Parththakkar12

Now that he is fully beaten in the election, he's like 'Let's behave like a decent person and actually care about the people!' I can only feel bad for poor old Donnie. If only he'd realized that this is the way to win elections.

Ah, what happened to the good old days when we could say 'This is wrong'. That's become too politically incorrect now, I guess. Serious question - Where would you draw the line? Or are we going to say 'Don't you know everything is One? Don't you know that there are no lines?' When is it too much? At what point do we say 'no'? Is saying 'no' politically incorrect now? I will advise you to contemplate these questions. This is cult-like. In fact, this is a cult. This is exactly what a cult does. They will brainwash you with a utopian fantasy, they will tell you to give up all your possessions and then be like 'Oh, you know. It's going to be all peaches and cream.' I will advise you to consider this.

Are you sure you don't want to do everything in your power to weasel your way out of there? Somehow, through corrupt institutions and stuff? Ah, I see. You don't want to increase the corruption in a situation where the public institutions are already weak and where if you increase the corruption, that would lead to more wars. Your morality says that you shouldn't do that for the collective best-interests. You don't want to do what terrorists do, which is bribe the institutions. That's how they may be carrying out their genocides and you don't want to contribute to that, you don't want to be a part of that. Am I right? I have a suggestion for you - integrate Stage Red. Stage Blue is too high for your situation. Respect to you to have your sense of morality in such a dangerous situation. However, having a morality doesn't sound so common there if it's that dangerous and the rules of the battlefield are decided by the one who is willing to stoop the lowest. Or rather, the moralities of the people around you may be very distorted and dangerous, for example the moralities of radical Islamist terrorist organizations. If Iraq really isn't a country and if it really is that dangerous, you may want to look into fighting your way out of there by hook or by crook. When there are no institutions promoting collective safety, it is every man for himself and you're going to have to fight for your individual safety. What do you think? Now that I think about it, I have another possible suggestion. Integrate all the various moralities of the people there and create a new, cohesive morality that promotes peace. This is if you want to live there or if it's too difficult for you to get out of there. I would be too scared to do this though, because the people there are armed. I would need to have a lot of personal power, like the ability to stand up to the violent groups there. I may need to have enough firepower for myself to enforce some rules there myself. First integrate the moralities to create a nice, new morality, then train yourself as a fighter and have your own militia or something to defend yourself and others from the oncoming threats. Then, maybe look into rising to power and uniting the groups there? Saddam 2.0, better this time? I don't know man, I'm just spitballing on this one. Another possibility is to integrate the moralities of people who agree with you, form your group and just fight for your morality? I don't know, that sounds too terrorist-like. It is an option though, if you do it consciously. I wish you the best of luck. You seriously need it.

I totally understand what you're saying. I'm not wanting to claim that it is a country, you'd know that better than me. It doesn't serve my survival-agenda to prove that it is a country. My point, though, is that it could help your survival-agenda to assume that it is a country, especially if Iraqi passports exist. I'm going to tell you why. 'Countries' are how human survival works in today's day and age. Most people know 'Iraq' as a 'country'. So, they will see you as a 'citizen of the country Iraq'. Now, if you want to leave Iraq, you want to be able to tell people where you're from, which 'country' you're from. If you're going to tell people that you're from your city that isn't in a real country, they'll look at you like you're from another planet! Technically, at least for the rest of the world, 'Iraq' is a 'country'. This is not to deny the realities that you've described in your original post. Absolutely, it may not be a democracy and there may not be a legit government, it may just be city-states of sorts.

What you are saying is very interesting to me. I'd never thought of it this way. I am curious - Do Iraqi passports exist? Do you have one? Can you go to a legit country using it? The rest of the world does know Iraq as a 'country'. They'll be like 'Yeah, every country has their internal problems. We're going to consider Iraq as a country, so we consider an Iraqi passport as a legit passport' if it is a legit passport.

This would require so much consciousness on the part of the corporation, it's ridiculous. The corporate CEO would need to see oneself as someone leading their collective, which is the corporation, to financial abundance and prosperity. It would require conscious leadership. This is not what we currently have. What we currently have is corporate bosses only thinking about filling their pockets. Same goes for their highly-paid employees. Everyone involved would have to be in their Life Purpose. All the employees, everyone. If your Life Purposes don't align, you don't get a job there. That would have to be the criteria for hiring! The government would have to be on board with this, the interviewees would have to be on board with this. If the interviewees aren't on board with this, they could sue the corporation for unfair hiring practices or something. The corporate culture would have to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of productivity for social consciousness. As a corporation, very difficult to do. You have a lot of mouths to feed when you're talking about a big corporation. The competitive playing field would have to be a lot more humane and a lot less cut-throat. I think this is precisely why it'll be so difficult to have a conscious monopoly - the playing-field is not a playing-field where everyone plays by the rules and is socially conscious, it's more of a dog-eat-dog battlefield right now. I think the battle will have to go on for a while before either we blow ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust, or the survivors are the most conscious ones and they create a more humane and co-operative playing field as opposed to the competitive one we have today. Winner-take-all competition would have to cease to be the way to go, people would have to be conscious enough to want to be fair and co-operate with each other. The problem with this is that even if one person's consciousness is low enough. they're greedy enough that they want to compete for everything, this lowers the level of consciousness of the co-operative environment significantly. In short, money can bring out the worst in people. Doesn't hurt to aspire to create one though. After all, in the long run, high-consciousness survival-strategies will out-compete and out-perform low-consciousness survival-strategies! You can turn this into a really nice Life Purpose yourself - to beat the corporate monopolies and solve problems created by them by beating their survival-strategy of winner-take-all competition using your new survival-strategy of genuine, authentic, trustworthy co-operation.

You will go to hell if you do this. I swear, you will. You will be fried in fire by the devil who has horns and a pitchfork and you will come out all black. I guarantee that you will. *Sermon ends*

Welcome to reality. (Analogous to 'Welcome to Jumanji' lol) I would contemplate these very questions if I were in your position. What is the government really there for? What is the history of politics? Why do they claim to care about the people, do lip-service in that regard but then do otherwise? Why isn't it reflected in their actions? Why is the definition of 'health' and 'what needs to be done to be healthy' defined by pharma companies? They're who funds the mainstream healthcare system. Allopathy lives on selling their medicines. We have been brainwashed with allopathy, to the degree that we don't know any other form of healthcare. I would look into why this is the case if I were in your shoes.

It's too complicated a task to pull back a vaccine that's already in the hands of people, confusing the masses about whether it works, whether it doesn't work, which one will work. That's too complicated for people. The government never says it was wrong, it will never admit a mistake because then, people will literally kill them and their brand will be permanently destroyed. Same goes for any big tech company, especially big pharma. Do you know what's easier than that? Deny that it harms people! Say 'My vaccine is the best vaccine. It is the best thing since sliced bread' (because that's what you have to say in order to sell a product) 'If you have a problem with it, you have every right to sue us in court. Good luck paying for your lawyers when you're broke because of the lockdowns! We have paid off our Justices, so good luck.' There will be too many people in favor of the vaccine, in favor of the narrative that it really is the best thing since sliced bread! In fact, if there are any problems with it, it will be blamed on 'the COVID-19 virus'. It will never be blamed on the vaccine. They'll be like 'We didn't know that the COVID also killed people in this way! We now know the myriads of ways in which people die of the COVID.' That will be the narrative of the mainstream healthcare system, the medical system. They are the authority on these things, because they are the credentialed people, so you can't come up against them. People will blindly follow what they said. If the vaccine harms people, you won't even know what just happened. Edit - I'm not saying that they're evil or malevolent people. All of this is well-intentioned but unconscious behavior. It's just that looking at the way things are going right now and knowing how unconscious/deluded people behave, this is what I foresee.

I'm not so sure about that. There are way too many lay people who want the vaccine to work at all costs. People want the lockdowns to end and life to go 'back to normal' desperately because the lockdowns and stoppage of business/economy has put them in that position. If the vaccine does show negative effects: Will the media show it or report it? Will the people pay attention to those details or will they confirmation-bias it away? I have a feeling people will accept anything in the name of a vaccine. Not because they're scared of COVID, because they want the lockdowns to end. They want the lockdowns, social distancing, mask-wearing, travel-restrictions, business-problems, problems with the economy, etc. to end. In such a situation, someone who has just lost their job will push for literally anything in the name of a vaccine! Especially when this vaccine is being shown as this magic bullet cure-all, you'd better expect that.

Oh no sir. They are not competing for a safer vaccine. They are competing for the vaccine that comes out the fastest. Whoever brings it out the fastest, wins! The safety-guidelines aren't being applied to them, they are getting emergency use approval. They have full freedom to put out whatever crap they want to put out! As long as they do it quickly. It is a time-race. My mom says this is how it works when any new vaccine comes into the market, especially in an epidemic situation.

My mom is a medical doctor. She and her medical community think that it is too dangerous, that it isn't tested enough. They won't take it, let alone give it to their patients. This is what my mom thinks, who researches this stuff round the clock for a living. But you, sir, want to 'be the Hero who sacrifices yourself for the greater good'. You know what? Go ahead and do it! Ignore the doctors, ignore the fact that it isn't tested and that it is a free-for-all for the pharma companies. The pharma companies will thank you so much for your sacrifice! They will send you flowers, in fact, for 'being the Hero that sacrificed yourself for the community'. They will eulogize you to no end, they really will turn you into a martyr. Bill Gates will be proud.

I understand that you don't want people to generalize. Here's the thing though - just because you tell people to not generalize, doesn't mean they're going to stop doing it! Human beings generalize. We are talking in the realm of stereotypes here. They exist and affect our lives. The point of generalizing is to be able to observe general, collective trends in society and to address them.

Is bitcoin, a decentralized currency, a libertarian dream come true? Do you think it'll last or it'll crash?

It would be a very complicated, case-by-case decision. I'd have to go with my gut on every decision. It depends on the complex ego-dynamics and what's in the highest good of all parties in the specific situation.

I want to make a list of dysfunctions in the current education system. Chime in! Exams give you points for being right instead of being useful Classes condition you to sit passively in a classroom and zone out instead of actively contemplate and learn what you want to, i.e. lack of activity. In fact being active and not sitting still in class gets you punished! "Teachers" value the facade of attention over actual attention. Exams give you limited number of points which condition you to believe that you can only make a limited amount of money in adult life. We assume that school is useful for kids without really asking kids if they're really growing as intended by the school. My claim : School isn't useful to kids for their learning, rather it's a tool society uses to condition kids to enslave them when they grow up. We assume that an educational environment is necessary for kids to learn. This is not true. Kids learn from anything and everything in their environment. My claim : Child labor is better than school education, as you learn to bring home some cash and you learn a craft that's actually valued by someone! Of course, massive value placed on memorization which is utterly pointless, especially now that we have Google. It conditions kids to believe that knowing what society knows is a useful thing, when the reality is that adding to what society knows is valuable. Most of the crap kids learn in school is utterly useless! A lot of schoolwork in Languages, Math, Science, Social Sciences is utterly useless and is a waste of resources. Conditions us to be useless to society and imprints us with the belief that society doesn't really want us to be useful. (Credit for this one also goes to parents btw) Kids go together to school, which conditions them to go with the herd. It also conditions them to believe that mainstream society has it all figured out. Everyone's treated the same way, which conditions them to believe that everyone's the same and there's nothing unique about anyone. Somebody tell me what the point of homework really is, cuz I haven't figured that out yet! Exams give you points only if you give them the one right answer, which conditions you to believe that any question only has the one right answer. It also gives you points for being right and takes away points for being wrong, which conditions you to believe that being right is valuable/significant while being wrong is not valuable. This is not the case, as right/wrong are relative and value is relative. You don't have to be absolutely right in order to have a significant perspective as there is no absolute right/wrong. "Teachers" aren't open to other answers than the one right answer, which makes you believe that people out in the world never reconsider their opinions when faced with an alternative perspective. I'll continue adding points to this list.

Productivity, productivity and more productivity. Here in India, most people's lives are all about productivity. Productivity that isn't just survivalistic, but that brings about change in the individual material circumstances of people. Individual and collective. This is a difficult thing because survival is much more of a grind in a third-world country than in a first-world country. You will have to work harder to survive, so it can be difficult to create positive change in your material life. That's what's going to have to be done though. People will actively resist what you do and the risks you take because recovering from failure can be harder in a third-world country. Here in India, there has been a collective asking for economic development for decades. Everyone wants it, there is no resistance to it. This is high Blue/low Orange where the collective as a country works together to develop itself economically. Then, as we move higher into Orange, the nationalism will go down and the individualism will go up. India is a good example of healthy nationalism where the collective works together to develop the collective in a united fashion. In the final stages of this, there will be a need for a falling away of old, Stage Blue control-structures and the need for more individualism. I think India is ready for more individualism right now. This will take India to a whole new level.

You cannot debunk them. No belief-system or ideology is absolutely right or wrong, proof is a circular concept. This could not apply more in any other context than in politics. You could not find a more appropriate context to apply this truism if you tried. They really do believe what they believe. They have 50 years of experience backing what they believe. It is going to be very hard to change their mind. So if that's what you're after, good luck! There are kernels of truth in what they believe. I'd suggest focusing on finding those and growing yourself in the process. You cannot change someone else's mind, you can only change your own mind. This may involve putting to question what you believe too. If you're able to do this, only then will you be able to have a reasonable conversation with them. Only then will they be open to what you're saying, because they will understand that you understand what they're saying, you understand their perspective. This will make what you're saying a lot more important to them and their mind will be a lot more open to what you're saying. That's your opportunity to create change.

First of all, it really is okay to not have good wishes or forgiveness for them. It may really be in the best interests of others to have such people gone. Realize though that when we indulge in such thinking, we're also being selfish and we're playing their game, so it is fair game. If you really want to have compassion for them, my suggestion would be to look for the positive intention behind why they're doing it. There will always be a positive intention, that is a genuinely positive intention. (Not just I like killing people or something) You will see that it is impossible for someone to really have mental clarity and be dangerously selfish at the same time. There will always be some form of delusion or another.

Is it humanly possible for Trump to really get away with that? Would the MAGAs continue with it? I hope not! That would be really Hitler-ian and overtly fascist. It is a democracy after all, right? The justices, the House, the Senate, etc. exist. The Supreme Court may not like that situation.

I think this is over-simplified and too much of an 'us vs them' narrative. I know, you'll say that 'I'm not necessarily judging the ego as bad, I'm just saying that Trump is an accurate representation of the ego'. I know that. Yet, I think this is over-simplified. Your solution to the 'ego vs spirit' problem is to beat the 'ego' by taking the side of the 'spirit'. This is where the 'us vs them' dynamic gets created. The issue here is that we tend to assume that there is no truth or validity whatsoever to Trump's perspective, that he and his base are completely deluded. This is why we put Trump in the category of 'ego'. Wouldn't be so easy to do that if we saw the validity in his perspective. Then, if you find some truth in there, he'd be on the side of 'truth' or 'spirit'! I am calling this out, especially on the Left, because this is exactly the kind of thinking that will lead to the civil war. If you ask me, the only way to avert a civil war is by seeing the validity in the perspectives of Trump and his MAGA fanbase.

@lmfao It's fighting based on ideology. People are literally taking away each other's jobs over what the other person said, let alone what they believed. This is worse than fascism, because at least fascism is enforced from the top-down. If a fascist leader goes, the fascism will go away, but here, the people are trying to go for vigilante justice. Justice for no crime whatsoever other than saying something stupid on social media. They're literally hurting other people over ideology. The solution to this would be for people to dis-identify with their mind and to realize that you cannot capture the truth in your ideology or your mind. They need to realize that the truth does not need defending. When that happens, they will stop defending 'the truth', they will stop assuming they have the truth and they will admit they don't know. Then, they will rely on the appropriate government bodies to do their job and give justice that way. (Damn, now I see why they project the attitude of vigilante-justice on conspiracy theorists. All of this is projected onto conspiracy theorists. Now I understand Leo's video on conspiracy theories. I think Leo lumped it in with cancel-culture in his video.) Another solution - start calling out snowflake-like behavior. I cannot tell you how much of a weakling snowflake you have to be in order to take someone's job because of some racist thing they said. This is insanity on a level never seen before.

They look and seem simple-minded. There are a lot of complexities and nuances they're unconscious of. You want to be paying attention to what they're missing. This can give you some very important information on how you can wake them up to what they're missing and how you could lead them into the next step of their evolution. This is something to do for years. If you can pull this off though, you will be on the leading edge of conscious people on the planet.

The reason I ask this is that democracy is fundamentally based on a majority-wins system, which is a zero-sum game. Can a system that's fundamentally based on zero-sum games lead to World Peace? My claim is it cannot. You might ask me 'So are you saying we should accept tyranny? Are you saying that dictatorship is better?' You're asking this question because you only see two options - democracy or tyranny. There could be more ways of doing this. You also might say 'Democracy is necessary for survival. If you don't have democracy, you will devolve into chaos and anarchy.' Here's where it gets interesting - the problem with politics is that it is only about survival. Do you think survivalism can lead to a state of World Peace? Sure, it can help you survive, but going for World Peace is a different ballgame altogether. It's not the same as trying to survive. The state of Peace comes when we realize that the ego is an illusion, which tells us that survivalism is not the way to get there. This is the case individually. I don't think this will be different on a collective level. The reason I say this is that I see this big illusion on the Left, thinking that 'If we keep trying to maximize our collective survival advantage, one day, we will have Peace, Love, Light and Happiness!!' which I think will never happen. Not saying the Right is any better, you have to be on the Left in order to even start to care about the collective survival advantage. How do I think this is going to happen? We're gonna have to get to a point where democracy completely malfunctions first, then we devolve into a state of anarchy, then from that chaos, the possibility of a new, peaceful system will arise. Do I think it will collapse in short order? I don't know. What I do think though, is that it will have to collapse before we create a new, peaceful system that will help us reach a state of Peace. What's my solution? I don't have one, not yet. I do strongly think though that democracy isn't it. I think that the solution will naturally arise out of the anarchy that ensues once democracy collapses. This is why, I think that anarchism is more conscious than democracy at the moment. What are your opinions on this?