Emerald

Brilliant! That's the way to win the war of optics. The left needs to get better at that.

I do know people that want to abolish the police. To me, it shows a lot of ignorance to how the Criminal Justice System functions and where the corruption actually is. Getting rid of the police is like trying to uproot a tree by getting rid of some of the leaves. The CJS has far more corruption than just the police. It's a whole leviathan of corruption. So, abolishing the police won't do much good to get rid of the corruption. Cops are mere peons of the institution. Abolishing the private prison industry, on the other hand would get rid of so much corruption and would de-incentivize mass incarceration and over-policing. It would also de-incentivize the drug war and other forms of legislations that criminalize non-violent "crimes". And it would de-incentivize mandatory minimum sentences. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the private prison industry has some hand in keeping certain neighborhoods poor and desperate. They need people to commit crimes to live in their prisons so that they can get more taxpayer money. So, poor and crime riddled neighborhood are in their financial interests. But yes, it is not such good optics to say, "defund the police". It guarantees most people will be scared off of something that's actually very reasonable. The left needs to improve its rhetoric.

To be clear, defunding the police makes total sense, as there is too much money going into policing things that don't need to be policed. So, it just means cutting down on over-policing. In fact, quite a lot of CARES act funds were given to police departments, even though they were supposed to be for Covid relief. It's the same argument as cutting the military budget. It's over-inflated, so we should cut it and reallocate those funds to other things. But the private prison industry, won't stand for cutting down on policing because incarceration is good business for them. The more beds they fill in the penitentiary, the more tax payer dollars go into the private prison owner's pocket. The military industrial complex also won't stand for the cutting down on the military budget. As long as they can keep buying off politicians who keep us in perpetual warfare, they can keep making "defense" materials... and keep getting access to the giant pot of taxpayer dollars. Honestly, they could bury all the planes they make... it doesn't matter. The owners of the industry make a ton of money from taxpayers and the politicians get a cut of it. That's all they care about. The perpetual offensive warfare is mostly to make the average person okay with so much of their money going to "defense".

Yeah, there's definitely many factors that have coalesced into this new territory of fuckery. And the media corporations gobble it up, because polarization leads to fanaticism and fanaticism leads to money in their pockets and a very engaged audience.

That's a good point. That is totally true. But I sense that the reason why that works so well, is because people end up finding their main means of connection and meeting their emotional needs through internet echo chambers... in the same way that connection motivates people toward joining cults. So, it essentially takes the cult phenomenon online where people come together to collectively project their pain and trauma onto some boogeyman. And this bonds people and meets that need... the feeling of banding together as a team to fight an enemy. And Trump is the perfect leader to individuals who get sucked into these echo chambers, making them feel validated and giving them a seal of institutional legitimacy.

It's really hard to figure out how to wake people up to their own brainwashing. I think the crux of it is that we have to figure out what motivated them emotionally to project onto Trump in this way, where he is their savior and leader. This is what makes people susceptible to cults... unmet emotional needs and unconscious trauma... isolation and loneliness. So, it really has to be dealt with at the emotional under layers of what made these people so ripe for radicalization and weaponization by a demagogue and ego-maniac like Trump.

No. Radicalization is when people buck the status quo. What is radical is always defined in relation to the status quo. So, when people are radicalized, they are turning against the status quo... either toward the left or the right. Whether toward the challenging of power structures or toward deeper levels of nationalism and authoritarianism.

I'm trying to get you to realize what you're doing. And now you're morphing your original message to something more socially acceptable because you've gotten so much criticism. But I want you to look at your original message and let yourself see the deflection, denial, and false equivalency in it. But you will not. Your mind is already rewriting your meaning into something that sounds better.

Just keep going with the cognitive dissonance and denial then. Your firewall of unconscious seem impenetrable. Get your ego up out of the situation if you want to see things clearly.

Again, you're deflecting. The "other side" has not stormed the capitol building. It is them who has stormed the capitol building. And stop making this about the "hate for the right". That's just more deflection. It's about a bunch of Fascists storming the capitol building. Not leftists. Not people that hate Trump. Not the "other" guy. Deflection is a coping mechanism that allows people to deny or diminish what is true. And that's what you're doing. Stop doing the "two sides" fallacy. It's a false equivalency.

I read your message very clearly. You were trying to obfuscate responsibility from the extremists who broke into the capitol onto the left as a group. I'm not demonizing you. I'm telling you to look at the mental gymnastics your'e doing to defend actual Fascists. You're fooling yourself into minimizing the seriousness of this and doing "What-about-isms" with leftists. Take personal responsibility for the things you identify with. And if you're going to criticize vandalism on the left that happens during BLM protests... then you should also condemn right wing extremists when they storm a capitol building and kill people. Otherwise, it's just selective outrage.

They broke in. They've killed one woman so far.

If someone alleges voter fraud, then the burden of proof is on them to prove it so. The burden of proof is not on someone who doesn't believe in voter fraud to prove that it isn't true. These people are not defending Democracy. Trump lost and he knows it. And it wasn't even a surprise that he lost. He had a really terrible response the pandemic. And his campaign strategy was a lot weaker this time. Plus, he couldn't convince the people he duped into thinking he'd "bring the jobs back" last time. People realize when you don't deliver on your campaign promises. So, because there is not proof of voter fraud, these protestors are staging an authoritarian coup against the remaining shreds of Democracy in our government. They are trying to overturn the will of the people to make sure that their guy stays in office. And that's the real reason they're doing it.

Look at how loyal you stay to "your team", even as they form a Fascist coup against the government. Notice how your rules are different for "your team" than they are for the "other team". If you want to identify with the right, take some personal responsibility and be even-handed. Stop blaming "the left" for the problems with far right extremists. Stop bending your mind in loops of cognitive dissonance to be an apologist for literal Fascists. Think for yourself and actually be principled in your stances. If you're going to denounce rioting on the left... also denounce it when your team does it. Stop making the things that you identify with the exception. Become aware. Your unwavering allegiance to "your team" is just your allegiance to your own ego in disguise.

Rape definitely doesn't have anything to do with what someone wears. It can be motivated by pure selfishness, in the sense that they want to have sex with someone and they have no regard for that person otherwise. So, they can see that person as a mere vehicle for their own desire. Or it can be motivated by a kind of "revenge" or desire for power over someone else, where the rapist can feel like they're overcoming some internal feeling of powerlessness and subjugation by making their victim feel powerless and subjugated. For example, a man who feels unworthy and powerless and feels rejected by women as a whole group, might rape a woman to feel like he's exacting revenge against all women by making that individual woman feel unworthy, powerless, and desecrated to the point of being rejection-worthy.

The reason why masculine and feminine attract is because they are opposites on the same spectrum. The important part to notice here is that they exist on the same spectrum. So, there needs to be commonality established to appreciate those differences. For example, when Tarzan first meets Jane in the animated Tarzan movie, it is the first time he's seen another human... let alone a human woman. So, when he sees that her hand looks similar to his hand, it is a matter of fascination to him to see someone who is similar... but opposite. So differences on different spectrums don't lead to polarity or attraction. For example, apples and chairs are not complementary opposites. They're just different. Therefore, you cannot become attractive to a woman, without yourself integrating your feminine side. If you become too dis-similar from women, it will have the opposite effect... unrelatability.

Glad to hear that it was helpful.

It is correct. It bears out in reality in other places. Populist radical movements come up when things get tough for the poor and working class. And that's true whether a person's politics are on the right or on the left. When people radicalize to the left, it is mobilization against large power structures. When people radicalize to the right, it can become mobilization against large power structures as well... but only if that power structure is a perceived "other". This is why mass mobilization on the right can lead to Fascism. But you find in other countries that America is an imperialist influence, where it seeks to keep the populace subjugated and desperate so that America has a cheap labor force... you have both right wing and left wing populist movements popping up. Both of which are antithetical to American interests as a power structure. But within America, right wing populists will identify with America and then demonize anyone who is perceived as an "enemy of the state". And so, right wing radicalization is very good for American power structures and their interests as right wing populist movements can become another arm of the power structure. So, it is absolutely true that that the poor, working class, and desperate masses are ripe for radicalization regardless of political affilation or preference. While, the upper classes are doing okay, so there is no reason to radicalize... other than for ideological reasons. And ideological reasons are not as compelling as genuine desperation and poverty.

What kind of creepy things are you saying? Are you being overtly sexual or needy? Or are you just acting awkwardly and thinking it is being interpreted as creepy? Are you actually getting feedback that you're creepy? And when I say feedback, I don't just mean getting a 'no', because no's are just part for the course. I mean feedback by women telling you forcefully to stay away or visibly looking scared of you or telling you that you're creepy. Basically, rejection doesn't mean that you've been perceived as creepy... it just means that she wasn't interested. So, are you actually saying creepy things? Or are you self-conscious that the things you're saying are being perceived as creepy?

If you want to find truth in the red pill movement, you have to look at the emotional realities that undergird the desire to join such a movement. The movement itself consists of very little truth and is mostly a means of collective self-soothing where men can get together and project their feelings of anger and powerlessness onto women. And then, they either learn to try to prevail over their projected image of women through self-development OR through more destructive means. Or they wallow in their feelings of powerlessness in relation to their projected image of women and go into victim's mentality and the whole "black pill" thing. Needless to say, none of that is productive or based in truth. That said... there is a very valid reason why so many men are attracted to such a movement. But it really doesn't have anything to do with women. Red Pill is a collective coping mechanism that men who feel deeply powerlessness can use to ignore that powerlessness by channeling it into anger and a desire to dominate towards something external (in this case, women). So, the emotions are very real and valid. There is a valid reason why the red pill movement is a thing. But most people involved with the red pill movement aren't aware that the issues they're struggling with are internal emotional issues as opposed to external issues. It's really all about Anima disintegration and the projection of the repressed Anima.

Well, enlightenment means to wake up to the fact that you are God and that everything is God. This is usually accompanied by unconditional love and acceptance of all of the infinite facets of reality... the good, the bad, and the ugly. Now, typically, in human terms, this translates to a recognition of oneness and a desire to alleviate suffering from others just as there is a desire to alleviate the suffering of the self... because there is a recognition that there is no distinction. This is usually a side effect of getting beyond ego. But if we supercede the concern for humanity and make it unconditional love and understanding of what is regardless of what is preferable from the human perspective, one could have unconditional love for tragedy, suffering, pain, and all things terrible and to recognize the place of suffering in the world. And then not see any reason to alleviate it because in an infinite reality, there must be all things including suffering. And this is one facet of God. God abhors neither peace nor war. God abhors neither life nor death. God abhors neither good nor evil. It is the place where all dichotomies collapse and it has infinite love for all of it, all the time, forever. This includes infinite love for the most blissful heavens and the deepest, darkest hells. Now, I do think what Wilbur said was still a stretch, because unconditional love reflected through a human lens usually leads to greater levels of compassion and not less. But unconditional love is truly that... unconditional. So, just as we can have unconditional love for humanity and living beings... we can have unconditional love for macrocosmic destructive forces like war. But the idea of the enlightened nazi or enlightened sadist... could happen in theory. But I would suspect that it would make more compassion bloom in them... as long as they applied that compassion to the groups they hate and don't find some way to rationalize things away. And enlightened people can rationalize things away too.

Thank you

There is a social cohesion strategy called "crabs in the bucket". I think Leo has even spoken about this phenomenon in his video. It is where, if you go out crabbing, you don't have to keep a lid on the bucket of crabs. If one tries to escape, the other crabs in the bucket will yank the escaping crab back down into the bucket. And this is quite accurate to how social cohesion works in human social orders such as families, religious institutions, businesses, friendship circles, and the list goes on and on. Every human social order has a certain "vibration". There is a frequency or a note that all people have to maintain in order to stay in a given human social order. This frequency of a given social order includes a certain emotional set-point, world-view, role, and identity. And if someone starts to deviate from that frequency in some way, the crabs in the bucket phenomenon will ensue... for better and for worse. This means, that if a person within a certain social order (such as a family or friend group) is entraining themselves with a frequency that is healthier than the given social order, the members of that social order will try to be like crabs in the bucket and try to yank that person back down into the familiar frequency. And if they cannot, they will likely be unable to hold space for that expansion. This is often why it's so difficult to heal from old traumas or to awaken to new possibilities, because the family members and friendships are often bonded through the frequency of that generational trauma. So, when we have awakenings or growth periods and we leave the frequency of generational trauma, we now lose the outlet for connection to those who are still entrenched in the generation trauma. On the flip side, the crabs in the bucket phenomenon can be used in a positive way. So, if a person starts entraining with a frequency that is less healthy than the given social order, the crabs in the bucket dynamic entails that the family or friend group will try to yank you back up to maintain social cohesion. For example, if a member of a particular social group starts doing hard drugs and becomes an addict, the social group will try to maintain cohesion with that person by bringing them back into the fold. The issue is that, from the social cohesion perspective, the crabs in the bucket often can't differentiate between a crab that is transcending the frequency of the bucket and the crab that is falling into a denigrated frequency compared to the frequency of the bucket. It is equally a threat to social cohesion. And the crabs usually don't recognize that the escaping crab is actually going somewhere better. This dynamic is exacerbated in families that are dealing with enmeshment trauma, where individuality is discouraged and all the focus is placed upon social cohesion. This may be the thing you're experiencing because, now that you no longer play this specific role in your friends'/family's lives because you have transcended that role. And now that you no longer hold the same "frequency" and don't/can't play the same role, they no longer know how to maintain social cohesion with you.

I think a big part of this is to recognize that the end game is not to gain absolute insight into the things. Truth does not equal insight. The mind cannot conceptualize of Truth. It can only receive insights that lead it either closer or further away from the Truth. Terrence McKenna has a great quote that goes something like, (paraphrased) 'Don't expect the brain of a primate to be able to understand the full depth and complexity of infinite reality.' Insight is a practical tool that the mind can use... not an end game. And when we realize that all our collection of insights and knowledge are things we can never know for sure and we have no attachment to any of it being true, we can get into a space where we can experience the reality without the mind coming in trying to "know" everything. And we can also use the tools of our insight much more effectively because we're holding onto them much more loosely. The point of the contemplation is to get into that space of consistently realizing that we know nothing... because emptiness of knowledge is where we can experience what's true beyond the attempts of the left side of the brain to analyze and deconstruct things into abstract "bite-sized" meaning. When we can bypass that meaning-making function of the mind and experience the reality separate from our insights about it, we can experience Truth. But we can NEVER understand or know Truth. We can only experience. The mind is a bit like a computer program that can only read a certain kind of document. Like Microsoft Word can only read Microsoft Word documents. And files that are in a different format cannot be opened and integrated with that program. So, the infinite complexity of reality cannot be accurately compressed into a Microsoft Word document in the same way that the infinite complexity of reality cannot be accurately known/understood/conceptualized of by the human mind. And once the conceptual mind really realizes this, it may surrender and withdraw its meaning-making functions enough to catch a glimpse of the reality.

This is a common trap that people fall into when trying to live from a non-dual perspective. They want to create a clear distinction between duality and non-duality... which means that they're not being non-dual. You said it well. There is a relative reality that exists within the absolute reality, and the truths of that relative reality should not be bypassed or demoted in importance. We have to live this life, even with its illusory nature. And it is that hierarchical thinking of 'non-duality versus duality' and creating a distinction that shifts away from the non-dual perspective. And distinction between non-duality and duality is a dualistic perspective. In the same way that the infinite and finite are both part of the infinite, the non-dual and dual are both part of the non-dual. That's the paradoxical nature of the Dao. And I would wager a guess that she is probably not consistent with disengaging from duality. I mean, I'm sure that she still eats. That's something that happens within the context of the illusion of maya and in the dualistic world. So, she buys into the illusion enough to continue eating because she recognizes that she needs to engage in duality that way for her own survival. But she won't buy into the illusion of politics on the basis that it is illusory thing, which is an inconsistent perspective. If she had some other reason for not engaging in politics we could weigh that based on the merit of that argument. I would likely disagree with that argument still. But at least we could weigh it out on its merits. But if she is saying, "politics is all part of the illusion of maya, and therefore not worth my consideration." Then, that's just inconsistent because there are bound to be aspects of maya that she participates in and takes into consideration. So, her perspective amounts to a kind of spiritual bypassing. And if we take her perspective to the nth degree, would she have the same perspective if she were a Jewish person living during the holocaust? I think not. If her awareness of the illusory nature of politics doesn't extend to more extreme situations where it is her life on the chopping block, she is just sticking her head in the sand.