Emerald

Number one, the children didn't choose to go on the journey. And the parents (many of them seeking asylum) didn't know that they'd be separated from their children. Most come in seeking a better life. And it isn't even classified as a serious offense. So, it's cruel and unusual for that level of offense. Imagine taking children away from parents because the parent jaywalked. So, it's a very cruel thing to separate children from their parents in that situation. Some of the kids were even toddlers and couldn't process what was going on. But you act like I'm advocating for open borders when I'm criticizing a very barbaric policy that's unnecessarily caused a lot of trauma. So, don't behave as though this policy is just reflective of the president, border patrol, and ICE "doing their jobs". This is clearly over-reaching. We need common sense immigration policy. We don't need to inject cruelty or stupidity into the mix to get things done.

I already said that Obama was called the deporter in chief and that he bombed a bunch of civilians in Yemen. I'm no Obama apologist. If your defense of Trump's policy is "So what... a liberal did it too." then that's a piss-poor defense. The fact of the matter is that it's wrong to separate children from their parents at the border. So, even if they moved them to better facilities later on, it still is a very traumatic experience for them. Also, several children have died since being taken into custody. So, I'm very suspicious about the conditions they are living in. Stop apologizing for corrupt politicians.

This is well-known that the Trump administration separated children from their families and kept them detained in enclosures that are basically larger dog kennels. Here is a video...

Again... could you say that if YOU were currently a starving African child from where you are now consciously? If you were starving would you really be saying, "There is no me. So, there is no me staving." If you couldn't feel that truth from the standpoint of being a starving child, then you're not actually in touch with the Truth yourself. Your mind just thinks it understands and congratulates itself on being the wiser one. And attaching to these truths in this way is just spiritual bypassing and using top shelf truths to gloss over relative truths. So, consider that you don't actually know what's true, and that you're just clinging to canned intellectualized spiritual insights that make the world seem less scary to you and to feel like you know and have more control and expertise. And realize that bringing up higher truths in the midst of a lower truth conversation is an inappropriate paradigm to enter into... especially when there are real stakes on the relative level.

It was a rhetorical "I don't understand". The reason why is because he's playing partisan politics with this issues by saying... "So... a liberal did it too." But they're not connecting to the reality of the matter. They're just seeing it within the "left/right" dichotomy instead of the "benevolent/malevolent" dichotomy.

Yeah. They called Obama the deporter in chief. Not to mention, Obama bombed a bunch of civilians in Yemen. So, I don't even understand why you'd bring up Obama's destructive behavior to justify/excuse Trump's destructive behavior.

If you can say that from the perspective of a child living in a cage on the Mexican border who hasn't seen their parents in a year-and-a-half then more power to you. But if you are unable to do that, then check your self-deception and spiritual bypassing.

I agree. Which is why I believe Trump's diplomacy/denuclearization bids are naive at best. Either that or they're for show. Or potentially some other fuckery and trying to add another dictator to the collection. Though I don't really know if NK has anything to offer.

I don't know if this was a response to what I said. But it does actually matter to KJU if Trump is trustworthy, even if Trump will only be in there for a limited amount of time. If he sees that Trump is staging a coup in Venezuela and knows that the U.S. does a ton of regime change wars all the time, then he genuinely has something to fear. Now, I don't know if NK actually has any resources Trump/America would be interested in, but if I were in KJU's position I would be reticent to negotiate denuclearization with a world superpower that's well-known for their wars and picking on smaller countries. But if I were a dictator like KJU, I would also be a bit excited that Trump/America came to me. Like I said before, the U.S. backs like 70% of the world's dictatorships and even supplies weapons to them. If KJU thinks these negotiations could lead to something like that that, then he'd certainly be very interested in Trump.

A Centrist Democrat is basically center right. Centrist Democrats are still Blue/Orange even if they pay lip service to social issues (which Trump definitely doesn't do because he's not supportive of lgbt issues, women's issues, poc issues, or any of that..., so he's nowhere near even a Centrist Democrat by those standards). Trump does, however, do a lot of fake populism that makes him seem like he's gunning for the average white American working/middle class person. But he sees through on none of it. His interests are corporate interests and the interests of the billionaire class because he belongs to both of these groups. But he said all kinds of blatant lies like "Coal's coming back" and "I'm not going to outsource jobs" to get poor whites in the Rustbelt and elsewhere to vote for him. As far as mainstream American politics goes, you only really start tiptoeing into Green territory with Justice Democrats who are actively supporting progressive platforms for the good of the people and not just big corporate interests who can afford to buy the government. These are platforms like Medicare for All, a living wage, The Green New Deal, free college, getting money out of politics, and GENUINELY addressing income inequality. Most Democrats and ALL Republicans basically work for big corporations who line their pockets so that they can do the shady business deals they want. So, the standard politician on both sides either play to the social issues that left-leaning or right-leaning folks care about. So, a Democrat past 2010 would pay lip service to marriage equality, once they knew enough people in the base were on board. And a Republican would pay lip-service to pro-life legislation. But neither of these politicians actually care about that enough to upset their cash cows. They'll vote right along with whatever legislation that their donors support. So, they are deeply entrenched in Blue/Orange because Blue/Orange is their bread and butter. Trump is definitely Blue/Orange. No question about it. So is our system. So, is Neoliberal Centrism.

Consider this... Why on Earth would North Korea denuclearize when America is staging so many regime change wars in so many countries? In order for Trump's negotiations to work out, Kim Jung Un would have to genuinely believe that Trump wouldn't stage a coup on North Korea after they relinquish their weapons... in the face of the Trump administration's new efforts to stage a coup is Venezuela and continued occupations/regime changes in so many other countries. So, why would a small country, relinquish its only major weapon when negotiating with Trump? Would that be a good idea for them to do? I think not. Diplomacy is a good idea, and certainly it's better to practice diplomacy than war with NK. But in order to properly practice diplomacy the other countrys' leaders would actually have to trust America and the Trump administration. The U.S. supports over 70% of the world's dictatorships and even supplies weapons to some of them. So, if Trump is trying to get NK to denuclearize, the certainly it will make KJU suspicious as to what his motives are. But if his desires for denuclearize and diplomacy are genuine, then he's definitely not thinking it through properly. Not exactly a Spiral Dynamics wizard thing to do...

I would say that art by itself isn't really a life-purpose. It's more-so what impact you'd like to have with your art. What do you want to communicate and how do you want it to effect society? What would you like to say?

She might not be gone. But if you brought her to some pick-up thing, it's probably not going to make her feel very good and will potentially send her some red flags and mixed signals. Imagine she'd brought you to a "fuck lot's of guys" tour. You probably wouldn't be feeling very good about it, especially if you were in a FWB situation that was in the running to go toward a relationship. You're not really showing her that you care about her specifically. Now, you might say that RSD is different than that. But in the eyes of a woman who's vetting you out to be a partner, that's going to effectively be the near-equivalent her bringing you on a "fuck lot's of guys" tour.

I recommend shifting from 'product-oriented' sex to 'process-oriented' sex. So, sex is more about communication, connection, and self-expression than it is about the orgasm. This will make it a lot better for her especially since there will be more focus toward emotional connection than there is toward the physical. So, that way, when you and your partner are making love there is no bar to meet and it becomes a more creative and enjoyable act.

At present, I definitely live from the perspective of ego. But I am a lot less neurotic as a result of those experiences and the inner work that I've done over the course of the past 9 or 10 years. I don't take things quite as seriously as I used to.

This is incorrect thinking. The thing that helps both anxious and avoidant people heal their past traumas is to get contrast and to actually experience a healthy attachment based in unconditional presence and love without expectation for the other person to go against what's right for them. So, if both he and she are able to communicate honestly enough and have the other's best interest at heart, this friendship could be excellent for healing and experiencing a healthy relationship. It would be hard work. She would have to practice giving him space as he needs it and not acting from her neediness, and he would have to practice opening up and communicating his feelings. But given that anxious and avoidant people often mirror eachother in terms of their reactions to trauma, they act as representations of the shadow to eachother and can also help them integrate the opposite in themselves. And this can help neutralize the imbalance.

Excellent! Hopefully this situation will help give you both the contrast and practice with forming healthy attachments. I think this is probably the most fruitful way to go about this situation.

A man who is naturally more feminine will always be more feminine. But there is masculinity there as well. The real question to ask is, "Why do I want to be more masculine?" Sometimes the desire itself could indicate unrealized masculine potential that has not yet been developed or is repressed that wants to be integrated. Or the desire could relate to simply wanting a certain type of social approval, which would mean that the desire itself is just a means to an end. The main thing is to seek to develop as much of your potential as you can and to let yourself bloom. If you're really developing yourself as a person and growing yourself, more of your potential will come up and will no longer be unrealized. And when it does, embrace it regardless of whether or not it's feminine or masculine.

You're dealing with Anima Possession. Because there is a disintegration of the Anima (the female aspect in a man a.k.a the feminine side), there is a deep longing to reconnect and integrate the repressed Anima. This translates as a deep need for connection to the feminine which is often translated as a desperate need for female validation and sexual communion with women. But this healing doesn't really work this way. They way to heal is to integrate the Anima by releasing resistance to the feminine. Also, because the Anima is rejected, it gets angry at you and projects the shadow feminine onto women as a whole group. So, you will see women as heartless succubi that are up on a pedestal and holding your personal value in their hands. And you'll get angry and try to drag them down off that perceived pedestal. But the thing to understand that none of this is actually happening in external reality. It is a dynamic that's playing out INTERNALLY and being projected and superimposed onto reality. So, you are feeling rejected by women, because the Anima has been rejected and is enacting revenge upon you for casting it away. And so it becomes this mix of desperation for sex and female validation along with hatred of women and a desire to dominate them in the way that you project that they dominate and control you. As a woman, it's very uncomfortable to have men come and try to depedestal you, when the pedestal is just a figment of their imagination. And it's very uncomfortable to have men try to diminish your power as a woman, when you don't possess the power they perceive you to have. So, as someone who has been on the receiving end of Anima projection, I can tell you that this perceived dynamic is entirely a figment of the unconscious mind.

This is why I had said to let go of the attachment to outcomes, and to not expect a relationship. I was saying that, if he's important to her as a person, to give him space and presence. Someone who is avoidant can't help but be avoidant until there is resolve. The same is true of those who are anxious in their attachment. So, I was advocating for allowing their friendship to be a place of resolve. But this would have to be done with a level of detachment that the OP may not be capable of. So, that's something to take into consideration. My advice is more-so for the case that she cares about him even if no romantic relationship can come of it... like if she sincerely wants to help him. And this, of course, wouldn't bar her from seeking a romantic connection with someone else. That said, if she's just looking for a relationship and doesn't really have interest in him as a person beyond those ends, then she should just move on. I suppose that my assumption is that, if she cares about him enough to be in a relationship with him, she probably cares about him even if no relationship were possible and that she would naturally want to help him. And helping him would entail holding space for him unconditionally without expectation as he works through his fear of intimacy.

Right now, society is on the path toward the integration of the Divine Feminine into society and has been for over a century. And any time there are huge leaps and bounds with progress relative to this feminine integration, there is a backlash of archetypal "defenders of the patriarchy" cropping up that try to resist the change. You can find these types everywhere now-a-days. And Jordan Peterson is someone who is an obvious leader in the field of patriarchy defenders since he's aware of his agenda and what it entails on the mundane and esoteric level. He also knows what to show and what to conceal. That's my perception of him. So, he advocates for resisting the Divine Feminine in a way that slips under people's radar as it's encapsulated in the facade of self-improvement and protecting the world from "postmodern neomarxists". But it's really about resisting the feminine principle and maintaining the masculine imbalance over the feminine, on the esoteric level and ideally (for him) reaching toward the mundane man/woman level as well. And also actively trying to bring things back to "order" in the patriarchal sense is what he genuinely believes is healthy for society. So, he doesn't do this nefariously. He just takes evolutionary progress to be an indicator of something that's gone awry, as opposed to a symptom of growth toward a new ordering principle that more holistic and better for people and the planet. He sees chaos where there is order, because he is too attached to the old order. Unfortunately, despite JPs positive intentions, this mindset that he's propagating will actually destroy our planet if we let his mindset maintain its foothold on society. Human survival depends on us integrating the feminine principle and evolving into "Green" on the SD model. I just hope we will make the jump. But the popularity of Jordan Peterson, makes me a bit nervous that we won't be able to. Yet again, there have already been huge changes. So, maybe we can.

I would read her post again. It doesn't really seem to me that he's showing "typical male behavior". That looks a bit different in practice. I'm guessing that he genuinely is experiencing avoidant tendencies and has an insecure attachment style. So, my advice to her was to detach from the idea of having a relationship. But that, if he means something to her beyond her desire to be in a relationship with him, to continue being there for him and hold space for him. He may never have had someone give that to him before. He honestly doesn't really seem to be doing the "typical man" thing to me, as her post indicates that any closeness from anyone might be met with this protection mechanism. Those with avoidant attachment styles, often were expected as children to sacrifice themselves to gain approval and love from parents. So, they experience a lot of fear and anxiety when given love into adulthood. So, for them it's like, the thing that they need most hurts them. It's like trying to drink water when you have scarlet fever and your throat is on fire. Just inviting a bit of nuance into your advice.

Everyone already knows that it's Eckhart. Why even ask such an obvious question?!?!

What I would do in this situation is to let go of any need for things to go in a particular direction, and just follow the situation. Trust the process. So, if he feels like he's not ready for a relationship, then honor that. And if he means a lot to you and you truly care for him as a person, let him know that you'll be there for him even if he isn't interested in a romantic relationship. So, it's basically like releasing hold of a butterfly, and if it comes to perch itself on you again to allow it to. But if not, to refrain from chasing it. It's really about receptivity and surrender to reality as it is, and trusting that life will bring you in the direction you need to go in without getting attached to outcomes. Also, consider that he could have avoidant tendencies and trauma around intimacy. In that case, you'll have to give him space, otherwise he will close up. If love in his childhood came conditioned upon him losing parts of himself, he will naturally recoil from love/intimacy as a result of those wounds. And that's true even if he really cares about you and has romantic feelings toward you. So, foremost, believe him when he tells you these things. And assure him that you will continue to hold space for him regardless of how he feels or what he expresses to you. And don't try to fix him or heal him of this... especially not for selfish reasons like wanting a relationship with him. That's the worst thing you can do. Just hold space for him. It is simply your presence, receptivity, and ability to hold space for him without expectations that may give him contrast with what he's experienced in the past that has made him fear intimacy. And through that contrast, it may give him space to feel comfortable as he will have someone providing unconditional love and presence with him in a way that he may never have gotten before. And again... do this without neediness or expectation of it turning into a relationship. Do it because you genuinely care about him.