BlueOak

It sounds to me like you can observe being driven right? Whatever impulse you are observing. You are aware that isn't the entirety of you either. There is nothing but you. Observation of an experience is all that exists, and if you are observing it you are watching/feeling/sensing it happen. There is nowhere to slip. Nowhere to go. You've got some distance from the self identity. Breathe, and take it slow. Nobody else is going to move your body for you. I guarantee you that much. You might just feel or sense that this impulse is not what you want to be anymore, or want to do. It might be a sense of why am I doing this? Happening. So don't, choose not to for a while, or choose to. Whenever you feel not in control, reassert control or make a choice to go with it. Have you tried what I suggested? Sitting near a river in nature? Drinking a healthy dose of water? Really simple things. Taking it very slow and letting whatever is happening just happen at a steady pace. Water and nature are incredibly grounding, electronics and stimulation are the opposite. It could be what others have suggested, a psychological development, but as you are prone to spiritual experience my first guess would be what I am typing.

Lots of clean Water. Nature, go sit on the grass, barefoot if possible, even better near a river. Acceptance. These things will help. People do go through it and experience it in different ways, all through their life. You dissolved some ego and it gave you a glimpse that the totality of your existence isn't as fixed as you thought. You get to more shape who/what you/reality is. There are people out there with your realised spiritual gifts, and others, there used to be a lot of places to meet them online, now you'd have to search. Most of them were repelled when spirituality shifted to be more encompassing. If you don't accept reality for what it now is. A survival experience will shock you back to reality. You are still here - you never leave anywhere, you are all that exists. One day those spiritual experiences might bore you, and someone answering the phone or waving at you will be not much different, just not stick in your mind as much to remember. They are useful to highlight something, all this is a projection of the mutli dimensional (Many You's) mind/body/spirit anyway. The dog barking or being out of body is the same sort of thing. And now you get why resistance is beneficial too, not just for weightlifting. Not many know why I say that, you do. Weightlifters probably understand it, generally speaking, it's good preparation work to understand resistance. You might also understand now why someone clings to trauma or pain a bit more. Some of us need it, because without any of it, what is there to push against or train with? Without any suffering or external/internal pressure, external forces, any need, any demand, whatsoever there'd be nothing left to shape form, function, or a reason for doing anything. There would just be a literal void, everything is held in place by something. You are now getting to choose more of what holds you together. Make it a good choice.

You are fundamentally wrong. Mammals and animals that have social groups naturally have a percentage of individuals that are homosexual. It is the most natural thing in the world. The percentage usually increases when competition for resources, space, or mates increases, because the need for companionship and the sex drive doesn't go away. People are born biologically and chemically attracted to certain body type(s), characteristics, personalities, energy whatever.

Further idealization of a handful of traits as being the definition of heroic masculinity will only make this problem worse. @zazen That's how people think right now. Rather than taking life as it comes and accepting imperfections or flaws. People put an image in their head, the top 10% of partners, but ignore the 90% (also known as reality) People try to fake being whatever their preferred image is currently, and thus when imperfections to this ideal are revealed, people are intolerant to them. If instead there was no ideal partner, just people, as complicated and messy as they are, there would be more acceptance of reality and what is.

This happens when people picture god as anything other than themselves. You have to collapse a lot of beliefs about what god is/isn't, but its all part of accepting who/what you/reality is. BTW. This is a message to yourself. There is nothing subliminal about it, its in plain text. You will read it, give it meaning, and then react to yourself. Nobody else is going to put that reaction in your mind. Nobody else is choosing the response.

Yeah maybe I should be focused on vertical farms as my argument more than family apartment complexes when I speak about this. Efficiency is always being looked at but that usually reduces the nutritional quality of the food. The case for veganism is getting too much pushback (to reduce the land needed for cattle), its usually easier to change a business model than a person's belief about their cultural values, especially where they were born and raised. Even so, farming is probably one of the hardest industries to change, I grew up and spent most of my life around countryside farmers. Nothing much phases them, no drama, just steady people but not quick to change. No easy solutions for this, if there were we'd have had more success. Precisely yes. Thank you. I wonder if it's just for some of us as we get older we experience and can see it. Until you've seriously thought about having kids or a family, perhaps these things don't come into the equation so much in people's minds. The practical reality of actually being able to support the kids you or your partner wants cannot be ignored. In times of economic contraction, it must have an impact on people's willingness to have a baby. Changing cultural trends is a factor I should highlight even more than I do. So here goes. I'm also going to say something that will never be talked about, and be very unpopular, understandably so for all the problems it brings. The vilification of casual sex going on, is certainly not helping the birthrate. People having accidental children was never ideal by any means, but it was the creation of a lot of imperfect marriages and families. Life just happens to us sometimes, and that would often temper economic issues in relation to birthrate, because people would seek solace in each other in hard times. Life is always going to be imperfect, and the trend towards waiting for the ideal marriage, the ideal partner, and the ideal set of circumstances is not helping anyone (See the dating problems in wanting ideal partners). If not casual sex, then removing the want for everything to be perfect or just so, according to a new arbitrary set of beliefs, has to be torn up in favor of just accepting life as it happens more. The people trying to socially engineer liberal or individualist values out of the population to replace them with a new fixed, uncompromising perfect set of values (perfect in their mind), and I am speaking about everyone from conservative think tanks, to spiritual teachers, to movie producers, need to think about more than they are doing, when they are making these sorts of cultural shifts, according to a predetermined set of values (looking at you teal swan). Because everything they do impacts something else, and some days I think I am the only one on this earth who sees it. It's good today to read your posting about economic issues being a necessity. Gratitude. *And yes, clinging to old beliefs, or trying to socially engineer them over life, doesn't always help either.

Someone labeling someone else was not what was being discussed. People do that all the time. They denigrate their political opponents to try to diminish or smear their image. What was being discussed was trump tweets, and how people get outraged about them. Civility over substance is primarily a trait of the center trying to maintain decorum, as opposed to a left political position. I used to be someone who resisted the term fascist being used, as I didn't think it appropriate. These days it almost is. Certainly, republicans act as an authoritarian party leaning fascist and dems are on the way too. Fascist Traits in American Republicans: Spectacle politics (Aestheticization of politics) - Hell yes. Irrationalism, Anti Intellectualism , and Conspiracy theory - Hell Yes. Cult of personalty - Hell Yes. Social Darwinism - Yes Anti-Materialism - Yes Direct Action - Yes Jan 6th Anti-pacifism - Hawkishness, Hell Yes Heroic capitalism - Idealisation, Hell yes. Indoctrination - Yes, through limiting texts, books in education. Can argue it possibly either way for both parties. Rascism - Yes, not willing to debate it tonight, I'll just assume you say no. Nationalism - Yes Proletarian nation, the inspiration of radical nationalist groups - Jan 6th. Yes. National syndicalism - Yes this is exactly what is being proposed in Trump's next term. For clarity the Italian model. Populism - Yes Machismo - Yes but not in either leader presently, they are too old, stuck in the past, and generally not strong leadership material. New Man Idealisation - Hell yes. Third Position - Populism is pushing it there, meaning left and right nationalists working together, can't call it present yet though, just starting Then let's look at just how much America has moved closer to fascism in both parties, for fairness's sake, I touched on it above. Perpetual war - Hell yes for both Doing away with the primary vote, debates etc - Yes for both. Corporatism - Yes for both Heavy Propaganda - Yes for both Chauvinism as it relates to a preferred group or religion, not gender specific - Yes, sadly yes for both now. Conspiracy Theory - Leaked into the dems messaging for a while, but seems to have been kicked out again, relying on bureaucracy and the rule of law once more. Class collaboration to maintain the hierarchical power structure - Yes to both, with some stipulations. One-party state - We could argue America is there already but this all depends on the image, and your definition. Its more subtle than a single yes/no. Corporations fund and put forward candidates that they want you to pick from. There are certainly, this time around, big ideological differences but it's not always the case or usually. Certainly not in the UK now anyway, the difference is almost non-existent here. (I'm not just bashing Americans far from it). Social order - This is an odd one in that it's exclusive to the dems at the moment, on the face of it. Though both parties are still owned by corporate donors, so it's only a face-value disagreement for the cameras. Then a few are against the older definition of fascism. Statolatry or Idealisation of the state - I could argue Republicans tried it but they are so hell-bent on breaking what is there, not at present. Imperialism (Yes but on the decline) Militarism (Somewhat yes for both but on the decline) Heavy market regulation (Hell no) Source: Themes of fascism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Covers almost all of it, America is close to being a fascist state and one more push to the right will get you there.

Yes but its cyclic. You can work on one or the other, chicken and the egg. Without a stable identity (or lack of needing one), their feelings will rise and fall like the wind. Without having some control over your emotions forming a stable identity is difficult. I like the phrase domesticating your emotions, you have them but they are to your benefit not your detriment. If we want to be optimistic, it could be that some of these people will develop to the point they don't need identities anymore or as much, and can just use them when it benefits that person, and this is just a growing pains phase.

@Phil King Falling down is not as good as this. The characters here are people I could have just encountered at work, and that's what makes it great. Like that clip

Yes I added that just as you were replying and thought of it. The projected identities people assume carry over into real life, but they are not built on anything firm, so people are fragile.

Yes. Contributing to a weird 1980's-like image over substance, or perhaps because of it. From dating and socialising, to business and culture. Where the computer or TV screen highlights one aspect of life at the expense of everything else. Which is always going to be fragile, 2D and easily broken. That one video you saw, or that one comment becomes everything about that person, all anyone talks about or remembers. This makes someone look like X, that's all I know about him/her through this limited lens we have. So then, especially professionally people making a living, defend the image that was created, identify with it, and focus on trying to maintain something they decided was useful to them. At least it's helping people stop caring so much about what others think, by using these pseudo-identities projected online, like any imbalanced part of life. Its responsible for the fragility of people's self-identities, having no real thing of substance to be tethered to, and people searching for meaning elsewhere.

People on the left, the actual left, not the center. Dislike fake outrage more than you, because unlike you, people keep telling them that this is what they are. People on the left value substantive issues, with depth and meaning. Things they can sink their teeth into. Rightwingers will generally not debate them anymore, because they dismantle their perspectives and force them to confront their values from completely opposing angles. Generally, right-wingers can only debate corporate liberal centrists, and then say see they don't care about actual issues, they just like being polite. (They don't care as much because the center is the reality, and they already have more of what they want for the most part) Please demonstrate, any leftist, anytime, who primarily thinks like this. Give me one link that isn't a mainstream media news network or liberal centrist with only vague awareness of what we are talking about. And no Pakman doesn't count for the most part, as he's just a slight step away from the center. This shouldn't be a big ask, because everyone slips up sometime over the years they are broadcasting. If it's an actual leftist (which I doubt). Then i'll be able to point to the 500 pieces they did of substance.

People have different preferences. That will always be true. Trends will change that will always be true. If we are being blunt. Damsel in distress females, or princesses that want you to save them, make my skin crawl. Instant turn off. If she's not intelligent and capable she's not my partner. If she doesn't challenge me, there's no fire there. If she's got no wants in life or drives beyond just having kids, there is no shared interest either. If she just wants to support me and do what I say, meh, that'd be so fake I'd walk away in a heartbeat. Nothing drives me nuts more than someone agreeing with me, just because I asked them to or wanted it. I fully understand why some people prefer a quiet home life, with a submissive partner. More power to them. That sounds like a pet to me and I can just buy a cat, or better a guard dog to look after the place.

Sounds a bit like falling down: Or if you want the comedic lighter version office space: Office space is probably in my top 20 movies of all time, close anyway.

I have never heard anyone on a left wing channel say I am not voting trump because of his 5am tweets. That's just something to laugh at or comic relief.

She's not running independently. She's in a primary, if she loses then you can pick again.

Can you explain why you think its incompatible with immigration? Social unrest does happen from immigration, which is a factor in people feeling like it is a peaceful community to support families in the first place, I am not sure if you mean that though? It's offest by the economic benefit of having economic immigration fix gaps in the economy, without any substantial delay or problems within the domestic workforce. Without that, there will always be a delay before a shortage of jobs can be corrected, especially with manual industries which older people simply can't do. (AI Workers being a possibility) Where are you getting that 3% figure? Uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/land-use-in-england-2022/land-use-statistics-england-2022 The only % of relevance when it comes to supporting the population, is what is left of the natural area. In England just 6% of the land is protected. With 20% currently open land, forests, and water, some of that 20% is used for things like timber, or fishing, etc. Also without the forests supplying oxygen, and the natural biosphere being maintained much of the quality of life in the urban areas would be reduced. Such as air quality, potential medicines, the quality of the soil, food/water etc. Increasingly a lot of the land that is left cannot be used effectively, which is why it isn't being used for anything. Marshland or flood plains for example 68% is agricultural, meaning vertical farms or less cattle could make a huge difference to space savings here. With all the utilities other than farming it's about 12% give or take here, (If you add up all the other %'s including gardens) unlike other places we haven't serious environmental damage to any large areas making them unlivable. If you want to make a new town, it takes more than just the housing to support the population, food being the biggest concern, although a fair chunk of that land goes to industrial products such as cotton or exports to support people's livelihood. We are straining the limits in many European countries as to what can be maintained with what we have. This is one reason we don't have enough money after expenses for the average person, meaning people are less likely to have a family. Its not just about where people live, its about all the things that go into supporting that, especially food. If people are living more densely packed, generally speaking, it's easier and more efficient to provide services for them. Where I live out in the countryside my quality of life has reduced significantly due to efficiency savings on healthcare, schooling or public transport. I'd probably die before reaching a hospital for some conditions (we did campaign locally to keep the local hospital open partially, and won a temporary victory for now) Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Land_use_statistics If we look at all of Europe, including many of the less developed areas in the east, we are looking at about 39% agriculture (which surprises me) 35% forested areas, and a lot more timber industry as an example. 15% unused or abandoned. I'd like to see why so much is being abandoned and where. Leaving about 11% either used or unlivable from environmental damage, excluding a small amount for fishing. I think Sweden again might have biased your view on this, as it is an outlying case. Just like England might have biased mine based on farm coverage. Overall if we look at the places experiencing the most birth rate problems, they are the more developed, with higher populations, more competition, higher stress levels, and less space. They also get a healthy amount of immigration to maintain their workforce, which people are trying to reverse, amplifying the potential problems the country's aging populations face.

Both sides of this have to vote against their own nature. Conservatives to attack institutions, backing a weak man with a victim mentality. Liberals to stomach an ethnic cleansing, backing a supposed liberal taking a rightwing approach from the 1950's. Crazy times. Trump does have the populist support yes. However, the entire campaign trump will be in a courtroom with breaks being relatively rare. He'll have no money left for campaigning. His entire line will be oh poor me, I'm the victim, which to a rightwinger has to sound pathetic and not a 'winner'. Then he'll be trying to undermine institutions that he feels personally slighted him, which conservatives should naturally hate. Most of the money people give him will go on his court fees, so he's effectively begging. Further on top of his already two civil cases, and 4 criminal cases, he's just been hit with another wave of potential lawsuits from people who were injured on Jan 6th, and I think the police that were hurt have a good case. Not to mention people who will be suing him for libel when their professional roles have finished, afterward to not conflict with their current interests, I would with the venom and conspiracy nonsense that comes out of his mouth, if I were the clerk for example, the vote checkers doing their civil duties, or a prosecutor. It's going to be a minor miracle if he personally, not professionally but personally doesn't go bankrupt as well as losing his right to do business in New York. Also he might just lose it and break down entirely under the stress. *I think Biden is more conservative than Trump at this point on many issues, which is why you hear of actual ideological conservatives switching over. Its not much different for labor in the UK.

BTW to not imbalance this too much. The Democrats just canceled their primary, so they are no bastions of democracy either. Both parties (corporate owners) just want to select one man they want and have you legitimatize them. Just right now you've got a demagogue with a revenge fantasy, who is so fragile he can't accept a sliver of criticism without attacking the person/institution who gave it, or making up some wild conspiracy about why it happened, and a guy who's mostly asleep reading a script someone gave him, representing his biggest donors interests exclusively. One scenario is substantially better than the other for everyday people in the short to medium term.

Oh about the hair thing just shave it down, its the eyebrows that are annoying.

LOL No you do, you really do. Its only something you are going to appreciate as you age, in too many ways to mention. So yeah if you want to excel in something you need youth for, go do it now, not later.

You are an individual. Others exist. You are the absolute. Nothing is separate. Both of these things are true. When you accept that's exactly how reality is, and want that impossible duality in your mind to dissolve or to be integrated, it will be.

All of life is settling for the lesser evil. There is nothing you can tell me that I can't find evil in. I realized that the other day, and it finally eliminated the last of my idealism. With no hyperbole or idealism at all: You've got a move toward fascism in Trump, and all the problems that brings. You've got a move toward corporatism in Biden, and all the problems that brings. However, reaffirming the general public's trust in law and order, government institutions, and the vote, then removing conspiracy from political discourse. Is certainly worth one narcissist called Trump going to jail. Putting up with a corporate-owned politician, who can barely keep the facade of it called Biden, is worth not electing a dictator. Trump's told everyone what he's going to do, and although I don't believe a word he spews at 5am in his delusional social media posts. I'd rather not see America slide further from democracy and into dictatorship, because you pull the UK with you when you do. Trump would gut social security and things people need to survive, Trump will be running on 4 years of coming after judges, and prosecutors, and pulling you all closer to civil war, it will just be his personal revenge fantasy. It was ridiculous to have him as the candidate again. Any other conservative or even wannabe fascist would have avoided this problem. He'll probably be in jail before he even gets to the election, and broke. All the term will be him telling everyone how great he is, doing nothing for anyone else except building ineffectual walls people can dig under or climb over, spouting conspiracies every morning. Possibly bombing mexico. Winning his fictional war on Christmas, and ripping up as many safeguards as he can to create a dictatorship. He wants a dictatorship, he keeps saying so. Project 2025 was created by the same people trying to get him elected, you want a move towards a dystopian nightmare be my guest, I just hope we distance ourselves from America if you go that route, because I don't feel like getting arrested in the streets fighting it.

Also, have you ever noticed that almost every other industry has to become efficient, and competitive, find new ways to make money, new markets, and cut their costs? The film industry gets to overinflate everything to the nth degree to insulate itself from any real pressure, then complains, and falls flat on its face when it hits a hurdle. It's like there are no real capitalists in Hollywood anyway. If there were they know that without innovation and constant adaption, you die out anyway. Which is exactly what's happening in this case.

It doesn't completely eliminate all factors slowing birthrate to give people space to have a family, or a home at all, but it certainly provides the conditions required for it to happen. I am not talking about sticking people in a large highrise, I am thinking of small apartment complexes that house a few families at once in a large area, with a garden, as opposed to single houses. Most land is not taken up by skyscrapers, or large buildings at all. Most land is taken up by single-family houses across estates in the UK and much of Europe (*and non-vertical farmland). Again the reason people don't see that as the residence to raise families, is because they've been taught it. Generally, apartments are designed to be small, with no garden. The Western culture at least supports the preconceived notion of an ideal family home, in America with picket fences, in the UK with hedgerows as an example. So people feel inadequate when they cannot afford this culturally established ideal and put off having a family till they can. That means one or two things need to happen. Either a shift away from that stereotype AND/OR If we as a society sat down and properly designed family apartment complexes, we'd quadruple the available area for family homes, while not needing near as much additional infrastructure, or taking away land for things like farming or other industries. Again it would need a cultural shift, done through media, through education, and discourse such as we are having. Because I still don't think you understood what I said in full. I don't blame you, everyone is conditioned to want that large detached family home, so the thought of something else gets immediate pushback, and that's the problem I am trying to highlight with solutions for. So on immigration. WHY? I understand what you are saying to me, but you've not said how it relates to birthrate. Why are Muslims bad for birthrate? Then you talk about reducing world population but wanting to increase the birthrate? I'd like the world population down too, but those two goals conflict.