BlueOak

I follow people that do. One guy produces music that is about a minute long and does it each week to build a following over a few years. I'm sure they do other promotion too, but online seems a significant part of it. He advocates for short songs precisely because of what you are describing, and it brings him more money when people go through the different songs on the music sites because they are short. I doubt he's making much off his youtube or tiktok videos but the point is just to send people to the songs.

If I were to critique something negatively, with the ideology you have, you would have resistance to hearing it, whereas the next guy might just shrug and say meh whatever, he'd maintain his state and you would get stuck in that downward spiral construct you are speaking about. I do this in a certain way myself, usually by viewing the wider world and seeing things I hate it in, which alters my state into lower ones obviously.

This is also a constructed way of thinking. Saying X = Y is a construct. I'll not say what I perceive as bad things so only what I perceive as good things happen is a very rigid construction of your mind. Then I'll not allow others to say 'bad things' is even more rigid. If you want infinite love or the higher parts of your charts as a daily experience, you'd have to love what you currently push away, as exampled here. Its standard mentoring in this field to push at your constructs, ideologies, beliefs, etc.

Your self could want for eternity and never get that want. It just tends to be in these more loving states that you describe that people have accepted who they are, aligned with life, got out of their own way, healed themselves, and improved their lives in many ways that things happen for them. They are also happier with simpler things often, so they are happy to start with. It doesn't necessarily mean it's easy even then to achieve something great.

For music I am not convinced of this. Because it's all about how much someone or a group of people hears a song.

When I asked him about his political positions, and why he doesn't advocate for strategy in his answers as I tend to, he answered it was because he doesn't want people stuck on different stages of awareness. So he'll critique socialism because it helps move their political positions off stage green, I would assume the same is true here to get people off whatever stage they relate to in their politics. Generally speaking its good to get your political opinions pushed at, so you don't get too set in your ways.

When I hear this I wish I could remember the group in India who specifically were angry all the time but were highly conscious. Maybe someone can remember the name. I say that to bend this construct on emotions you have a bit. I like the charts but they are not an absolute, for one by how many different charts people have lol, and for two the vibration of your life goes up and down naturally in your experience. Anger for me is incredibly useful in the right context for example, and when I need to get angry I hope I always am, but I am getting off track. What of yourself sitting here now believes that hearing something that disagrees with you is unpleasant, and hearing things that agree with you is pleasant? That's probably the most useful point I can raise. *Sorry for double post my internet is lagging

People equate intelligence as the guiding principle. So I got into a discussion about how intelligent people don't fight wars over land with a few people a week ago, and got laughed at. Which is fair. How do you approach these things? If you were to find yourself in the middle of it, (it started off on another topic.) Using the word more conscious doesn't mean anything to most people. Arguing about suffering gets a nod but no real change in their perspective. I've realised over life many look at an intelligent person and think he must know better because he's intelligent, they do the same with successful people, or equate the two these days. So they excuse things that way. As consciousness is difficult to measure currently, its hard to use as a thing to point people at.

I have actually started giving Tiktok a shot with music, its being kinder to me than youtube is that's for sure. The views are at about a 200:1 ratio. X to youtube is about 100:1 for me also, the engagement being about 50 to 1. So it tells you where to focus, drop stuff on Tiktok first, then X, then Youtube. I've no idea how to grow on instagram. (Obviously all the music sites also or use a publisher to do it for you)

Sums up my week this. Perfect. I feel like I jumped off a cliff, and then I read this ha. Darkly funny. He's got enough young men that will simp for him (their choice of words), that he'd probably get some votes, but unless someone with money finds him a useful idiot, he's not going anywhere. It could happen though, we are on the shadow-side of a curve still. As in people want to see the uglier qualities accepted and highlighted in their public figures.

Both sentences are true of people's body/mind/life also. Sure they are individuals, but they have some challenges that cannot be changed, and a system that works as what we call an individual. Moreover, the reason a country doesn't often collapse is if you put challenges across enough people, things tend to balance better or support each other either intentionally or not, there is usually more natural competitive and collaborative adaptation rather than an individual's judged success or failure day to day. Just by the systems in place for the country to do so. The death of a country when it rarely comes is from things like the currency and cultural bonds breaking down, ripping out the things that glue the country together. I'd say the same about the human body/mind, it's remarkably good at adapting to things, so you are not going to die often. The problem is often the connection of the individual to the country; that's where things can fall on their face. This probably answers the OP's question. An individual can suffer and never affect the country much one way or the other, sometimes they do of course.

Yes. It's always a land grab. The borders shift, and then a new buffer zone is needed. It's either slow creep where the authoritarian country moves its culture in over years and reduces (or reeducates, kills or imprisons) the local population to homogenize it and moves into the resources or good land. That or a democracy buys up all the resources, sells them franchises or immitation culture, and tries to redefine the country while the locals scratch their heads, asking who wanted you here? China? They do it every month these days, bringing out a new map. I've lost count of how many border disputes they are in, at land and sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China I mean do you want to focus in on anything specific? Or just the rate of the expansion over time? Though we should probably start a new thread for that rather than spam these folk.

You are preaching to the choir. I am not advocating it. The concept of buffer zones is now accepted as normal, and it's incredibly stupid as borders forever shift. It incentivizes people to destabilise nations exactly as you describe in a game of forever chess the world over.

Your sample size of one doesn't impress me. Not as i've got more energy than the 20 year olds I work with, even with this blasted insomnia, and I am still gaining muscle mass. If you eat what you need you get the results you need, that's it.

Have you ever suffered something and not changed the outcome for the better? I have. Both when i've tried multiple times without success and the times I haven't tried at all. This reasoning scales up to the macro level, which lets you check its validity.