futuredaze

Yeah, what I was implying and maybe should have said was, "hitting a child for no reason." Really, hitting anyone for no reason is clearly wrong both morally and spiritually. Of course people can justify it but that doesn't make it right. Mostly people, in their hearts and their minds, know it is wrong. Evil is never necessary. For instance, killing is wrong, but killing in self-defense is a right we have both legally and biologically. Thus, something that is normally wrong can be right in given circumstances. That doesn't prove that right and wrong are up to us to define, just that what is right and wrong not only depends on the action, but the situation. I am not proposing that all opinions and scenarios have a clearly defined "right" and "wrong" -- however, there are many scenarios which do, based on the definition of "good" and "evil" that I mentioned before. When people grey the boundary between right vs. wrong, it can be easy to justify something which, to somebody with a fuller understanding of right and wrong, is clearly wrong. Evil does not "get things done quickly." Perseverance, prudence, focus, and good work-ethic do. Both good and fucked up people have those qualities. "If evil make the hard unpopular decisions" - That only depends if the decision is an overall good. If a bunch of people call a person evil, that doesn't necessarily make them evil, but it might depending on the circumstances. "Good intentions can wreck havoc" - While that is true, I could say that bad intentions and actions can ultimately bring about good things. Does that make them "good?" No. Actions are right or wrong irrelevant to the consequences. Generally, if you do good things, good things will happen to you. However, like I said before, it is not just the action, but the situation, too, that makes something right or wrong. Bad things do happen to good people, but generally more bad things happen to bad people than good people. Karma exists, but good luck understanding how it works!

For those who wonder: is there an objective difference between good and evil, or, can anybody provide an objective definition for "evil?" ... I have heard a good explanation/answer. In my opinion it is very clear, simple, and agreeable: Good is that which benefits life and brings more freedom. Evil is that which harms or destroys life and takes away freedom. Of course there is some subjectivity to certain things being "good" or "bad." There are customs, taboos, etc., that vary from culture-to-culture. And yet, most people around the world would agree that doing something like hitting a child, enslaving someone, etc. are wrong. People who disagree with that would be considered psychopathic or mentally sick, and rightly so.

Sorry double post. (please delete.)

I tripleposted this. whoops!

I am not of the Alt-Right, but I don't let the media conditioning shape my views of them. I have no fear of them, and I think some of the less extreme ones actually make some good points. Extremists in any group are retarded. Moderate leftists might want the rich to be taxed more, or some socialized medicine, but the extreme ones are flying the U.S.S.R. flag, punching Trump supporters in the face, and breaking glass and taking pictures with their $800 smart phones. Moderate conservates will want less government and States Rights, but the extremist ones want all our laws to be in harmony with the Bible. Likewise, a moderate alt-right people might want a border wall, stronger immigration laws, and a realistic discussion on race relationships. The extremist ones will wish for genocide or something sinister. Should the extremists represent their respective groups? I'd say no, and there needs to be some clear discernment when looking at these groups.

By the way, in my journey of understanding the Alt-Right I quickly learned that Richard Spencer is something like the fake poster boy of the Alt-Right, who actually has strong socialist leanings. Quite ironic, and funny. Of course, different people define the Alt-Right in different ways, but this one was the most convincing I saw: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

Yeah, racism does exist on the Alt-Right. It also exists on the Left too, in probably just as wide abundance as on the Alt-Right. I've looked into the Alt-Right. Now, I know some simpletons probably think it is because I am of the alt-right, but I would claim that they are projecting their own simple way of looking at reality unto me. I've looked into the Alt-Right because I want to understand it, first and foremost, before judging it. It is obvious to me that the media wants to present certain groups a certain way, to fuel blind emotion, and I don't play those idiotic games. To sum it up, what is defined as "Alt-Right" is a pretty big umbrella term. You will get civic nationalists like Donald Trump in that group, and then you also get more hardcore nationalists, Christian nationalists, white nationalists, legitimate neo-Nazis, etc. Of course some of these people are racist, but I think it is foolish to believe all of them are. They all pretty much just want closed borders and a mostly homogenous society. If that is racist than the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, and pretty much the whole world is racist because that is just how people are. Why is it only the Western, Caucasian countries get called "racist" for preferring homogeneity? Keep in mind that after the Roman Empire started allowing the Goths into their empire, within 10 years the Goths killed a Roman Emperor, and within 40 years they sacked Rome. Look at what happened to the Native Americans. Look at Tibet. Mass immigration almost always leads to war, or at the very least tremendous conflict. I wish it weren't so, but I don't let my emotions influence how I see history and human nature. I used to be a libertarian, but at some point I had to drop all labels. I just vote on the issues, and in some ways I am very liberal (social matters), and in some ways I am conservative (economics), and in some ways I am an anarchist (I hate all those who try to rule over others). I think the U.S. immigration laws are suicidal, but I have no problem allowing immigrants from all over the world here, I just think there has to be a very strict filtration system and strong borders (meaning those on the left would call me a Nazi and the Alt-Right would call me a cuck, but I don't care).

Considering I don't believe that, there is no possibility of me bringing that up. The only racist is the straw man in your head. I am just saying people are different. Not just because of ethnic background, but that is of course one of the factors. However, I look at people as individuals for their actions, first and foremost. Ethnicity/race is something I do not focus on when I meet a new person, for instance. If you can construe that as "racism," then I say you are doing a 1984 of the definition.

Created equal in what sense? Spiritually? I would say yes, in the sense that we all have the potential to realize the truth, experience freedom, and manifest good in the world. (However, just because we are equal in spiritual potential doesn't mean we are equal in spiritual development) Intellectually? Nope, we aren't equal in this way. Physically? Nope. Psychologically? Nope. Emotionally? Nope. to be treated equal under law: Yes, I definitely agree with this one. and I also think we should just treat people with a basic sense of goodness. However, of course we treat people differently. I will treat my shy co-worked differently than I treat my very sociable co-worker. Does that mean I think one of them is better a person than the other? No, it doesn't. And while the term "melting pot" derives from older ideas, the first time those ideas were expressed in the term "melting pot" was that play, as the Wikipedia clearly states: "The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name, first performed in Washington, D.C., where the immigrant protagonist declared: Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to—these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.[11]"

Interestingly enough, the term "Melting Pot" to describe the United States was first used by a British Jew who, from what I remember, never even visited America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Melting_Pot_(play) Also, the earliest immigration law favored European immigrants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 I'm not trying to suggest the U.S. should be a white-only nation. I merely share this information to disprove the notion that America was founded with the intention to be a melting pot of the world. It is important to know IMO. I am not a "white nationalist," but I do believe that if a culture gets too multicultural, conflict and war usually follow. I agree strongly with the "Middle Way," so I think that having few migrants, the most skilled and pro-America, are more than welcome here. I genuinely believe these people enrich America greatly. However, this tolerance must have its logical limits. Call me a bigot, but I think it is safe to say that a person living in Poland, Spain, or Norway, for instance, would have an easier time integrating to America than an African who came from an indigenous tribe. When Western nations adopt millions of third-world migrants, third-world problems seem to be the inevitable outcome. To sum it up: If your borders are too open, you get all the crap. If your borders are too closed, you miss out on the gems. btw, I consider America to be a unique country, as it is one that is founded on a Constitution with Natural Rights endowed by the Creator. So, I could easily understand if a country, like Poland or Hungary, want to close off their borders to remain ethnically homogenous, but I would apply a different standard to the United States.

IMO the "Alt-Right" seems to encompass both people who are white supremacists AND those who simply believe in separation, or the fact that it is okay for white people to have pride in their heritage too. Now, supremacists of all sorts are terrible human beings. The people who are supremacists tend to be the least competent and intelligent of their "group," which is rather ironic. They hide from their own insufficiency by attaching to this idea of "superiority" through their genetic heritage. I love Western Civilization. I love America (at least in terms of the essence it tries to embody, through the Constitution, rather than the flawed human execution of that essence). I am proud of my European heritage. However, I am no supremacist. I hate supremacists. I think that migration, if done in a small amount, gradually, and targeting the best people, is OK. but forced mass migration of people from vastly different cultures who don't want to integrate is stupid and possibly even suicidal. This is the distinction that needs to be made. A lot of the extreme left tries to group those two things together. I am a very tolerant person, and yet I also acknowledge that the globalist powers at be try to exploit people's tolerance/niceness into making them accept a mass-invasion of big government-supporting people. I can not tolerate such manipulation, stupidity, and evil.

U.S. less free than some countries? Sure. Maybe Iceland, Switzerland, and a few others. U.S. the LEAST free country in the world? Bullshit. Many countries don't have freedom of speech, property rights, right to bear arms, etc. Looks like an anti-Trump hit piece wearing the disguise of an "objective statistician's breakdown."

I recently got some coffee from Tanzania- called "Peaberry Ruvuma." It is really nice! Creamy, rich, and earthy. Dunno if it has anything to do with the "peaberry" type of bean. I never heard of that before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaberry I think coffee from Africa is my favorite. Ethiopian, in particular, has that slightly blueberry taste which surprisingly goes great with the rest of the coffee flavors. My speculations would suggest that since coffee originates from Africa, that the plants might be better adapted to the climate and soil there. Of course, I also had really great coffee from other places, and the fresh stuff when I travelled in Guatemala was hard to beat! Very nice chocolate taste (cacao is from there, anyway).

IMO the political landscape is a microcosm and reflection of the amplification of the forces of TRUTH and LIES. The Internet, in many ways, was a main catalyst in this. Trump probably wouldn't have won, if not for the Internet (IMO), and a lot of the international elite corruption would be much less known. It isn't RIGHT vs. LEFT, but RIGHT vs WRONG. The spiritual world is real - and the forces of Truth (Light) and Lies (Darkness) are real. People are fired up, because to some Trump is the savior of Western Civilization, and to others he is Hitler on Steroids.

The Asshole Chakra.

This kind of stuff melts my mind... even when I am sober.

Really enjoying this track lately:

It is like a combination of cubism and "watching paint dry." I like it just because it is probably a good conversation starter.

by Vladimir Kush

Lately, I have been following the anonymous 4chan/8chan poster Q ANON. At first I was fascinated, but skeptical. Now, although I am still skeptical, I think there is something to it, I just don't know what that is yet! First some background - "Qanon or Q, are thought to be members of the American Military Intelligence that serve at the pleasure of the President." Nobody knows exactly Q's identity, or his/her/their relationship to the president (if there is any), but this anonymous entity posts a lot of things that strangely coincide with President Trump's tweets and political events in general. If Q is right, there is currently a covert war going on in intelligence communities right now between pro-elite and pro-American factions, and "there are more good than bad." So far, the most convincing proofs (or maybe coincidences is the better word) in my opinion: 1. For a while Q was posting "follow the white rabbit" the Alice & Wonderland (also used in The Matrix) reference. Later, one of the anonymous posters for Q to get Trump to use the phrase "tip top" at the State of the Union to prove his legitimacy. Although Trump didn't do that, he did use the phrase in a strange way at an Easter event... standing right next to a white rabbit! (https://i.imgur.com/e3hx5Yg.png) 2. After Q's most recent disappearance. Q returns with the first line "From sea to shining sea." Something like 5 minutes later, Trump is at a veterans event of some sort, and the song "America the Beautiful" is playing. During the part where they sing "from sea to shining sea," Trump points at his ear as if to say "listen" and "pay attention. Besides the pointing, the look on his face changes. Again, not irrefutable proof, but a fascinating, crazy coincidence! 3. Trump has pointed to many people with Q shirts and signs. The only time his press secretary was asked about Q, she dodged the question. Trump has yet to be publicly asked about Q. 4. Before Trump made a deal with Kim, Q posted that it had happened. Could just be a good guess... There are more posted in the "Qproofs" link, if you want to see for yourself. Just recently, Q posted something about the Trump team having not just one sever (of HRC/the Democratic Party) but two severs. And then today, BAM! I saw more information leaking about this. Some of the "proofs" are a bit of a stretch... but it presents a good mental exercise to try to see if we can infer any causality between the events, or if they are just random or purely coincidental. Subreddit of Q fans and researchers... which is easier to navigate than the chans: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/QProofs/top/?t=all Two intro videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVSvtNH_tU0 https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8tlxp0/5_minute_video_q_for_beginners/ I am not trying to convince you of anything about Q, but just to spark your interest to do your own research if you want, and to form your own opinions. My mind still isn't made up, but I do think there is something to it. Perhaps Q is somebody who is part of the Trump administration, who uses Q as an alternative "channel" to boost the morale of his supporters, interacting with them in a way that no other president has ever done. Perhaps Q is just a role-player with a good sense of prediction, and can rely on the fact that humans like to explain any event and phenomena based on their belief system, not pure rationality. Since Q was recently discussed by the mainstream media, I figure this is a good time to bring it up. Of course, the mainstream media likes to depict it as a fringe right-wing conspiracy, or a cult. But I never heard of a cult that has no visible leader, central location, manipulation of members, etc. Regardless of if Q is real or not, the fact that Q supports Trump and likes to post stuff that is anti-elites, anti-global government, of course the media will try to portray Q in a negative light. Edit: Here are ALL the Q posts if you want to do your own independent research. http://qposts.online/

Maybe more of a short prose than poetry, but very poetic: The City of the Dead by Khalil Gibran Yesterday I drew myself from the noisome throngs and proceeded into the field until I reached a knoll upon which Nature had spread her comely garments. Now I could breathe. I looked back, and the city appeared with its magnificent mosques and stately residences veiled by the smoke of the shops. I commenced analyzing man's mission, but could conclude only that most of his life was identified with struggle and hardship. Then I tried not to ponder over what the sons of Adam had done, and centered my eyes on the field which is the throne of God's glory. In one secluded corner of the field I observed a burying ground surrounded by poplar trees. There, between the city of the dead and the city of the living, I meditated. I thought of the eternal silence in the first and the endless sorrow in the second. In the city of the living I found hope and despair; love and hatred, joy and sorrow, wealth and poverty, faith and infidelity. In the city of the dead there is buried earth in earth that Nature converts, in the night's silence, into vegetation, and then into animal, and then into man. As my mind wandered in this fashion, I saw a procession moving slowly and reverently, accompanied by pieces of music that filled the sky with sad melody. It was an elaborate funeral. The dead was followed by the living who wept and lamented his going. As the cortege reached the place of interment the priests commenced praying and burning incense, and musicians blowing and plucking their instruments, mourning the departed. Then the leaders came forward one after the other and recited their eulogies with fine choice of words. At last the multitude departed, leaving the dead resting in a most spacious and beautiful vault, expertly designed in stone and iron, and surrounded by the most expensively-entwined wreaths of flowers. The farewell-bidders returned to the city and I remained, watching them from a distance and speaking softly to myself while the sun was descending to the horizon and Nature was making her many preparations for slumber. Then I saw two men laboring under the weight of a wooden casket, and behind them a shabby-appearing woman carrying an infant on her arms. Following last was a dog who, with heartbreaking eyes, stared first at the woman and then at the casket. It was a poor funeral. This guest of Death left to cold society a miserable wife and an infant to share her sorrows and a faithful dog whose heart knew of his companion's departure. As they reached the burial place they deposited the casket into a ditch away from the tended shrubs and marble stones, and retreated after a few simple words to God. The dog made one last turn to look at his friend's grave as the small group disappeared behind the trees. I looked at the city of the living and said to myself, "That place belongs to the few." Then I looked upon the trim city of the dead and said, "That place, too, belongs to the few. Oh Lord, where is the haven of all the people?" As I said this, I looked toward the clouds, mingled with the sun's longest and most beautiful golden rays. And I heard a voice within me saying, "Over there!"

Bill Maher vs. Q. Or, Bill Maher brings a popsicle stick to a flamethrower match. Read the comments.

Probably the best video I've seen on Q anon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3KGT_YboSA

On a practical level, even if Q has no connection to the Trump administration, if he functions to expose the truth, and boost morale, then that is a very positive function. The only downside I see is that people are being divided through this movement. I don't think this is Q's intention, but more coming from the Q-skeptics who see Q as a crazy conspiracy that paints their side in a bad light. Of course, now that the MSM is involved, they will also be trying to create divisions. Ultimately, the important thing is TRUTH and JUSTICE. If Q wakes people up to the corruptions of the world order and deep state, then that is a good thing. Who Q is really doesn't matter too much.