Emerald

I totally agree. When a man is out of touch with his Feminine side, it makes him come across as very unattractive and immature. Plus, the repression of the Feminine makes men feel this lack and relates to women desperately because he's trying to integrate the Feminine through proxy of his relationship. It's like he's like, "I am impoverished of the Feminine, and I need a woman to provide me Femininity!" And often times, men will think their issue with dating is that they're not Masculine enough... when the issue is that they're not Feminine enough. And there's no softness or warmth to connect with. And a man with repressed Femininity tend to be kind of anti-social. Usually, men who polarize into Masculinity and repress their Feminine side are like cold nerdy brains in a jar... and can have a lot of repressed Shadow Feminine qualities sneak through their demeanor like entitlement, cattiness, pettiness, and resentment (towards women). So, a man who represses his Feminine side is like a combo between a cold juvenile locked-in guy and a resentful catty mean girl all rolled into one. But a man who integrates his Feminine side tends to come across as more Masculine in an attractive way... and is warm, present, centered in his body, and capable of intimacy. What makes a man attractive is a mixture between softness and strength. A man who is only strength is like a cold stone statue. But the "Men need to be more Masculine to attract women" ideas causes men to harden more and more and more... which makes his problem worse and worse and worse.

Yes, I've been trying to do that by not going on the internet for anything other than work for 6 out of 7 days of the week... which I've mostly been sticking to for a couple months. It just feels so draining to go anywhere on the internet... like watching YT videos, going on social media, going on here, etc. It just feels overwhelming in some way. And I broke that habit several days ago and have been going on here too much. And the thing that makes me break that habit, I usually think of as curiosity. And that's part of it. But it occurred to me a couple days ago that I'm looking for spaces for my anger to exist... and that's what attracts me here. So, it's a very magnetic pull to a space that feels kind of draining to me. But it's meeting a need in some ways. I'm going back to my 6 out of 7 days "no internet" habit tomorrow because I feel better the way. But I have something to solve now that I know what need it's meeting.

I do know that I won't shift his perspective. And in actuality, even though I consciously operate like that's my intention and I want people in general to wake up to their harmful way... it's not that important to me in this micro-context that he individually changes his perspective... as the argument is what I seem to be looking for. Like, if he was like, "Oh yeah. I guess you're right." I'd be like, "Okay cool." And then I'd move on to try to find another person to battle it out with... because the real driver is to seek a debate. I'm just like Brer Rabbit when he fights the tar baby and gets all caught up in the tar. And I just struggle to stop myself because it gives me something to be in "battle mode". But it's draining. It could be that I get to battle with a person that I can see as a symbol for the macro-cosmic dynamics that I find untenable. So, instead of arguing at the reality... I can duke it out with some random person on here and feel the simultaneous effectiveness and ineffectiveness that leads to rage. But these are what I think the reasons are... The first reason is that it gives me an outlet to feel rage and spin my wheels, which creates an "unstoppable force, immovable object dynamic" where I am the unstoppable force and he is the immovable object. And it puts me in a space where I can find this ragey-feeling holding point and connect to my suppressed rage in a way that is cold, controlled, and intellectual. The second reason is that it gives me the ability to spar it out and express my rage in a low-stakes reality. Like, I'm not worried about tip-toeing around sensitivities like I usually am. I can be direct and confrontational. The third reason is because it helps me form my thoughts by engaging in debates and putting my thoughts in writing. It's like argumentative journaling. And there's an inner work component to it... because it helps me know certain parts of myself more. The fourth reason is that it may have an impact on the perspective of those who are onlookers to the debate. But at the same time, it all feels draining because it wastes a lot of energy. But it's like I can't resist this process.

@Schizophonia I don't think we're getting anywhere here. And I'm not going to engage with and debunk all the defenses because those are just you hiding the truth from yourself to paint a nicer picture of reality over top of the much grimmer reality that you may rather remain ignorant to. You're just trying to justify over and over why it's okay to kill and exploit animals unnecessarily for your own pleasure... by making false claims about farms not causing animal's suffering until their deaths and their deaths being painless. And others are a bunch of defenses... some that are false like the idea that animal farming is ecologically a good thing to do. And others are just throwing spaghetti at the wall and using what-about-isms to try to defend the practice of exploiting animals for pleasure like, "So what? People work in terrible conditions" or "So what? You're going to die too. And it might be painful." And yet others are just baseless appeals to some inherent idea of human existential superiority. And still other are ad hominem attacks. But the commonality that all these defenses and logical fallacies have is that they are all a reflection of you desperately trying to shield yourself from the ugly truth and quell your own cognitive dissonance. They are all just another way of saying, "I don't want to face the facts, so I'm going to use this defense to try to hide from the truth." But I get that you don't want to look at that. I really do. It's a much prettier and nicer story that you're telling yourself of the myths of "happy meat" and "ethical slaughter"... and to justify, so that you don't have to admit complicity in that which is monstrous. But if you're interested in what's actually true... go watch Earthlings or other videos of what happens in slaughterhouses. And you will see a more accurate depiction of what happens in the meat and dairy industry. And it will dispel you of your naivety... and you will graduate from being the sweet summer child who live in a fanciful bubble to a disillusioned adult who looks squarely at the ugly ugly truth. Also... to start with a little truth to dispel the mythos.. 99% of animals are raised in crowded factory farms. And even the 1% of animals that are raised "ethically" usually have very minimum standards that the farmer has to meet to classify the animal as grass-fed or cage-free. So, even "ethical" farms (not that those actually exist) are few and far between... and the standards aren't much better, as businesses are just complying to minimum standards to get that designations.

Thank you for sharing! I can relate to that a bit. My posting on here is a mixed bag of things. On one hand, I use it like a journal that responds (and even argues) back with me. So, I get to get my thoughts out. So, that's helpful. But on the other hand, I find the there's something that feels draining about it... and like I keep running through a coping strategy of "fighting with the tar baby", but not getting to the under-layers. But it gives me a stoic and easily controlled outlet for anger... where I can just do the intellect part.

Thank you for reading. And thank you for being welcoming! One thing I would say though, is that I don't tend to like how ethical concerns specifically get categorized in a specific phase of Spiral Dynamics... as it puts a box around compassion and ethics that frames it as a lesser "tier 1" perspective. Often times, people will brush off concerns about the unnecessary harms in the world as "Stage Green" and firmly within Tier One. But the idea on the forum is that it's superior to transcend Tier 1 and move to Tier 2, so it devalues Stage Green, even as most on this forum are fairly Orange-dominant and whose highest leverage point for growth is to open up to Stage Green values (which is what enables me to fight the good fight on here with all the dick-measuring contests). It's just so easy for people to feel like their perspective is superior to it and discount it as a stage that they've transcended... when they only criticize Green from below and cannot differentiate Green perspectives from higher perspectives on ethics and loving-kindness. So, it frames any ethical concerns that one might pose as tier one... while tier two is seen as ethically neutral and a more detached. After all, Stage Yellow is a bit like that. 'So, why wouldn't Stage Turquoise operate that way if it's also in tier 2?' But in the deepest states of awareness that I've been in (like in my medicine journeys experiencing Christ Consciousness) it is very much centered in heart-wisdom and unlocks the ability for deep compassion. And it solidifies the value of loving kindness towards all. It absolutely breaks your heart open in these states of higher consciousness because all griefs and all sufferings are our own. And it's how I conceptualize of the difference between Turquoise and Yellow. Yellow is very detached, intellectual, and multi-perspectival... and it's like having a really strong effective sword for cutting through to truths from many angles. But Turquoise is this opening of heart wisdom and recognition of the oneness between others and yourself... and a recognition that the pain of others is your own pain. And to the untrained eye, it can look Green. So, if I am approaching a topic (like trying to raise awareness around the unnecessary suffering of animals in the meat and dairy industry)... I will tend to approach it more from a mixture of Stage Green and Yellow. So, if I have a person who goes into a defense about it. I'm going to approach that topic from the vantage-point of, "How can I get this person to see the truth beyond their intellectual defenses?" So, in Yellow, it's the question of "What are the underlying root causes that make people more likely to perpetuate suffering (or specifically the suffering of animals)? And how can I address those root causes?" And you try to treat the germ and not the symptom. Like, for humans perpetuating the unnecessary suffering animals... the symptom is exploiting animals for pleasure but the root cause is ignorance (where heart wisdom and empathy isn't extended into the perspective of the animal). And what is the medicine for ignorance? Truth. That's how to approach animal rights from a Yellow perspective looks... even if we think about animal rights activism as a Stage Green thing. But in Green, it's more like advocating for particular causes that one sees as "the right cause". And it comes from a political perspective, where there is polarization and you try to get others to hop on your cause through appeals to moral certainty... and you fight it out with the opposing viewpoint. And because of the polar nature of Green approaches to these sorts of topics... if a Stage Green perspective gets a win, there will be a backlash of its opposite polarity because it doesn't address the real root causes. So, Green is a more surface level approach that advances its opposition even as it advances its own cause. But both Stage Green and Stage Yellow can be oriented towards the same goals. That's why I think there is a tendency to see anyone who is talking about things that pertain to the reduction of suffering as Stage Green... or to view it as some narrow ideology. And I've had it happen plenty of times that someone who's operating from a space of lesser integrity and lesser awareness, tries to frame my perspective as Stage Green and theirs as a Tier Two perspective. But in actuality, they're usually a mixture of Orange with a smattering of Yellow and a resistance to Stage Green. And this can muddy the waters and embolden the cruel and enablers of the cruel because a stance against cruelty gets framed as less evolved than those who believe themselves to be in higher perspectives than they are. What it really boils down to is that I am consistently advocating for that which avoids unnecessary suffering... and what provides mercy to unnecessary suffering.

Of course, anything online can be monitored. Like, if a crime that pertains to national security were committed and a forum member was a suspect, they'd probably have an agent or two comb back through that forum member's interactions... and keep tabs on them. But the idea that there would be government agents randomly keeping active tabs on this forum is highly unlikely. That would only be in the unlikely case that someone on here is a suspect in a crime that threatens national security. The fact of the matter is that government agencies don't have an infinite amount of resources to pay agents to keep tabs on every random forum that exists on the internet. And while they might keep tabs on the forums of politically radical groups with many members which might threaten the status quo, they certainly wouldn't alot resources to hiring an agent or two to keep tabs on the Actualized forum because this forum is not a threat to national security.

This is not a real dilemma because I have the privilege of being human, and I don't have to choose between a life of extreme suffering and being killed as a young adult and a life of slightly less suffering and being killed as a young adult. It would just be armchair philosophy for me to consider it. So, it's a false choice because I have human privilege, and I don't have to choose between two horrible options. But both options are horrible and completely untenable, and animals don't even get a choice between horrible and worse. Add to that that most people just eat meat for pleasure and creature comforts, so it's also a false dilemma because we don't even need to subject animals to that kind of treatment at all. We could just stop breeding them into existence to kill and eat them, and switch to healthier and more sustainable sources of nourishment that doesn't involve immense amount of suffering to produce. And if my entire life was being raised to be farmed, exploited, and slaughtered in my teens or early twenties, I would much rather not be born. It would save me from being constantly made pregnant to have a calf, so that I continue to produce milk that gets extracted from me daily. And then, when that baby that I carried for 10 months is forcibly taken away from me, it's either shot with a bolt gun immediately... or it's pinned up so that it can't move and its muscles atrophy and it can be slaughtered sold for veal 2 months later. So, it's a short hard life of nothing but suffering. And I would much rather not exist if I had to choose non-existence and being farmed and slaughtered. It's like, you set up a false dichotomy and ask, "Would your rather murder a middle aged person or an old person?" And if the answer is anything other than "Neither", there's a problem. So, we don't need to choose. We can just quit paying for exploitation. There is no such thing as "happy meat".

You've certainly led an even more decent life than those life-stock animals by being free to go anywhere you want and living in human quarters. Are you okay with me stunning you and slitting then your throat to sell you for meat? Then, when you say no to being killed and sold to be eaten for pleasure for my own profit, I'll just remind you, "But you don't understand. Killing people like you creates so many jobs."

I didn't see your arguments. What were they?

First off, I'm not single... and I'm 36 years old. So, I'm past that phase in life. And I wouldn't need to give anyone a chance even if I were single. And the idea that women should be doing all that emotional labor for guys she's not interested in and simply "giving chances" to men who are flawed is honestly silly. It just isn't how dating works. The way it works is that a woman is either attracted to a man and interested in him... or she's not. There's no "Let me give this guy a chance" logic, as that isn't how women decide who to date... unless she really doesn't know herself at all or has terrible self-esteem. It just begins with, "How do I feel about this guy?" And if the response isn't feelings of desire and attraction, then she's not going to give that guy a chance... because why would she give some guy she's not attracted to a chance? Then, a smart woman is also very aware of her deal-breakers and incompatibilities and will even sort men she's attracted to from consideration if he hits those deal-breakers or is incompatible with her. And the more a woman uses her intuition and sorts unapologetically on the basis of "What kind of dynamic do I want and need in my relationship? And who is the best match for that intention?" the better a match she will strike... and the better the relationship will be more likely to be. And relative to the idea of 'accept these flawed men with open arms and be empathetic with them', the first thing to know is that the best thing a woman can do is to have very strong boundaries and preserve her energy... and to sort with high discernment. And one skill that's very important to learn for women is detachment and selective empathy... otherwise your energy gets drained trying to pour into everyone else's cups. And empathy is emotional labor, and women don't owe that labor to every random person who wants to extract that value from them. I also know from direct experience that this piece of advice you're giving for women to "accept the flawed man with open arms and give him empathy" is very unwise and could even be dangerous for a woman to follow... as a man who isn't doing well in his life can take out his resentment towards the woman he's with. And I had made that mistake in my teens of being the empathetic woman and getting into a relationship with a flawed man who was a lazy ne'er-do-well type. And in my extreme empathy, I subjected myself to a terrible relationship. And there's a hope in many inexperienced young women that ("with the power of my love, empathy, and unconditional support) I can pull him up." And you may even unconsciously look for a flawed man because you get to feel so helpful and needed. But these inexperienced women who just want to give and give end up throwing themselves into the grinder. And from 16-20, I spent 4 years trying to be supportive to him and empathetic... and trying to rescue him. But the reality is that he just became a weight weighing down my entire life. And I was just depleting my energy because I had no boundaries... just pure empathy and understanding constantly being poured out of my cup. So, it never works. Such a man is a taker and not a giver and will only pull you and your entire life down. And if you have kids with that man, he will pull your kids' lives down. And that is why it's important to sort strictly based on what his situation is at this very moment in time.... and not for some future potential version of him who has overcome his current flaw with the power of a woman's love and empathy. With much experience, I know that if a man doesn't have his life together and has flaws that he wants a woman to fix, that he's looking for an unconditionally present and nurturing mother,and not a partner who chooses him because she prefers him. And an excess of empathy towards this kind of man just enables his current status quo and will drag a woman's life into the ground. But when I was younger, I was certainly trained on that "Be more empathetic" messaging. If I were to give advice to the younger version of myself, I would tell her, "The quality of your parter will determine the quality of your life. And you should be a lot more ruthless in your sorting process." And "female-isolated" men can often have issues with not seeing women as fellow humans to make friendships with... and that's a huge block to the friendship foundation of a relationship. And lots of guys who hang out only with guys can be afraid of women.... or even intensely dislike women. So, it's an important thing to take note of as a woman... and watch out for.

I do think it very likely is the choice element... but also that it's an ethical choice specifically, and that makes people feel uncomfortable. That's especially true because a lot of non-Vegans really care about animals and don't want animals to suffer... and would feel very disgusted and traumatized if they saw or participated in the slaughter of animals. But they haven't fully made the conscious connection between their own routine actions and animal suffering. They know it in the abstract, but not in the concrete. So, if they encounter a Vegan, it can be something that rubs a person the wrong way because it draws attention to what wants to be ignored. And yes, that concealment would certainly breed resentment over time.

I've never heard of that. Is there any evidence to back up that claim?

With your struggles with setting routines and organizing your life, what do you find to be the most difficult or overwhelming thing about that? Also, is there any kind of aversion to imagining your life organized in the way that you wish it were?

Because someone's religion is often a huge part of their cosmology... and their identity is shaped in relation to that cosmology. So, religious deconstruction is usually only precipitated by a dark night of the soul where the bottom falls out of the paradigm entirely, and the person must deconstruct and reconstruct a new identity and new cosmology. It's not for the faint of heart, at all. I've had many clients and friends who have deconstructed, and it's very difficult inner work precipitated by a crisis of meaning. But if you're a scientifically-minded person, I could give an analogy... Imagine a scientific thinker who was raised in an environment where the central paradigm of the society was a very science-based cosmology. And let's say that that scientific-thinking person's cosmology and identity is shaped on a foundation of scientific rationalism. And all their coping strategies are based in this paradigm as well. And then, let's say (hypothetically) if a new and more accurate intellectual paradigm and cosmology was presented where science was discovered as incorrect, illusory, or constructed... then you could imagine how difficult that would be for that person to deconstruct their scientific paradigm and the identities they've built up off of it. That's what happens when religious people go through the process of deconstruction.... they have to unpack and change A LOT of elements of their worldview and identity... perhaps most of them. And it takes time. And while a really shrewd cult leader-ish person, could unethically brainwash someone and pull them over into their own cosmology... most people don't deconstruct at the behest of other people. And that's especially true if you give rational arguments. What you do when you confront a religious person to try to get them to deconstruct when they are content with their current paradigm is to either entrench them further (in 99% of cases, this is what happens) or you potentially destabilize their identity and push them into a dark night of the soul and identity crisis that they don't know how to handle (in a small percentage of cases this happens... and it's not great if you push them over prematurely)

That is a shame. I would suggest to her (at least in dating and friendship) to let her freak flag fly about it and be very transparent about her values... otherwise she may end up with people who don't accept her for who she is and would reject her for her values (which would be her main fear made manifest). Though, I can understand hiding it if you need to find a place to live and you've been rejected for being Vegan in the past. It can be frustrating because it's one of those "no good deed goes unpunished" things because people really don't like it when other people are walking the talk around their ethical values. People (especially non-Vegan animal lovers) can often feel like someone simply being Vegan puts them on trial in an imaginary trial... even if that Vegan isn't imposing in any way because it makes them feel guilty. They tend to have their own judgments of themselves for running afoul of their own ethical values... and then transfer that onto Vegans... and especially onto a quiet Vegan if that Vegan is going out of their way to hide themselves. That person becomes a blank projection screen for that person's most biting judgments of themselves.. And I recently heard about a study that was referred to in a video I was watching. I'll have to look it up to verify it. And in the study people were asked about their feelings about different types of groups... Vegans were one... Vegetarians were another. And then there were groups along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, etc. and other kinds of groups too like immigrants. And Vegans were the lowest ranked group in terms of likability. No one likes a goody-two-shoes who lives in integrity with popularly-held values when most other people are not. And the Vegan philosophy itself and their views on animals are very widely held... but rarely lived by. So, it's quite difficult to stand firm in one's own integrity when so many people will hate on you for it for shining the light on their own inconsistencies just by (even quietly) existing in a state of integrity with your values.

Processed meats are worse than unprocessed meats health-wise. That is true. But even unprocessed meat (especially red meat) is statistically correlated with higher risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, and all-cause mortality in general. So, while processed foods are associated with worse health outcomes in general... there is a clear health advantage to removing even unprocessed meats from one's diet.

I think it's important to explore more deeply the logic you're operating off of. Why would racking up numbers of sexual partners "earn" marriage... or the worthiness to marry? Is it because you see women as possessing some magical power to validate, notarize, or give blessing your existence and worthiness through bestowing sex upon you? If so, that's a whole lot of power to project onto women that just doesn't exist there. Do you see sex with women as something that will fix shame and self-worth issues? Or is it something else? Knowing the answer to that is the first step to unburdening yourself from pursuing what doesn't resonate with you.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean... as I am married and female. So, I don't have the same concerns as a man who is dating. But if I was dating... I'm a woman. So my challenge in dating is not attracting like it is for men, as the fact that some men will be attracted is a given purely on the basis of being female. Instead, it's the question of sorting the right one from the wrong ones. So, if I were dating, I don't have to question, "Oh no. If I'm Vegan... what if men don't like me?" Or "What if men find it to be a turn-off?" Instead, it's a matter of sorting out the incompatible men from the compatible ones... and a man who has a "no Vegans" rule or who doesn't like Vegans or who hates on Veganism is someone that I would just sort from consideration. Now, my husband is not Vegan himself.... he just cuts down on meat and dairy for health reasons. But I suppose if I were dating, it would be a big plus if a guy was Vegan or Vegetarian... but not a dealbreaker if he isn't. But it would be a dealbreaker if he were explicitly anti-Vegan. What I would say is that having a strong value or set of values puts you more in a selective stance. So, it goes from a "How do I get women to like me?" scarcity-stance to "Does this woman hold the same values as me?" abundance-stance. Like, I have a male friend of mine who is Vegan... and he won't date a woman unless she already is Vegan or agrees to switch to live a Vegan lifestyle. And in the past 7-8 years that I've known him, he's not had any issues finding a girlfriend... and very attractive ones at that. He's a lot more strict about this boundary than I am because animal rights activism is a bigger part of his life than it is for me. I'm just a politically disengaged Vegan who just lives the lifestyle... but he goes to protests and things like that. Mind you, he's also a classically handsome and charismatic guy quite naturally. So, I'm sure that plays into it quite a bit. But I think that any man who has a strong value(s) that he holds to makes him more attractive to women who also hold that value... and makes him come across as someone with more substance in general, as he's more grounded in something beyond just himself. But at any rate... don't go Vegan for the sake of getting dates. Only do it if you believe in it.

Plant-based diets are statistically associated with longer life-spans and lower instances of diseases that most often lead to human death according to a variety of studies and meta-analyses. So, you can say that your omnivorous diet is healthy now because you're young... definitely younger than me. But if you keep on with eating animal products, you will statistically be at a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and certain types of cancers. Also, I went Vegan when I was 27 and I'm 36 now. So, I'm not that young. I'm in the beginning of my middle aged years. And I know a few people who follow a plant-based diet who are in their 60s and 70s and are in way better shape than the average person of their age. That's an anecdote of course, but the anecdote matches with what the studies show. Also, men don't actually experience issues when consuming tofu. That's a commonly believed myth because there are "phytoestrogens" in soy. But they're only called phytoestrogens because they resemble the shape of estrogen and bind weakly to estrogen receptors... not because they actually are estrogen or have the effects that estrogen does in the body. So, there is no evidence that tofu or other soy products have a Feminizing effect in men. That's just a commonly believed myth. Also tofu is a whole food... not chemical. It's just bean curd. You can man tofu at home from soy beans. You can even make lentil tofu. Also, I don't know what Vegan buns are. What are those? Do you mean like hamburger buns? Most bread is already Vegan anyway. But the idea that incorporating treats into one's diet implies that the diet is cumbersome just isn't how people generally operate. I occasionally incorporate treats like coffee and brownie cups, and it's just what I like to eat for a treat... but something that I don't eat every day. But I also really enjoy the foods that I do eat every day (which are mostly whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.) And for a person who enjoys the flavors and textures of meat but is eating a plant-based diet, eating some kind of processed alternative is a good occasional treat.... though not healthy to eat every day. Like the other day my husband made a Vegan version of a traditional Hungarian dish called Pörkölt with some plant-based beef tips and it was really nice. But it wouldn't be something I'd eat every day because it has a lot of oil in it... and I like to keep things mostly whole food.

That's precisely my thought on this. The current era does have a dearth of meaning... and that's by design in this period of the integration of the Rational Scientific Materialist paradigm. And there are a lot of difficult side-effects for individuals living through this time where the Materialist paradigm is seen as the only valid interpretation of reality. But that's a feature and not a bug. Fascism (and SuperFacism) treats the movement towards the integration of the Materialist paradigm as a problem that needs to be fixed where 'humans were once in alignment with the natural order but fell from grace into the state of degeneracy'... as opposed to this integration of rational paradigms as a natural but uncomfortable part of the process of human evolution. It would be like if a lobster felt uncomfortable in the process of molting its exoskeleton and believed that the molting is unnatural... and to see it as a problem in need of fixing. So, the lobster would become a SuperFascist or Fascist to try to resurrect its previous exoskeleton as "that was the true and natural exoskeleton that I had before I fell from grace into this new degenerate exoskeleton." But there are uncomfortable side effects that come with the "shedding of the old exoskeleton of meaning" to make room for integration of paradigms like moral relativism, post-modernism, deconstructionism, scientific rationalism, materialism, empiricism, etc. And part of that has to do with the loss of the illusion of inherent meaning... and living in a society where everyone agrees about the absolute inherent meaning of things. But the solution to those uncomfortable 'meaning-loss' side effects and resulting dearth of meaning isn't about chucking out the contemporary paradigms and fighting against the integration of the materialist/rationalist paradigms... and re-instituting old problematic systems where the meaning issue hadn't yet been realized because it was filled in by pre-rational archetypal projection... in lieu of empirical knowledge and processes for gaining empirical knowledge. That's really the main epistemological issue with SuperFascism... even if it doesn't have some kind of oppressive social stratification (though in practice, it certainly would). It's trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem but simply a natural process. And because that process is uncomfortable, they're viewing the discomfort as a sign that what's happening is unnatural, bad, and degenerative... when it's actually very much about the process of regeneration. And Fascists and SuperFascists alike, tend to mix up regenerative things with degenerative things.... and to see regenerative things as degenerate... and degenerate things as regenerative.

Nice to know that I could transition to a Vegan diet when I was working as a substitute teacher making $12 per hour... but Steve Jobs couldn't do it as a rich person. Also, are you claiming that Steve Jobs died because of his Vegan diet? That's going to need a source. And Vegan diets don't need to be processed. Just get tofu, lentils, beans, etc. and rice, oats, quinoa... and fruits and veggies with some nuts and seeds... and you're golden. Processed Vegan meats are more like an occasional treat for those who enjoy them. And they're good for people who are transitioning from an omnivorous diet to a Vegan diet. Also, the Mediterranean diet is mostly plant-based anyway with the addition of fish here and there. That's why it's the healthiest omnivorous diet because it minimizes red meat.

Appeals to nature really don't make a strong argument for switching to a plant-based diet... that is true. And ultimately, it doesn't matter what was "natural" in the past... it matters what is optimal for health. (if you're looking from a health perspective) But you know what (from a health perspective) does make a strong argument for switching to a plant-based diet? Thousands of studies organized into broad-scale meta-analyses on the human diet consistently showing lower risk of all-cause mortality in those who eat plant-based diets... and a higher risk of cancer, obesity, heart disease, stroke, and other health conditions in meat-eaters. And then in knowing that, we can question whether or not the way our teeth are shaped and the way our digestive tract is has anything to do with why Vegan diets are associated with better health outcomes. And then, it ceases to be an appeal to nature... but instead a hypothesis about why plant-based diets have better health outcomes.

According to meta-analyses, plant-based diets are associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality... in particular reduced risks heart disease, stroke, and cancer. And those are the number one killers. My recommendation is to track your diet on a tracking app to be get some peace of mind that you're getting everything you need and to fill in any potential nutritional gaps that aren't currently accounted for. The reality is that you can get all nutrients on a Vegan diet that you get in an omnivorous diet... minus b-12, which is easily supplemented. But I know that, when I first went Vegan, the change was playing at my mind and I was worrying about it because I didn't yet have a ton of knowledge about how nutritionally adequate a Vegan diet is. I just switched for ethical reasons. But 9.5 years later, and I've had no issues... and would likely be in worse situation health-wise if I continued to consume meat and dairy. And I know a lot more about how to meet my nutritional needs.

The issue here is that, if our politics is focused more on abstract archetypal projections and platonic ideals, we will get distracted by the realm of the ideal and lose sight of what really matters... which is the real. And conscious politics is about the realization of Golden Rule values played out through practical systems such that our greater societal system alleviates unnecessary suffering, meets basic human needs, and gives a stable container for human flourishing. So, politics is not a wise arena to integrate these archetypes... as we just get into more abstract territory when the focus must be about concrete issues. It also presents similar issues to the ones found in theocracy, where the religious is fused together as a Frankenstein monster with the political. It ends up becoming quite impractical and monstrous. And at every step, we must be aware of what despots would use this framework for... as that's just practically what would happen if we started to blur the lines between the political and archetypal/spiritual/religious. And Jung was correct that we lose meaning in the transition into modernity... and the integration of post-modern deconstructive frameworks, moral relativism, scientific empirical frameworks, rationalism, and the materialist paradigm are part of the catabolic phase of meaning loss... just like the shedding of old skin. But Jung didn't recommend going back to a pre-rational archetypal way of structuring society... as he outlines clearly the issues with pre-rational societies that operate unconsciously through archetypes. Instead, he advocates for individuals to integrate their Shadow and to get to know the anatomy of the psyche... so that one does not project their Shadow onto reality and live unconsciously possessed by archetypes of the collective unconscious. But ultimately, my claim is that the wisest thing to do is to buckle in and prepare for a lifetime where humanity is integrating the rational paradigm. On a wider scale, that awakening to rationality process began like two minutes ago and it will be going on for quite a few generations into the future. So, we aren't going to rush society into its post-rational phase just because some people feel uncomfortable with the uncertainty around the loss of meaning that accompanies it. Society will operate just as it does... and eventually (likely when we're long dead) will flip over into the post-rational paradigm. But luckily, individuals who are aware can work with these archetypes to integrate them within themselves now. Just don't count on most of society coming with you. But the loss of meaning with the rational era is a necessary feature and not a bug. And just because it's uncomfortable and painful, doesn't mean that it's a negative thing. It's just a necessary shedding of forms that needs to be let go of... like a lobster molting and losing its exoskeleton, so it can grow larger. But thinkers who lean more in the direction of Fascist-thinking, will always see the modern era as some uniquely abhorrent cesspool of degeneracy that has fallen from its former glory. So, they will interpret the necessary and natural shedding process as a negative that needs to be fixed... as there is a discomfort with uncertainty. And also because there is a preference in Fascist thinkers for believing that human nature is naturally far more ideal than it actually is... but that we've temporarily fallen from grace. It's hard to face with the fact that humans are inherently ungraceful... and our societies always have been and always will be ungraceful. But to the Fascist thinker, this truth that humans are inherently "degenerate" is untenable... as the desire is to purify and restore humanity to its previous archetypal ideal (which never actually existed in reality). And that's is a similarity that your SuperFascism shares with historical Fascists. But the way we are wise to approach human degeneracy is more Christ-like... and derived from the Golden Rule. And the things the Christ focused on were brass tacks human needs... and materialistic concerns like "Let's feed people". He was not interested in imposing some archetypal kingdom onto society. He was interested in mercy... which is the opposite of Fascism.