Emerald

Yes, definitely. There are certainly some external factors that can influence things. But only insofar as they set off internal psychological factors that are more deep-seated. For example, lots of people were bringing up inflation. And inflation is bound to create distress for people. But if people aren't willing to face into the vulnerabilities that they feel about that inflation, they will go into the process of externalization and blame. And they will be susceptible to scapegoating narratives about blaming people of certain groups. But if they're willing to face into the vulnerability, they will be less susceptible to that kind of propaganda. And they'll be more likely to think critically and realistically about these issues. Intelligence is another factor, because many people have some limitations about how complex their understandings of politics can be. But I even suspect that lower levels of political intelligence alone doesn't necessarily make a person that much more susceptible to scapegoating propaganda. There would likewise need to be underlying psychological dynamics that would cause a resonance with that kind of propaganda. So, it's really all about the emotions and facing into what's going on psychologically. And the lack of that can make someone susceptible to falling for victim narratives.

You're welcome. Thank you for sharing a bit more about the dynamic. There are probably different blocks to allowing connection in... at least partially because of trust issues. But IFS therapy is a good way to go about it. But even moreso Somatic therapy can be an excellent path to helping you with IFS. I had a relationship mirage dynamic since I was 3 that I resolved a few years ago on a medicine journey. And it all began with facing into and processing repressed emotions of terror. And through facing with this terror, it enabled me to "click into" a state of embodiment of a three year old 'part' of myself. And in that embodiment, it enabled me to move past a traumatic moment that I had been stuck in for 30 years... and al the mindsets and understandings that I had at that time. It's really in the process of turning inward that the issue will be resolved... even though it feels like it's an external issue. And you may even find yourself attracted to women that won't work for a longterm relationship because you're selecting for what that part of you wants... and not what would really work out longterm. Or there could just be general blocks to connected because of chronically unmet connection needs.

Yes, it would be case specific.

Yes, it can feel hopeless at first because it really recognizes the collective human fragility. And it puts the more fortunate humans on edge because there is a sense of being at the mercy of those vulnerable masses. But it also leads to compassion... which is where truth and love meet as one. And in the state unconditional absolute compassion, an accurate diagnosis arises... and with it, the cure.

I understand why you would be upset with them. I am too. And I do not mean to excuse the behavior... just to understand it. But the reality is that, if they could do better, they would do better. You are seeing a fundamental human fragility at work in this dynamic. Human beings are incredibly vulnerable. And never forget... it is only through good fortune of both nature and nurture that you and I are not presently down that rabbit hole with them. It's important not to take too much credit or identify too strongly with "being the good one" or "being the smart one" or "being the one that's not ignorant". Human beings are incredibly vulnerable to things like propaganda and Fascism. And the moment we start believing that we're somehow exempt from these patterns is the moment we become susceptible to them.

You're welcome! The mirages can be resolved by understand they're projections being projected out from somewhere. To turn off the projections one must find the internal projector they're coming from. And that projector is a repressed aspect of the personality... usually repressed in childhood. That's where Shadow Work and Somatic Work come into play. There are difficult emotions that must be tuned into and faced with to access these repressed parts and work through he barriers to integration. Like, I used to have this mirage aspect myself... though I would suppress it because I knew it would lead me to a very unfulfilling romantic life. But in about a 1.5 year cycle, I'd get a really strong crush on someone. And there would be like this fixation and longing for that person that was really intense. And in one of my medicine journeys, the medicine brought me into feelings of terror that I had been repressing since childhood. And I processed a lot of that terror, which came up as shapes of tension in the body coupled with behind-the-eyes visuals of what those shapes of tension/terror look like. And after processing like 30 shapes of terror, I clicked back into a repressed 3 year old aspect of myself. And it brought me into a memory of being 3 years old and going underneath the bathroom cabinet to get out my mom's make-up pouch. And I pulled out her red lipstick and began smearing it on my lips and face. And this wasn't a repressed memory. I remembered it quite well from childhood. It was a family memory of "Hey, remember when Emerald got into the lipstick?" But what I hadn't remembered was my motivation for doing it. I was putting on my mom's make-up to try to be like her. And I transferred my feelings about my mom onto the lipstick... which then got transferred onto beauty in general... which then got transferred onto Disney princesses in the movies I was watching... which then got transferred onto Disney princes... which then got transferred onto boys my age. And I'd have these really strong crushes from the age of 3 onward... even up until a few years ago when I had this experience. And this memory helped me realize that I was playing out my feelings towards my mom onto these crushes. And the feeling this aspect of me had was that my mom represented perfection... and that I had to be IDENTICAL to her to be accepted and loved by her. But I look more like my dad than I do like my mom. And I didn't know that a part of me didn't like that fact. I was always consciously happy to look like a Wilkins because I'm closer to my dad's side of the family. But this child aspect of me that thought I needed to look and be IDENTICAL to my mom to be perfect and therefore valid... and hated the fact that I wasn't identical to my mom... and was terrified that I didn't look like my mom. And this created all these body image issues where I'd be obsessed with my face and body and just really loathing my appearance from the age of 3 onward. All this without knowing the real reason why. I just thought it was culture having images of pretty women everywhere... and that I wanted to be attractive to the guy that I like. This was always under the thought of being attractive or unattractive to the guy I like.... but also attractive or unattractive in general. But it was all about this terror that if I'm not perfect (which meant identical to mom) that I will have to do all the scary things alone. And I was actually right about that. But it was just this terrified little 3 year old part of myself... lost in a dark and claustrophobic cave. And it was feeling like it had to be perfect (aka identical to my mom) to be lovable and had to do all the scary things alone. And perfection meant wearing lipstick... meant being beautiful... meant having a boy attracted to me. That's why being like mom meant. And so, male attention became this sense that I am winning at being like my mom... and they also represented my mom in a way. So, every 1.5 years or so the tides would switch and I'd have a new male projection screen to play out the "being perfect enough to get my mother's love" drama with. And the feelings are a lot more intense than a relationship because they have to do with deep psychological dynamics. But once I actually experienced what was really going on, there was a huge shift in this dynamic. And I don't struggle quite as much with body image or crush mirages anymore. So, facing into the part of you that's causing it is essential. And you can use Shadow Work and Somatic Work.

I think with Dr. K, there's a few things going on. One is that his paradigm isn't quite holistic enough to understand the dynamic that's really happening with why contemporary men are susceptible to this kind of propaganda. First off, EVERYONE is susceptible to propaganda because of how our minds and emotions work. And that's true without exception. But more specifically, he's still seeing it as based on external factors like what the actual politicians are doing or not doing ... or the way that 'the left' is operating... or cancel culture... etc. He's not realizing that propaganda works on 100% internal and emotional dynamics... and that the focus on external "problems" (like Democrats, cancel culture, people calling people Nazis, etc.) aren't the real problem. And if those things didn't exist, there would just be another thing to take their place because those scapegoat topics are scratching an itch to externalize and depersonalize an internal personal problem. Another thing is that he has a mostly male audience. And there could be a degree of audience capture going on. And you can get lots of likes and clicks by reinforcing common male paradigms and giving men sympathy for these "problems" by telling men what they want to hear. And people love to hear that they're the victims and the good guys. But primarily, I think he genuinely holds some of these paradigms himself.... and has some of the same blindspots. I remember watching a video where he brought on a woman who was talking about an issue that women face on the internet... or in real life. I can't recall specifically. But Dr. K was asking her some questions and she was elucidating the female experience. And the questions and ways that Dr. K was asking the questions revealed to me that he had some blindspots in his way of thinking about gender dynamics and the female experience... even though he was doing his best to be understanding and impartial. So, I tend to think he genuinely believes on some level that society is harsher on men than it is on women... even if he does value mitigating that sentiment as well and understands in the abstract that women are also going through things. He just has a bit more sympathy and empathy towards men... and that might lead him to sympathize and empathize to where he takes these talking points at face value without exploring the underlying dynamics.

Based off of what I've experienced in myself and working with others, there could be a repressed child aspect of you that's still looking for someone to transfer your feelings about your mom onto in hopes of getting those needs met. And that can make you want to seek out new partners... because new partners are like a blank projection screen. And you can play out the psychological dynamic of getting your mom to take care of you emotionally with a new partner. But once you know them, they can no longer be the blank projection screen because the projection screen fills up. And that child part of you wants to go out once again... and search for 'mom' so that you can play through the cycle again. I call this dynamic relationship mirages... and it tends to lead to dissatisfaction in relationships because it's like being in a desert and spotting an oasis... only to find that it was a mirage. Then, you see another oasis in the distance and run over there... only to find another mirage. And repeat, repeat, repeat. (the oases represent each partner) The solution is to face that child part of you that's still trying to get your mom to take care of you... that is stuck on a loop like a skipping CD saying "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me" "Please take care of me"... And you must turn inward to care for that part of you, as it's really asking you to take care of it.

Insects are animals. So, it wouldn't be a Vegan-firendly option. But good news your you omnivores.

I think there is something to be said about men not getting certain emotional and psychological needs met... and how that makes them susceptible to succumbing to victim's mentality... and right wing radicalization by extension of that victim's mentality. But that's not a Democrats thing. I don't believe that Democrats have left men in the cold in comparison to other groups. But Democrats also aren't giving them compelling victim narratives to play out their suppressed feelings. So, Democrats aren't as interesting because it doesn't meet that need. The suppression of these emotional and psychological needs actually comes from old school patriarchal expectations that men suppress their emotions and always be stoic and strong. And then, the isolation of the internet age further compounds that issue. Those are the real problems facing men today. And there are these patterns of male suffering that are self-perpetuating and coming from within male groups and content that's geared towards a male audience. And within these groups, there is an expectation of living up to a certain agreed upon standard of Masculinity... which means toughen up and don't show emotions. And there are social consequences for not doing that within those male groups. You could get called a pussy and lose the respect of the group if they see you as too Feminine or not Masculine enough. And because of this social dynamic, a sizable percentage of men (especially young men) do have a lot of vulnerabilities that they aren't facing with. And men who have these vulnerabilities who aren't facing with them, often get hooked on right wing propaganda which gives them an outlet to sink into the victim role and feel the self-pity and self-compassion they've been denying themselves ... like "Feminists are oppressing you", "Immigrants are stealing your jobs", "black men are going to cuck you", "You're blamed for being a terrible Nazi even for the slightest thing.", "Western women are becoming too Masculine", "If you say literally anything at all, you'll be cancelled.", "You could get blamed for a rape you didn't commit because of Me Too", etc. And it gives all of these little mini-victim narratives to men to turn the other into the villain and to get to play the role of the helpless victim (but consciously they identity with the hero). And it unconsciously gives them a way to feel vulnerable about something else other than the real vulnerabilities that have been suppressed and repressed to maintain their Masculine identity. And that meets the suppressed need for feeling emotional and vulnerable. And it also solves some of the isolation because men who have these feelings gravitate together to get mad at the "villains" that are victimizing them. Like the Manosphere gives a place for the male victims to get together and get mad at and fight back at the female villains. There are also majority male spaces that function the same way that cast non-white people or gay/trans people as the villains to play out the victim narrative against. But if a man were actually okay with meeting his emotional needs and exercised deeper levels of self-compassion, he'd probably be less magnetized to these victim narratives. And unfortunately, Dr. K just gave another victim narrative for these guys to cling onto that will further block them from turning inwards towards the real problem. They can just go "Well Democrats didn't care about me." and totally overlook their real problems.

Yes, it's been emerging from the collective Shadow and into the public consciousness since 2015. Back then, if you mentioned the rise of Fascism people would just roll their eyes at you. But currently, I'd imagine that more than half of people are becoming conscious of the rising Fascism.... though some people will still be like "It can't happen here." The reality is that (relative to humanity as a whole over the course of human history) the behaviors and beliefs associated with Fascism are a LOT more commonplace than the behaviors and beliefs associated with democracy. We're a species that's had 49 genocides in the past 50 years. So Fascism and the Fascist impulse is common and banal... but has ben suppressed in America and other 1st world nations until about 10 years ago. And it rises more and more from the depths of the taboo blinders that it was shrouded as it becomes more normalized via internet culture.

@RendHeaven That makes sense. There's an orientation to expansion as opposed to contraction. My orientation is towards contraction and limitation... which are the necessary birthplaces of meaning and beauty. And any experiences that I've had of Truth and the infinite have been to serve the path of the contraction, limitation, meaning, and beauty that I'm on. To me... infinite expansion and infinite knowing becomes so random. I've had experiences where an infinity of experiences flash before me as I scratched the surface of infinite knowledge. And the chaos of it has highlighted to me how much I appreciate that which small, limited, imperfect, ordinary, grounded, Earthly, and meaningful. I'm like a Hobbit more than I am a princess.

Romantic partners are wise to listen to and empathize with their partners' pain. But I don't know if that's an actual double standard that exists in the direction of men where men have to sympathize with their partners and not the other way around. My guess is that, if you polled a bunch of heterosexual couples, the woman would probably be the one doing the majority of the empathizing, emotional labor, and communication-related stuff in the relationship.

My entire point is to express my subjective perspective as a woman to shed some light on how that bias is from the lived perspective. I can sympathize and even empathize with male pain. And I try to share what it's really like for a woman to try to get men to see through the false narratives that cause them to suffer so much. But despite my ability to sympathize/empathize, that doesn't mean that I'm going to become buddy-buddy with a guy who gives off woman-hating vibes. It's just unpleasant to be around. And it's fairly obvious to pick up on. So, no woman who's got a decent level of self-esteem and a decent level of awareness is going to overlook things like that.

I think you mean MGTOW not Incels. What I'm talking about is very different than men who claim to avoid women to make their life better because they're saying they're avoiding women altogether. And that dynamic comes from overgeneralizing women and misogynistic feelings. But I would never avoid men altogether because there are plenty of men that are great people. And I am very blessed to have a lot of wonderful men in my life. And I am not a misandrist. I just naturally have learned to sort (men and women) from my social circle when they have qualities that aren't conducive to my own well-being. These are skills you learn early on as a woman. And if you don't learn to sort properly, it will be at your own peril. And if men give off misogynistic vibes, then I avoid getting close to them. I don't even have to consciously try to do it. It's just automatic.

Trump's public announcement of anything that seems too good to be true...

Would you like it if another country with more military power than us sent in an invading military operation and maybe dropped some bombs to fight the war on drugs in America? They'd come here to "fight the criminals" but you know the civilian death toll would be massive. It's honestly silly to think that Donald Trump waging a war on terror against drug cartels would cause anything but suffering for the regular people living in Mexico.

It makes total sense that you would be afraid. You never know what Donald Trump is actually going to do. I would stay put until there's real movement and not just talk. Donald Trump loves to talk about things and not do them. So, I wouldn't leave right now. But if I were in your position, I would create an escape plan, just in case. And I'd get my passports ready as soon as I can as well as any other necessary travel documents. And in the worst case scenario I would plan to go South to a Central American country. My pick would probably be Costa Rica. But I had a friend visit Guatemala, and he said it was really nice. I'd also look up what the naturalization process is if things become sustainably less safe. The important thing is to map out a route to safety in the worst case scenario... but continue to live as though the worst case scenario isn't going to happen. My family and I have a bug out plan in case he starts doing some crazy anti-immigrant stuff like genuinely invoking the Alien Enemies Act and not just talking about it. My husband is an immigrant, so we have to be vigilant. There's an 90% chance that it's just talk to fire up his base. But that's still a nonzero chance. Plan A for us is to drive to Toronto. Plan B is Costa Rica.

You're welcome

@PurpleTree I tend to think there's a some truth in the above. I suspect that Europeans came to dominate because food doesn't grow there all year round and innovations (like watercraft and weapons) had to be invented to cope with the harsher environment. But overall, I recommend checking out the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. It gives a variety of different geographic explanations as to why certain societies came to dominate others and to develop more in terms of infrastructure and innovations. (like regular growing seasons in Europe and Asia because of its horizontal shape, easier to domesticate animals, having metal as a natural resource of the land, etc.) And the book doesn't rely on any ethnocentric ideas that the West was just smarter or more inventive. Also this has happened on smaller scales before. They gave an example where in Polynesia, there was a tribe of people. And the tribe got split (for reasons I don't recall) into two groups that were on neighboring islands. And one of the islands had better resources and access to metals. And the other didn't have access to metal and lacked in resources because of the land they were on. Within a couple generations, the side of the tribe that got the better land ended up dominating (and maybe enslaving, if memory serves) the other people. And there were certainly no major differences between the two groups other than one was on a better plot of land with more resources to dominate the other.

It's not an ideology. It's something that can be observed. And the reason why Western countries were able to innovate is because they had the resources and were able to free up enough human potential to make those innovations. It's pretty impossible to do that, if you live in a poor country with few resources... and under the boot of an imperial power. But no, there are zero non-barbarous countries as humanity is not fully developed yet... but some are more or less barbarous than others. And the most barbarous in terms of foreign policy tend to dominate on the world stage... but also confer a bump in the standard of living and access to resources for its own people. And this enables more human potential to be freed up and put towards greater levels of societal development. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If you live in a place where the infrastructure is underdeveloped and there's little access to clean water... or there's no grocery stores... or you don't have access to a lot of medicine... or there's no affordable school in you're region... or your country is occupied by an imperial power... or you live in a place with an unstable government... ALL of the human potential will have to go to the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Physiological Needs and Safety Needs). And having to hyper-focus only on these bottom rungs, doesn't give a lot of opportunity to focus on Esteem and Self-Actualization needs, which must be collectively engaged for a society to move forward towards Community Actualization. So, what I'm saying is that living in an imperialist nation enables its citizens to Self-Actualize more. But at this juncture in history and all times before it, the way that a populace gets freed up to pursue Self-Actualization and Community-Actualization is through these extreme imbalances in power. And I have hope that we will grow past this with the development of new technologies, economic systems, and collective paradigms. But we must all first become aware of how all the positive things that those in "1st world nations" have access to has come at the expense of people from other nations. It's at once recognizing that human development is a bloody and barbarous process with lots of human sacrifice of human will and human life... while also aspiring to something greater and more holistic.

You guys don't know why Leo prefers what he prefers. It's like if I asked Leo "What's your favorite food?" And then one of you chimes in "Pizza." And the other of you chimes in "There are people who enjoy Mediterranean food and others who enjoy Indian food. One finds more joy in certain spices while others find joy in other types of spices." I'm asking Leo in particular because I want to know something about him in particular. It's a personality question.

I know lots of people all over the world. And while my travel experiences are minimal, I have been to a few other countries. And I don't sense that the US is uniquely under-developed compared to other places in terms of the experience of the average person living in the US. It's still probably in the top 20-30 countries on the planet in terms of quality of life for its citizens in most facets. Though it does have its uniquely terrible things like lack of universal healthcare and lack of paid vacation and maternity leave policies. And it's hyper-Capitalist and cut-throat. And its foreign policy is atrocious. Gun violence is also horrible here because of how easily accessible guns are. And there are many things that I disagree with and dislike. I'm very open in my critiques of the US.... in terms of both domestic and foreign policy. You seem to assume that I'm some hyper-nationalist USA defender. I'm definitely not. But my perspective on the US is nuanced and calibrated to what I know about the current state of the world, which is something that I'm always open to learning about. I have no attachment to the idea to any nationalist ideals. And I do resonate more with the societal supports that Scandinavian countries have. I wish that the US would move more in the direction if Social Democracy. But terror attacks rarely happen... and when they do, they're one-off situations. And I don't feel unsafe because I know that I'm a million times more likely to die in a car accident than I am in a terror attack. Only conservatives who watch Fox News get paranoid about things like that... and the same people get scared of the guy with he beard on the plane. And the War on Terror is just a way to get the people whipped into a frenzy of fear and xenophobia to support the government to have more control, wage profitable wars, and have more ability to skirt around due process as long as they label someone a terrorist. And next to NO ONE is better off with a foreign government toppling their own. Maybe in a really domestically authoritarian place with tons of human rights abuses, having a foreign country come in and take over could be preferable to the status quo. But that's so much instability... and the populace would be so vulnerable to the new power structure. Lots of unrest. And I trust that the US won't selectively attack some section of its own country because 1. It has no power-based interests to do that and 2. That would cause a genuine uproar in the populace which would create a lot more resistance to the powers that be... which is something that large power structures try to domestically avoid and only do outside the bounds of the country. And yes, there's definitely lots of economic warfare going on. It's definitely shifting to shrinking middle class and bigger gaps between the rich a poor... and that comes from a government that's in the pocket of billionaires and major industries. Now, in terms of my way of life... I do like my way of life. I wouldn't necessarily want to change that. Or if I did, I'd want to on my own terms. This is a very hyper-individualistic society, and I am pretty well adapted to that and really appreciate the achievement-focus. I find that very exciting. I also love having the support of my family and really like our little single-family home. But I intend later on in my life to create intentional community, because we do lack in terms of community connection. That said, I would not trade my freedom and authenticity for community connection. And it seems like people from cultures who emphasize collectivism over individualism have to sacrifice a lot of agency and authenticity to make that orientation to the world work. So, my goal is to eventually organize a small intentional community of like-minded folks to commune with so that more of those community and connection needs are met. And I don't care if the top 0.0001% have it better than me. I only care if they're impacting others negatively... which they are. But I don't care if someone has a lifestyle that's a zillion times better than mine... as long as I have everything I need. I don't like a lot of things about the US and how it functions. But that doesn't mean I want to leave. I like my life here. And I feel pretty lucky in many ways to live here, despite the shortcomings. But I'm still going to speak my mind about my issues with the US domestic and foreign policy... despite US nationalists saying "If you don't like it, then leave!"

Here's a meta-analysis on food groups associated with higher and lower risks of all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28446499/ With the exception of fish, meat consumption was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and plant consumption was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. Also, you can look up more yourself on Pub-Med and type in keywords and phrases like "diet and all-cause mortality" or "diet and stroke risk" or "diet and heart attack risk" etc.

Here's a study about plant based diets and their inverse relationship with all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951994/ But there was a very large meta-analysis where they cross referenced thousands of individual studies on the impact of diet on all-cause mortality (and maybe some other factors). And they found that the fewer animal products and the more plants are in someone's diet, the lower the risk of all-cause mortality. I'll try to track that one down again.