That is why America will remain Multicultural because stagnation does not further the future of anything. The extremist pundits have become very aware of this fact. But, their groups will still cease to exist in the future because they still use old catch phrases. I am not going to correct them because their future has already been decided. Something to be comprehended by future generations. When was it okay that we were able to hypocritically decide when to use the tactics that were used to shame people into accepting or tolerating any random thing? If we are at an impasse to the point that we have to use those techniques to reinstitute reason, does that make them any more good or evil? Such a discussion used to take place in high school when teenagers were still educated about propaganda back in the 90s. such a curriculum as far as I am aware does not exist in schools anymore. Mostly, because the excuse used was that it was less effective to teach people what propaganda was and how to identify it. The implications of such a discussion are not lost on me, because being in a classroom full of people there is a vast majority of other students whose mental acuity would only deem such things as evil. Never coming to the complete understanding that it is a force that can be used for good or evil. In this sense, when we finally have a reckoning about such things the hypocrisy about it really does not exist. It is just that some people understand these things better than others. It does not make any random person that is unaware of it any less of a person. It just shows that some people understand how it works better than other people. When a person uses name-calling like racism or "divisionist"... It really is just propaganda. When people fall for it, maybe they are not fools. But, it is completely apparent that what is at work is these manipulative influencing techniques. But, that is why I would like to see a return to reason, the propaganda does not need to continue if people are willing to consider things from the point of reason. That is where my hypocrisy ends. With completely calling things out as they are. The left's talking point is the point that causes division through name-calling as it's main tactic. As long as people claim something causes divisions just because in circular logic form, it will always be a weak, stagnant and dead idea. I will not revisit it because I just put it in a coffin, nailed it shut and buried it right before your eyes.

Well, the status quo of the previous regime has been challenged by a different political regime. When we see the things that people are calling divisions... Is it because we see them as not inline with our thinking? Or, are the situations that created the divisions really caused by earlier perspectives that were allowed to go unchallenged? Really, it is a combination of the two that causes the pimple to come to a head. One can not say that it is merely because previous ideas that were allowed free reign, nor is it the fact that they have been challenged. One could also say, that children when disciplined "act out" in ways that challenge authority. This really is the case here, but because the status quo went unchallenged, people are upset. People have forgotten the social norms that make life easier. Simple politeness would be a quick fix but when it shows contempt or disrespect like it has, it shows that it is really the problems of the people who think disrespect is an ideal. To accept is to understand the roles everyone plays in it. The people elected Trump and he has things he will do. This happens with any president. I just don't think that one person is responsible for division in this country because the status quo and its ideals has been apparent for a long time and has its own method of operation... Act out if your feelings are challenged. This is a political ideal?

Well, just like when we start meditating... All of the stuff we push down deep comes out and right away it is overwhelming. For a while it almost seems that the act of meditating is to blame. That the fact that you are shining a light into the darkness seems to almost make you think that you are wrong. America has a way to go. But in the end, we have clean fish and a clean lake. Politicians are just humans like everyone else. When the popular opinion holds true to their cause or beliefs, they tend to get behind that idea. When people are following recent fad ideas, news or things or are easily swayed by meager, trivial and baneful ideas... That impedes their skills as civil servants. When people give in to silly things that they can not easily take a position on, democrat or republican they will shift towards conservative views each time. Because, they see the instability of the country. This is very documented. In times of terrorism people become more conservative. That is the glue that pulls people together. Fear. I am not saying that is right, I am just saying that is how things are. Further, it makes it thousands of times easier for me to tell you what the end result will be. It was never the controlled destruction of the Left leaning political views. But, because of high-risk behavior, the Left already implemented its own acts of terrorism that created the atmosphere of fear in this country.

It does. With the changing of hands, the murkiness of the lake comes to light, just like in my fish story. It allows the murky elements to congregate and dare I say it... Be brought out into the open for all to see... The violent protesting, antifa all of the unsavory elements congregating in the murky areas of this lake called America. Because people see it, people are now saying things about it. It all plays a part in cleaning the lake.

Sometimes failures are also the building blocks, our clarity the mortar that we use to cement and build towards success. Priorities. If my silence could be bought... Just kidding :-) I think everyone wants to be able to build things. But, what are they, and is there harmony in them? Good questions... There is a reason for everything when it comes down to basic needs that humans have. Lets say you have a clean lake. You are a fish and you love your lake very much. The carp don't like it that much because they do not understand the difference a clean lake makes. But, humans come along and dump all kinds of mucky stuff. Thecarp love it and they tell you how much it makes them happy. It kills most of your kind because it pollutes your clean lake. You find it hard to grow, survive or find a mate now because things are so muddy. Eventually, you find a way to clean the lake by telling the carp where the muddiest parts are... So, this inadvertently cleans the lake. The carp are upset and you are happy. The end. Sometimes a fresh perspective is what people need.

I have no idea. I may disagree with what people do, but I try to help if they ask for help regarding money or life questions. One person can build nanotubes, still another builds buildings, another builds rockets. One day there will be a person who will be outside the realm of what people see as possible and he will walk among the normal and the poor crowd because it draws no attention. Yeah, this is really sad. Okay, so last month I had been picking around with the minds of young people... I was finding that they are so full of hope some of them and so optimistic for the future. The more I thought of it I began to recall how hopeful and optimistic I was when I was young. The key is that when we experience things we kind of learn either by mistakes that we need to be mindful of certain things. The key is turning some of that off to an extent. I said mistakes 2 sentences ago because it is the strength and the negative experiences that create almost a tulpa of fear regarding even some situations. So, I have been learning to use my experience and turn off a lot of the garbage. I even feel better as well but this is well something I recently created so to speak. Feel free if you would like to play with this new toy. Its not even dangerous and it wont break. The Presidency thing... Pttthhbbbt. Its not that I do not care anymore. People need time to get over the fact that each party takes turns with having their president in office for 2 terms. That is the way it has always been from the beginning of this country. They said bad things about Regan when I was a kid... People said bad thigs about Bush, Clinton, Bush and even Obama. People are always going to have opinions of the president like that.

Well, with the NFL protests I had people actually asking me: "Hey Grant, what is going on here? I thought Trump was trying to bring unity to this country." Okay, the second sentence was not actually said. It was more of an implication of the question. So, I merely stated that Division... That is their reality and what they are focused on. Naturally, this will cause even more division. Because you can not create unity by strengthening your focus on division. Unity happens when you get everyone to go along with an idea. You are going to have some people who have trouble with changes in this country. Then I just summed it up by saying the main point is this: If you focus on division and speak of division you will only have division because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you focus and speak about unity, you will have unity and it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy for you. Naturally, when we speak of will... There is much science involved with it too. Haha. Okay, back to serious. I had a man actually say "so, if I want to become a woman, I just think that and boom I am a woman." (No kidding he really wants to be a woman and this was at my job) So, I really didn't want to make it more difficult for this guy. I could tell that something was going on with him. In fact he has so much "stuff" coming off him he looked like he had been run over by a bus. Some people are very self-defeating. So, I said it is easier to think that good things are coming your way only than to try to change your appearance. There is a lot biologically going on with the human body, much science involved, to change something like that would be to take all of that into consideration. So, I just emphasised that thinking positively and using positive affirmations daily would make the difference in how things are going for you. Actually, this was quite random from my perspective. I tend to enjoy talking about things like Nietzsche, existentialism... How the universe takes a pee. Not because I think my ideas are great. People are great when we sit down like fermented fish like this and we savor the flavor. Funny things mirrors are. I actually got to thinking about that Nietzsche quote a few days ago. It was actually because I noticed that sometimes family members even forget we are living in a civilized society. Hitting the rewind button two years, and spewing many of my ideas about things to family members who are still very staunch liberals would send them into a screaming tirade. Sound human? No? We are not currently living in a time where people openly discuss ideas. If ideas are threatening, we suppress or intimidate others.(Naturally not talking about myself here.) Naturally, in the past I had been known to go on tirades as well. But, this actually opened my eyes to the fact that elsewhere THIS has become the norm. People ACTUALLY behave that way. I could use name-calling but what is the point? Now I just ask questions to get people to think. That is how that mirror worked. When it comes to it many family members elsewhere might "sell out" another family member in theory for a very large sum of money. It sounds like insanity to me. I would like to actually see an increase in loyalty instead otherwise what is a family if you can not count on them? That family members believe in an lying pundit like Bill Maher over their own flesh and blood? That I told them Trump would win over a year in advance and still... The insanity continues because people can't discuss ideas. That is why Political Correctness has to die. There is no sanity as long as it still lives. It became this fire breathing dragon I would love so much to just so murderously kill with no pity or empathy. Something that seemed so good became an evil and we all have to live with it.

Division is just as much a self-fulfilling prophecy as unity. Just as if they were that butterfly. Things happen and embody the attention ascribed to them... You can call it LOA, a coincidence through synchronicity... There have also been many cases where people became fearful, as a hive mind of a particular event. Maybe it is age. I suggest that there are not any coincidences. Coincidence assumes that we are not really doing anything and that not only keeps us from being 'in the now' as well as that we are the victims in the universe. Which we are not. If we speak of Nietzsche on these terms, "how would it be if we claimed that we ourselves had willed it thus?" As for the Universe, no doubt laws are bent, but only in the extreme circumstances. Without matter, no magnetism causes light to actually travel slower than it would through space where matter and magnetism is present. Nietzsche also had a love-hate relationship with Christianity. There were things he would not refute, because in fact he argued against evolution being a major player. This is what makes Nietzsche more of an existentialist: That he talked about things more in terms of people's reactions to given things. When he talked about killing God, he was not really talking about himself, but the perceptions of people. Just like the last quote. He wasn't talking about people specifically or even a particular person because unsuccessful people only talk about people themselves. Instead, he satirically analyzed their ideas and how they affect things. Basically, if x and y happen well, good luck because we are all going to have z. But, yes, the animalization of humanity did continue and you can cross out the last word and willingly insert 'your next of kin'. So, you will find that I didn't really disagree much about the points we spoke of but just expanded on the fact that he was very sarcastic about some of the things he said. Other times like the quote about animals and humans lent himself to an exaggeration almost to the point of saying: 'Oh hey, if humans are really animals then you wont mind throwing a family member a bone in a few years.' Yuks on me.

There is always a place to go. I say here writing a several hundred word explanation, then realized I do not need to write that. What I really needed to say was Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu... They already spoke of the insanity of realizing that they might be something else than what they were. If anyone could explain pushing beyond into that (as our mind falsely claims) insanity... That would be it. I am not saying you are the master of the puppets. Im not saying I control everything either. But when we let go of what we think and just try with most or all our effort, something amazing happens. When we get to technical, we lose it. It has something to do with slowing down or interfering because our mind begins reeling... "Insanity! Insanity!" it yells. But when we firmly believe in what we are doing... It doesn't make things happen. That is where people fail. What it DOES do is allow us to try. I want to hear them. If you met me in person you would think that Donald Trump and I grew up together or something. The major distinction is that Trump does listen to few people other than himself. I do listen, still take into consideration what people say. Sometimes I realize there is much confirmation bias, sometimes there are some important truths. It is all feedback in away. Sometimes, simply forgiving people who have done xx thing also has a miraculous effect that people do not understand and it changes the physical world also in ways that people do not understand. So, if there is anything that you can take away from this last paragraph is this: Sometimes there are things that people do not understand, these things do have an effect on everything. So, your opinion does matter even if you think it does not. Which it does.

True. Kind or not, sometimes our age seems like meanness to young people. Compare Kali. Compare Treebeard's "I am on nobody's side because no one is on my side." Just a side point I was thinking about as people point fingers at the wisdom of angry old men. I mean that sarcastically of course. I doubt that having everything literally at people's fingertips will be a positive thing. I never allowed myself that amenity. But, the fact that the time has passed and civil war wont happen. That we wont have the cellulose conglomerate furniture that we have in the future is a far more positive thing. My hope is that eventually that technology will be developed so that we wont have to use trees for furniture in the future. But, thankfully the future is changed and we have far more opportunities now than we previously did. The only thing that is left is for humanity to get over itself. People talk about divisions, but that inself is the dividing factor. Some people do not want to changeor live in a world where people get over their victimizations. But that is what is currently bringing people down. Those are not the thoughts even of Übermensch.

Oh well, The Graphene age is coming. People will actually have phones implanted in their hands. Arrogant minds march on...

I suppose I have something more to add. Even though Nietzsche argues against their being absolute truth... I entirely disagree. Because We have many scientific laws. Even though they may be bent by certain forces at different times... They do not break. Hence, I see Good as order, construction. Evil, destruction, entropy and chaos have the same thread. Randomness is not chaos. Nietzsche Quote: "the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal – a doctrine which I consider true but deadly – is thrust upon the people for another generation… no one should be surprised if the people perishes of petty egoism, ossification and greed, falls apart and ceases to be a people; in its place systems of individualist egoism, brotherhoods for the rapacious exploitation of non-brothers”

I suppose when it comes to it I can sum up my thoughts about politics like this. When it starts there is so much brightness, clearness, hope and righteousness. After 250 the corruption declines and destroys the regime. The Nation is dead. Long live America Version 2. Unless you know it is going to happen and plan your countries demise after 250 years... @Will I think Nietzsche claimed there was no right or wrong. A person, hypothetically speaking, may argue such things independent of nature, order... Rather than faze me I just think to how those discussions usually do not result in either good. So, returning to other postmodern works. I think it is the general idea that is implied by postmodernism is that there is no truth only conclusions. I can think of many people who have also said similar things like "no truth only suppositions". That probably has shaped how I conclude things in my posts. Instead of actually saying okay this is it and nothing else, I just say okay here are some facts, how they make me feel and that is usually what humans do anyway. Some humans just think their points are more important. I don't. If someone is hell bent on doing something wrong... I'm the guy in the corner secretly hoping he will do it and put himself out of his own misery. Nietzsche quote: " To redeem the past and to transform every ‘It was’ into an ‘I willed it thus!’ – that alone I call redemption!" Here, I speak more of the casual nature of much self-fulfilling prophecy, redemption is just reclaiming something for yourself or taking your power back.

Only Jesus saves Acts 2:38

And Sadhguru's synopsis: acts 2:38 Jesus saves

I've noticed the recent trend towards the postmodern supposition. There is something strange and that exerts a force of dare I say fascism upon people in the postmodernism category. Fascism is if you look it up for a real definition the concept of bringing a state, entity or group of things under control usually the threat of some force. Today, people mistake it for previous regimes or ideologies, which really is not the core meaning of it. I wholly agree in favor of using Taoist or Daoist elements in things. But, it is also too my understanding that postmodernism takes elements of the psyche, namely the cognitive categorization of things and certain addictive behaviours. These are in conflict with the Dao as using tricks or elaborate subterfuges are not in harmony with a system (The Dao) that is based upon a live and let live ideal. If anyone wants to create something to aid in changing this type of demagogic behaviour I want to be a part of it. But, the reality is that postmodernism at least for the near future is here to stay. This is because the tools postmodernism uses are way too addictive (a substance) for addicts. Let me briefly cover: There are some ideas that keep postmodernism going. That they fight for the oppressed. In higher level non-dual thinking we realize that the more something is fought against... The stronger it becomes. This ensures the survival of this line of thinking. Second, meager people become adrenaline junkies... Shaming people who have been perceived to have attacked weaker or groups seen as disparaged. They do this easily and win with name-calling. Thus, they win with no real merit of their own against people who may actually have greater skills and merits. Thus, postmodernism is an addicts haven, breeding side ideas and keeping their quo in place. There is no answer to it until a new quo is devised. The next stage which will be out of necessity from society decline from the addiction of postmodernism. It will most likely be a four-tier merit based caste system because no one wants to be untouchable and we all learned this from the postmodern era (now) which is soon coming to an end. Having sprained my ankle, I have a bit more time now to devote to posting. I have to agree with your findings, Marblehead. The only thing I have to add is that he led a tormented life. Something I can identify with. He also later argued against the impossibility of an evolutionist scenario as time went on. But for budding and continuing Atheists there are still other concepts to wet ones curiousity. God's Debris, pantheism or even Hindu thought that are unique ideas. Nothing magically exploding and creating ordered systems definately still attributes a measure of magical thinking, as humans we never got away and it still haunts the deepest regions of our psyche. Nietzsche's search for the self is probably more a characteristic of a self-realization one of non-duality. He didn't have the chance to complete this type of self-actualization. If he did we could say he was the first western non-dual thinker.

I am glad that was what started it. I suppose I should say his writings if you look at them from a state of balance, show he is searching for something. But, he feels established rules and order were too restrictive. So, he turns and attacks these... Rather ruthlessly may I add. Sometime back, people showed me how different philosophies fit into different groups. I struggled to try to see the patterns other people had developed. Later, after my own thought experiment which I raised the question if critical thinking was the way to go... I explored "Life is not fair" and other negative destructive types of thinking. This from previously thinking that life is fair. In reality now, I believe life is fair. You can make it unfair due to your thinking. Amrit is the nectar of immortality but Amrit is also used in Sanskrit to make up words that mean "of good spirit" or "of spirit causing good". Now I merely see Nietzsche's works as self-defeating and self-destructive. That type of thinking seems to limit the minds ability to see beyond what it wants to tear down. The problem was not that the things he attacked were wrong or oppressive. It was that he could not see the good in things. Nietzsche was my go to guy for tearing down established thinking. But the real result is that you just end up tearing down yourself. Probably why people think he is a nihilist. But I think philosophy classifications are pure BS. Just because if you classify something as X then it is a protected thing. I just look at things the way they are. The fact is Nietzsche really limited himself. People can probably argue a lot till their blue in the face. It wont make me change my mind because these whole subsets of "lets tear down God because I love X type sin" is really what it is about. It doesn't allow anyone to look coy and say oh this guy is a righteous zealot. For the main fact that Nietzsche never aspired anyone to be great, only to tear down people who were actually bigger and better than him. Today people think he is a saint. That is a joke.

I remember I used to quote him all the time. After a while I figured out he was a dickweed that just wanted the world to burn.

INTJs are usually the scientists, sometimes they mastermind evil plots. They are the focused and decisive thinkers in the world.. Which is good if INT ends in P or S they endlessly work on problems and drag their feet. As an ENTJ I found throwing people like the aforementioned directly into situation or conflict scared them into achieving results they were later happy with... Turning them more INTJ... That is a good question. Rather than an easy answer try Alan Watts on "why we need enemies" and if you Have access to Milton Erickson's books/volumes I would say "frames of reference" may have meaning when we talk about desensitization to vivid imagery. Always someone throwing the baby out with the bath water, but not everyone likes everything you know.

[video] [/video]