NorthWide

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I breathe at least 108 times a day.  Does that count?

 

Awesome!  Very well played.

 

Well, I am kind of in a hurry to get back to practicing my stuff.  I realize the bar I set... 20 thanks is a bit much.  So, I will go ahead and post the practice.  I will additionally add something which I do not often add.  Which is that people that live free of the concepts that make people feel generally stuck have a faster chance of success. If you use mantras before hand, cleansing ones like STREEM, Ganesha, or any of the Tibean mantras that clear you that contain BEKANZE or BEKANZA, or other supplications that clear as well as a Stillness-Movement practice... All of these types of things tend to speed up the activation of it.

 

Final Warning I give beforehand is that some mantras are specifically sacred. Meaning that people who would treat it in a worthless way find themselves in a type of negative contagion or entanglement.  When I have warned people of this in the distant past, this went unheeded.  Do not make this misteak.  You have to put your full feeling, devotion and thanks into this practice.  It is probably the most powerful thing in existance beside KREEM as a mantra or the one I explain in the spoiler.

 

https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/290882

Hmm.  Okay, I have decided to get really serious about this.  I hardly ever share specific practices anymore BUT...

 

That can all change.  What if I told you that you could repeat something 108 times a day... That would put you in touch with the divine masculine.  All you have to do is be consistent have 100% dedication and devotion to the practice -and do this every day until you do not need to anymore.  Which can be 21-100 days depending on how firmly you put your faith into it.

 

If I get 20 thanks for this post I promise to post it.  It is simple.  Its not a shakti or a bija... This method is like an atomic crack ride.

Can I get 20?

 

 

Want Ad:

Quote

 

Sacred Masculine classes.

Women only.

Preferably virgins.

And rich.

With good circulation.

 

Also, teaching turtle back yoga.

First lessons free, $450 monthly.

Must be ready, willing and eager to study something that takes up a lot of space.

In your brain. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Its fine and interesting, I just resented the implication that Luke and others are all malfunctioning. . Hes keeping his cool in the face of considerable opposition. 

Whats he supposed to say ? Im sorry about the magnetic field ?

 

I was thinking about this stream I often would spend time by as a kid.  Even as thought streams go.  Some people throw rocks and pebbles in and still the beautiful stream keeps beautifully moving onwards.

 

Kind of like a discussion of the scouts.  I went back a bit through the posts, but I do not really see "opposition" it is just a rolling stream.

 

@rene I like the merit badge.  It is spacey.

2 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Actually, no.  I`m not so confused.  I just have a bad habit of thinking of other Bums as my friends and talking to them as my friends.  Some people are friendly, of course, but others approach conversation like a boxing match and are quick to exploit any perceied weakness.  If I don`t want to be treated like a punching bag, I shouldn`t even hint at the possibility of finding anything confusing.  Lesson learned, I guess.

You are not a punching bag.  We are not treating you like a punching bag.

 

Simple.  Your words and you position are not you, or yourself.  Most conversation on here is pretty much like that.  I imagine there may be some people who just think of it in terms of people.  But, just because they disagree does not mean that they are not your friends.  I mean, people like me do take very strong positions on things.  In fact, some of peoples views are deeply involved in very personal experiences that have developed over a very long time.

 

I sympathize with you because some peoples attachments to their views or ideas are very strong.  But, just because they are willing to talk about their ideas still means they want to interact with you which means that they care enough about you to do so.  If you see people stop talking or conversing, it is much like overpetting a cat.  The cat becomes frustrated and rrreeoow!  So, likely people become tired of some types of conversation as well.

 

So, pet your friends.  Just don't overpet.  rrreeoow!

5 hours ago, rene said:

 

Me too...but it raises some interesting (rhetorical) questions. Are whites/blacks/etc only groups then  deemed racist? Is a no-Gays group homophobic? Is a Gay-only group heterophobic?

 

Maybe our default position is valid... and the raison d'etre of the individual group determines appropriateness.

 

 

I think in the Dolezal case a big part was not only the whiteness... but the deception

@rene

That has always shaped my perceptions of things.  Years ago I thought, gee some of these people are seriously maligned... We need to help them.  But in doing so... We just come full circle to understanding that each element of society as you said has it's raison d'etre.

 

So, already we have groups that are pushing against the grain en masse.  The voice they have publically is that their point must be accepted.  (Tolerance implies that Intolerance exists).  Sublimated to the highest spiritual energy of a thing in LOA is actually the want for them to be accepted.  But, as groups gain power and influence any said group becomes totalitarian in enforcing its aims.  Meaning that the secret wants they have had is to make more proselytes.  This is essentially how liberalism dies.  Once the ideas of championing the underdog has made them the alpha dog... The movement toward totalitarian goals have already been achieved.

 

So, my aims, what has never been said until now... Is this:

That all things possibly need to be challenged or protected.  Since that is not something that can be used as a LOA point of manifestation... It is simply that people need to come together to a point of unity.  That cannot be used either as an LOA point because the oppositional point exceed the ability to manifest.  Thus, one has to find a subset of ideas.  A vehicle from which all people can agree upon that is the sublimation of these ideas.

 

I agree that each motivation and political group has its own raison d'etre.  But we can see that in America "all Men are created equal and created with certain unalienable rights"  was not, or is not good enough for some groups.  Because we are still dealing with the ideas that some people could somehow be oppressed.  When in reality we all have everything we need to achieve greatness or have forgotten that.  Let me illustrate, in my pre-right ideology way by championing a cause I do not believe in.

 

Lets say for example I decide to identify as bird-kin.  The fact that many people identify with birds is a factor.  Thus bird-kin exist. The fact that bird-kin might be oppressed because some people do not identify with birds is probably a factor that could be debated.  Because people might disagree or impune things wrongly because a person takes a strong position helps identify the dichotomy that develops.  When we start to create a dichotomy of sorts, it starts to set up the failure to begin with.  That is why post-modernist thought was such a helper.  If a people or group is oppressed, we should try to alleviate that oppression.  Right?  But, this exemplifies some of the fallacies of this potential.  For each group that wins according to this subset, another will mysteriously arise to the same.  So, if we keep this in place we can't really solve the real issues because we will always have more of the same.  Post-modernist thought will always be seen to be right and constantly gratify and prove it is right with each group that is championed at each turn.  It becomes an obsession and an addiction because it provides ready and accessible emotional gratification.  Post-modernism always dictates that people who do not champion the cause of the underdog are evil and vile people.  Thus, we made something so great... Who can speak against it, even if we really wanted to find something more effective?

 

So, in the end... I took up the mantle of being specifically against that kind of thing.  Because I firmly believe that it is somehow possible to bring the world back into balance by finding something that everyone can latch on to that will unify people.  If people stay in the idea that some things oppress others, there can be no point of LOA manifestation for that.  But if people can somehow find that there are sets of doings that impress the need for success in any given endeavor... We then circumvent the need for the post-modernist school of thought.

 

The world changes constantly.  Every day, we see that much hard and fast rules that we held to... Have easily proved futile.  But, the more people are realizing that the false dichotomies we use only serve themselves as a vehicle for oppression rather than the specific groups themselves.  The closer humanity is to understanding this failing in impeding and stifling the manifestation helps us find a better vehicle and point of manifestation for alleviating suffering.

Acts 2:38

 

4 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

No more boys and girls.  No more men and women.  We all become self-propagating.  Do your own thing.

 

 

Maybe this bubble thing is underrated.  I could create my own little bubble as well and declare everything else hurtful and harmful.

 

It might just be fun.  Really.  Simply Immaculate or Simply Obama Nation... No those were not ideological slurs dont hurt me with your shaming... no...

On 10/16/2017 at 3:44 AM, windwalker said:

 

They do until things get so out of wack that it starts to interfere with their lives. 

Unfortunately  once it reaches this point it may already be to late..... 

 

The reality is many people do not know what tomorrow will bring.

 

Where I live, most people get drunk all the time and have a lack of education, history and life experience to form developed conclusions.

 

If you were to take away everyone's addictions... It proves this quite well that people so clouded by their various kinds of wants and addictions do not seek to be better people.  They just want to stay in the warm goo that they are in.  This goo is basically ignorance because it protects them from seeing things as they are.

 

Its like the Buddhist parable of the Bird, horse and cat.

 

The bird is freezing in a snowstorm, falls into the snow and is convinced he will freeze to death.

The horse comes along and takes a big healthy shit on the bird.

The bird thinks oh man, it can't get any worse...

But then he realizes... I am warm!  He starts singing he is so happy.

A cat comes along, pulls him out of the shit and eats him.

 

The shit symbolizes ignorance.

The bird symbolizes the traveling initiate

The horse symbolizes the common folk

The cat represents a corrupt person.

 

The moral of the story is that not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.

Not everyone who pulls you out of shit is your friend.

When you are in deep shit, don't sing.

 

It is something of a complex object lesson.  Ignorance always exists and provides a measure of protection to prevent harm.

But, there will always be some corrupt people as well who under the guise of "knowing how it is, tell people what they want... Or even what they think people want to hear."  So, when things get political, it often is not always what it seems because Ignorance and corrupt people make up the majority of what is said.

 

I have learned my lesson from this as well.  How does one swim in shit to save people from bad ideas?  Truth is you don't.  They have to find their own way out.  Enlightenment and upwards is like a harsh cold blizzard.

 

Something I have tended to leave out until now... Who is singing the loudest (consider the message in the Media, what is reported) and what is the message today?  It is hard to hear, but it allows people to really evaluate what is going on here.  It allows me to finally complete the object lesson without pointing fingers at anyone.

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Good point about people living in fantasy worlds.  Can't seem to accept reality and try to change what they feel is bad.

 

Again, my old-fashionedness, Boy Scouts means it is scouting for boys.  Girl Scouts is for girls.  Won't be long they will be integrating YMCA and YWCA.

 

People can't even figure out what sex they are.  Something wrong somewhere.  But then, I may be wrong and it's all Nature's Way.

 

 

Nature does not use man-made tactics or man-made ecology to enforce ideas... Only people do that.

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

If this thread is any indication, one thing`s for sure: the "silent majority"  -- not so silent.

 

I personally think there is value in both separate and mixed gender groups.  It`s not either/or.

 

Of course.  But people want you to think that.  Its MOSTLY convoluted and distorted views and assumptions that exist... Not actual reality.

 

Thats why people are so caught up in their fantasy worlds of different kinds.  No wonder they have sentamentalist views.  - Because it is all them.  Bring on cannibalism... I don't give a fuck.  Just don't let kids get hurt.

I think it might be a good thing... we have to just wait and see of course.

 

I tend to disagree with the idea that Boy Scouts was an abusive organization.  One or both my parents were present at troop meetings and all activities.  Parents should be a part and present at such things because it protects kids.

 

But, the thing that I don't get is that there were girls in Boy Scouts even as far back as my childhood.  So, I do not see what the big deal is.  I mean there was not a lot of paperwork involved (as far as I know) and maybe they fudged things a bit in Vermont (Where I lived back then).  We didnt have camping trips or anything like that.  In fact some of the Scout leaders were women, even though it might not have been Kosher to what Boy Scouts demanded.  Just saying.  I mean there were male scout leaders... But the moms did most of everything.  The leadership was just all show.  I know I am stepping on some feet here, but most of us who maybe lived in the northeast where things always were a bit different probably know what I mean.

 

I think keeping women in organizations that involve children are a good thing.  If something is going on, the women are more easily approachable especially if there was abuse.  As far as I remember they were very mentally balanced.

 

I think abuse has become demagogic in our age.  I would like to see people trying to prevent abuse rather than simply labeling religion or a group as abusive.  This kind of thing has gotten out of hand and people can't accept responsibility for things if we go around blaming a bunch of perceived pedobears when people do nothing to get involved to prevent it.  I think it makes the people pointing fingers just as much to blame.  If you have children and they are a part of something, try to be present or be a part in it if you can.  I know that is not always possible but I think that is something anyone can do to prevent child abuse.  It is one of the few causes I really believe in.  Just being there means all the world to children.  If everyone did their part there would be much less child abuse in the world.  That is also why I do not think sex-ed should be taught by anyone other than teachers and parents.  There is too much abuse going on when activist groups come to schools bringing porn paraphernalia to push their ideas on impressionable children.  This is a greater danger than the catholic church and ensures some children a lifetime of depression and unhappiness due to accepting a lifestyle that is destructive.

Acts 2:38

 

INNVENNTORR KING OF THE SHISHKEBAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Too bad he is not here to appreciate it.  Ron Jeremy that is.

 

At least there are enough funny posts of his still around.

 

16 hours ago, thelerner said:

Thank you, but justice..  there's no crimes here, just people annoying each other in midst of stating there opinions.  When we start taking the forum too seriously, letting it affect our mood in real life then its probably time to take a break or ignore the nastier heated threads for a bit.   Arguing and even reporting is fine, but after a while, state your truth and walk away.   Generally that shows more eloquence and maturity then the wittiest insult or come back. 

 

Well said; Could not have said it better myself.

Congratulations Rene, may the forum continue on.

 

Thank you to thelerner for his service.  May justice continue to be served.

On 10/2/2017 at 5:12 AM, Marblehead said:

Hi Rabbit.  I hope you aren't leaving us.  I have enjoyed our discussions.

 

You are correct.  We cannot change other people who already have fixed understandings and refuse to consider alternative perspectives.

 

Freedom of speech is fine as long as it is not done in front of a captive audience who gathered, not for what you have to say, but for some other reason.  The listener must also have freedom of speech and the freedom to voice their opinions and understandings.

 

I hope you hang around so that after we get done talking about other people we can talk about how we, the individual, can attain peace and contentment.

 

 

I am all for people's personal opinions.  Maybe someday when fear doesn't get the best of people they can talk about ideas.  Instead of feeling like they have to take a manipulative position.  But, my attempt to talk about ideas is over because people can not talk about ideas.

 

Peace and contentment exists within,  as ideas go, as long as these are too caught up in talking about people or groups they wont be in the now so that they can talk about ideas.  There in lies the rub.  Higher development always has a specific set of prerequisite patterns of behavior.  It is not that I am here to force things on people, but to show now what is lost by decisions we make that affect others.  The shift has it's own set of implications.  So, we will see now what happens when ideas go unchallenged.

 

I do appreciate our conversations and dialogue much.  After I have meditated on the needed changes I need to make to being about my personal shift, I may look forward to future dialogue on the forum.  But, there is a chance too that I may possibly just give up entirely.  Spending several years working on something to make the world more successful was a large personal undertaking and happened due to great personal cost.

 

The fact that some are only living out their own personal fantasies of Les Miserables on the forum is still not lost on me either.  The world is not some fantasy play from a book.  It does not show a spiritual view, Daoism being a spiritual view, and peace and stillness being a major component.  But, humans have paradoxes and trivialities they each have a part in evaluating themselves.  For me, I cannot shift back to the faulty concept of talking about people because it is ineffective, unsuccessful.  So, any future discussions will most likely still be from the perspective of ideas.  It will take some time to integrate all of it.  But, ideas will go unchallenged instead.  That is the end result of this.  If people feel that they want to challenge ideas... I will remind them at every turn that that is what they wanted.

 

Age and experience dictates how we see things.  So, if I stay you will see me posting.  If you don't see it well, it is a function of the end results of things.  I would like to, but like I have said in another post, the lack of support on all terms has been negligible.  So, if people are undervalued, they have a right to say that they do not need to be treated that way.

 

So, I am a meritocrat... Instead of eschewing a whole group of ideas.  Ill just crystallize them. Whats next?

18 hours ago, Marblehead said:

 

Hi Rabbit.  We aren't really too far apart concerning this subject.  You are on a mission, I'm not.

Yes, we must speak out truths.  That means no suppression of ideas and opinions.  Sure, the truth sometimes hurts.  But we all can heal.

 

But let's not lie.  What are the real (honest) reasons we are doing or saying such and such?

 

Modern humans are about 40,000 years old and we still have so many problems to solve.  Makes us look rather inefficient.

 

 

What is there to lie about?  We have seen the theatrics... That was meaningless but to develop how theatrics develop positions. 

 

There real point is that things have become too hardened and that because of deeply entrenched ideas.  I did not really care about destroying the rights of groups or individuals.  I suggest that BECAUSE the sentiment and ideas are way too juvenile that they still think that this is the reason why.  The real reason is that they leave me with no choice regarding the real reason, that being that people SHOULD be allowed free speech for the sake of new ideas and the future.  If that cannot happen, then just like I realized years ago... I actually meditated long and hard on this... The only choice I have is to be a liberal again.  Because, there is one ideology and no one is willing to see different ideas.  So, it is a sad day.  Because people are too wrapped up in their own lies to allow new things to flourish.  Furthermore, family I have uses these same suppressive tactics.  I don't have any more choices anymore.  Without any support I can't continue because it has been years of trying.  I am tired of just going things alone and trying to use theatrics to get people to listen.  I have been alone for just too long.

 

I have no more reasons anymore to post and the mission dies with me.  People want to talk about harm.  Well, it has harmed my life and that is completely it.  Thank you to all who made it possible.  But, I wont allow it to affect the forum, Goodbye forever.

 

 

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Good post.

 

This is all about acknowledging that others may have different opinions than we have.  It isn't defining anyone right or wrong.

 

And we each have the right to hold the opinions we hold as long as we can back them up with reason and logic.

 

But really, after the question has been asked, voices were herd, decisions were made, isn't it time to get back together and work for the betterment of all concerns?

 

This last part is what we are not doing.  No different than what the Palestinians and Israelis.  Demanding concessions before accepting the offer to sit down and talk.  No talks will ever begin if we hold to this mentality.

 

And what's at the root of this?  Respect.  Yes, we must earn respect.  Respect the other's opinions even if we don't agree with them.

 

Where is respect today?  Seems to me we have drifted into a mentality of "all for me and fuck you."

 

 

 

That is where the impasse is, my friend.  But, we still have ideas.  We come up with new ones... spread them.  But the hate... when I speak of hate it is the mere opposition to open expression and free flow of ideas... It is still there.  Because they are not open, they sometimes adapt.  But, we just create new ideas that go under the radar again.  It was never about any group being wrong for me.  It was always about new ideas.  Some people love them and they spread them.

 

Something that is not lost on me, I do thank the psychic who was able to pull me out of melancholy in Michigan, as well as the words of other teachers I have had.  But one thing she said about respect made a large impression on me.  She said respect is a two-way street.  You have to give respect to get respect.

 

That kind of made me realize some things about love as well.  That we actually listen to people is actually a form of love.  It is also a form of respect.  In a way, if we do not listen to people... In a way we are not showing love or respect.  Naturally, this does not mean that we are going to agree with everything a person says.  But, even in my fermented fish sort of way I do respect what people say.  I respect them enough to tell them that if I see something that may not be helpful, I will challenge what they say.

 

No, it really isn't defining anyone for right or wrong because we each have decisions to make, here and now.  Just because someone came up with a bad idea doesn't mean we have to live with letting it define existence.

 

That is probably also why the discussion has been... Slow going?

Maybe some thoughts are way too deeply entrenched to be evaluated?

 

Neither of these things makes people wholly right or wrong.  It is just that what you say and what they have been saying does not make me question my perspective.  It makes me question whether it is right for me to just start nuking ideas in a thread, on any forum... really.  I mean if ideas like these can not be really addressed... Maybe something else has to happen first.

 

The point you made of foreign political bodies is not lost on me.  But, I suggest that such a thing would only anchor it to a concept that could indelibly harden things.  That I can't agree with, though it may be a mistake.

 

Is the concept of attacking bad ideas lost?  Have we done such irreparable damage that we do not have free-thinking human beings?

 

The concept of working toward the betterment of all beings is not lost on me either.  I would like to speed up the process.  But, that does not happen until people start to look at ideas that are bad, ineffectual and start creating new ideas or start thinking about how some ideas could work in their stead.  It does not work for everyone, sadly.  Perhaps, one day I will finish and publish my findings and writings.  Is there a different way to handle the situation?  I am confident inspired minds will prevail, that these ideas will come to be elucidated.

 

@Stosh You also mentioned some things you would like to see.  Lets talk about them and develop working points.

@rene You mentioned that you felt some of the ideas lent themselves towards miscommunication.  I think your feedback is essential.

@Marblehead Doesn't suppression of ideas do worse harm than not allowing facts to be said?  I say it does.  I also know that doing so, will only incur the wrath of people later... As these same people struggle to claim that they "didn't do it".

 

20 hours ago, Stosh said:

Yeah, Fat chance of that. 

 

Already done in this post with a detailed explanation why.

 

20 hours ago, Stosh said:

Speaking just for myself, While i condone the founding principles of maximum liberty and maximum primacy of individual rights..and thus support the theme of our government ideally.. .. the execution of governance has sucked. 

 

Our citizenry, collectively speaking, lacks the sophistication in political understanding  of Hamilton or Jefferson.

 

Even the most basic terminooogy of political thought, is so ....massaged, that they are used with entirely opposite meanings in books articles and interviews. 

 

The political left is not the polemic opposite of conservatism. The political right is not a trend toward Authoritarianism ,according to definition. 

Beyond those words, folks have sentiments, and if one wants to find reconcilliation then such terms really need to be obviated. IMO

 

 

 

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?

22 hours ago, Stosh said:

What do the words LEFT and CONSERVATIVE mean here? 

 

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...

16 hours ago, rene said:

Hiya rabbit-trout (-:

 

Using your lake analogy.... seems what you want is an only-clean lake... but that might not be a healthy balance.

 

Once the carp eat themselves out of food supply & die off, what will keep the incoming detritus at bay? Always there will be decaying trout & assundry flotsam & jetsam.

 

Perhaps your lake can find a range of balance, like the gentle rise & fall of waves, wherein all fish-lives matter. 🦈

 

Can there be dark without light? Light without dark? Do you think you can improve upon nature's balancing act? I dont think it can be done.

 

 

 

 

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?

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Lines have been drawn as to what is generally acceptable and what is not.  Seems that most people want to remove any lines limiting themselves but make the lines more rigid for those who disagree with them.  That is called hypocrisy. 

 

Hypocrisy seems to be a contagious disease in America right now.  And it's not just the politicians - it is the population in general.

 

As it should be:  "Other variants of the Rede include: Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will. An it harm none, do what thou wilt. An it harm none, do as thou wilt. That it harm none, do as thou wilt. Do what you will, so long as it harms none."

 

Rather today it seems that the creed is "Do what thou wilt regardless of consequences and accept no responsibility."

 

When members of Congress say they wish someone would assassinate the President I think we, the people, have lost all respect for our country and have become so self-absorbed that we cannot see reality.

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

Just now, Marblehead said:

I would call that judging the effects without considering the cause.

 

 

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?