Parththakkar12

Let's say the dollar collapses (looks imminent at this point), and we were out of an economy. What possible new economy-ideas could be implemented? How would we go about creating a new economy together? We would need a stable currency that has inherent value. Fungible or not, it would just have to be stable! One idea I'm getting is to create a seed-based economy, where seeds are the new currency. We may have to resort to farming if the supply-chains collapsed, that's when seeds will become more valuable than ever. The reason for this idea is that seeds do have inherent value. The dollar does not, the cryptocurrencies do not, even gold does not! But, seeds do. It's almost as if you had a centralized currency, but the authority that issued the currency was God himself! No monopolies on the currency by any ego. What do you think about this?

The mistake you'd be making here is to not deal with the people in power directly and instead, try to 'empower' people who don't have that much power. The problem is that this isn't a high-leverage point in the system to create change, it's a low-leverage point. The impact from the high-leverage point, the people in power, will outweigh your impact. They can steal the money from the civilians! And there is no anti-terrorist group there, it's a government that's trying to somehow negotiate with terrorists to maintain peace on a day-to-day level. They have no long-term solutions to eradicate terrorism!

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/4/will-the-real-president-of-the-united-states-pleas/ I haven't been following up on Joe Biden and what he does. I read this one article though. Sounds kinda alarming!

They're the mainstream media. They get to decide what's 'fact' vs what's 'conspiracy theories'. You don't get to decide that!! They are THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, the Gods of our worldviews. If they said it's true, it's true!! In fact, how dare you accuse a prominent, esteemed mainstream media source like Washington times of publishing conspiracy theories? Do you really not trust the credibility of the journalism of such a decorated news-outlet?! In fact, if you question the mainstream media and doubt what they're saying, it's not they who are the conspiracy-theorists. You're the conspiracy-theorist!

I have a picture for what kinds of debates would occur at which Spiral Stages: Red - Overt name-calling, a proper food-fight with name-calling in it. You can picture an argument with both sides angrily yelling names at each other and that situation is all set to escalate physically. Who wins? The side who can talk faster and louder, the side who knows more names than the other, the side who can use the most brute-force. That side wins! A 'win' would be the win of the food-fight itself! Not an intellectual win. Blue - It's a debate between good and bad, right and wrong. Is this thing good or bad? Is that thing right or wrong? For vs against. Who wins? The side who is morally superior to the other. There will still be plenty of demonization on both sides but at least it'll be according to a morality that isn't set by them, that's set by a third-party. A 'win' would be a moral victory. Not an intellectual win. Orange - It's a technical, hard-nosed debate in which scientific studies and statistics get thrown around. Who wins? The one with the credentials wins, the one with more evidence wins. Green - It's less of a debate and more of everyone sharing their 'equally valid', politically correct perspectives. No claims on absolute truth because that would offend all the other perspectives. Who wins? The one with the most all-inclusive, all-encompassing perspective, most PC perspective. At which spiral-stage would it be possible to construct a debate-situation in which the side with the truth actually wins? Is it even possible to do that?

It is. Read it again!

Then, why does the media assume that we have blank minds? Why does the education-system assume that we have blank minds, no identity and that they can program you with whatever the hell they want?! Also, why is it being assumed that children aren't reasonable?! Is it so that you can have really strong brainwashing that sticks? And that when they grow up, they never stand up for what they believe in and they blindly believe the mainstream narrative? And then they keep doing that to the future generations? Ahahahahahahahhaha... That's the biggest joke ever. They already know the propaganda they want to push through next. It's climate-change. You watch CNN in the next few months continuing to harp on climate-change, after they're bored of talking about the COVID. Do you really think they're sitting there, looking at the collective and thinking 'What would be the best way to lead the collective to greater consciousness and awareness'?! That's a really dream-like idealization. They are sitting up there, thinking about what their advertisers want and what their corporate interests want. That's what they're going to push through! They want pharma-sales, which is why they're pushing the vax right now. Now, why climate-change? You might wonder. Because it has the most fear-value! They will look at the thing that looks like it's going to be the end of the world and they're going to make that the next big thing that they cover. They want you to be in a state of fear and panic all the time! Really. That's what they're there for. All for sales! 'The devil'/'devilry' is the appropriate word here, the way Leo uses it.

My problem isn't with having a mainstream media. My problem is with having a mainstream narrative that everyone must believe in. It's almost cult-like if you think about it! Cult-ure, derived from the word 'cult'. If the mainstream media made people more conscious, I would have no problem with it. The thing is - it doesn't. Why would it? Think about it - how does it serve corporate interests for people to become more conscious? Will their pharmaceuticals sell? No. Will their junk food sell? No. Will their ponzi-scheme investments sell? No. Will their student-loans sell? No. Their agenda is to pump you with fear and negativity, to make you more unconscious and fearful. That's what sells!

In a hierarchical society. If we start to go more holarchical, then you stop needing a mainstream narrative! Everyone gets to believe what they want to believe in that situation. In a hierarchical society, everyone must believe the narrative that's being passed down from up above. The problem is that this throws logic and reason out the window and you have blind faith. Something that science likes to rail against, but falls prey to in it's own ways. Moral development is not about the narrative you choose, it is about your level of consciousness. Blind faith in a mainstream narrative isn't gonna do it! I agree with the spirit of science on this issue that blind faith is a problem. The problem is that our public intellectuals in the mainstream don't. The blind faith doesn't sound so bad if it's you who the people are blindly believing in. Am I right?! They blindly believe in you because you have credentials.

The only real solution I see to it, really, is to question everything the mainstream says. Stop being so credentialist, those credentials mean nothing. At best, those 'experts' are resting on their laurels. The 'experts' are totally confirmation-biased in their science. Science has no defenses against rationalization and confirmation-bias! It is very easy to delude yourself into thinking something is true because an authority said so. Like a professor or a Nobel-Prize winner. Credentialism is characteristic to Stage Orange in general. What I mean by 'resting on their laurels' is that they will say something that's blatantly false, then when you question it, people will look at their laurels and accolades and be like 'How dare you question such an esteemed expert? Where are your laurels and accolades? Surely, if you're right, you must have those too, right?!' without realizing that those achievements (especially in the academic system) are not a product of creating real value, they are a product of complying with the system, i.e. perpetuating and regurgitating the system's narrative. The system that has corporate interests. The corporations will push a narrative that suits them! I know this because I've gone very deep into how marketing works. The more you are indoctrinated into their narrative, the more you shill for them, the more you'll achieve because that's how they rig the game. The system is this way by design! Leo talks about how the university-system is a pyramid-scheme in his video on 'Should you go to College?' Absolutely true. I would even go as far as to say that the education-system is a cult. They push the narratives that suit them in the education-system. Ask yourself 'Who designed my school's curriculum? Who designed the education-system the way it is and why?' You'll know what I'm talking about. These are uncomfortable questions that people don't ask themselves.

Both. Doesn't matter, the standards of rigor are the same across the board!

I haven't really looked into it yet because I wouldn't have any solutions if it were dangerous. But yeah, it is very possible. There are scientific studies showing that it is dangerous. And for those of you fuck-sticks asking for my qualifications, I have two years' experience in grad-school and 2 more years of experience doing academic research in undergrad. So yeah, I have 'the qualifications'. I know first-hand how academic research works.

Watch yourself parroting the mainstream media. 'If you question our narrative, you are an evil, Nazi, Trump-supporter'.

OH MY GOD!! HE DOESN'T HAVE A DEGREE!! That's it, we can't believe anything he says. Leo doesn't have a degree on enlightenment. Would you not use Leo as a source of information on enlightenment? Really? Is this what this boils down to? Who has which degree? And the person who doesn't have a degree is a 'dullard'? By that token, if you aren't a doctor, why should I believe you if you say that 'the experts are right'? Are you an expert on what it means to be an expert? Show me your degree on that! Then I'll consider you an expert!! Till then, you're 'Joe the dullard' in your words.

That's the thing. You need a 'credible source' to blindly believe and hang your hat on! This isn't about believing anyone or believing hearsay (which most of your 'credible science' is, by the way), this is about opening your eyes and seeing what's really going on. Following the money, seeing who pays whom and actually doing the research into the system.

Your 'mainstream media' and 'scientific establishment' are corporate shills that sell a narrative that profits them. If seeing this basic truth makes me a 'crazy conspiracy theorist' in your world, fine! Keep believing them, keep hating on Trump and Trumpers because they said so. Talk about gullible and unscientific! Leo agrees in his video on Branding. Right now, the smartest people in the world are not the ones with the credentials. They're the ones who do the contemplation-work, who have eyes to see and ears to hear and who see through the sham of the system. The credentialist system is going to be dead pretty soon!

Well, you are brainwashed by the mainstream media and you aren't doing your own research. The mainstream media are the ones calling it a 'braindead conspiracy theory'. There are too many smart people who will never be able to go on mainstream media that think that 5G is dangerous. I'd suggest you look into fringe sources that aren't mainstream, that aren't funded by people with agendas. People who actually care about the truth. Just because a source is fringe, that doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, if they show evidence that the mainstream actively denies, you gotta question the mainstream! We want to be fair and objective here.

'Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world' - Henry Kissinger. 'Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy' - Henry Kissinger.

Yeah, this is a similar problem to the one that came when they used gold, before they printed paper money backed by gold. Which is why they printed money backed by gold. So, you're right, maybe it is a step backwards if we weigh it. Could there be other ways of making it work though?

Yupp. Seeds that would be used for, say, agriculture, to grow your own food. By weighing them. That was the random possibility that came to my mind.

Kay fine, if you want to change the popular definitions of the terms. You could change them, but I'd suggest you stick to the popular definitions. That'll be more linguistically understandable.

Tell me then, why else would you want to disempower men?

I know you want to be able to control alpha-men, turn them into passive and weak betas but men don't want to be controlled!

I'm going to answer your original question - Are relationships just a way to fulfill survival needs or is there something more? The answer is - No, there is something more. I'm going to show you how to find out what that 'something more' is - Ask yourself, if relationships were only about survival-needs, why would that make you feel sad? You're saying it does make you feel sad, right? Why is that? Go deeper into that. You'll discover a whole new range of possibilities for relationships!

Well, maybe ask a child. They may beg to differ. Maybe think back to your childhood. What was it like going to school every single day and having the teacher talk at you?! And 'getting punished' for flunking, getting detentions, etc.