Emerald

I don't live in Europe. So, why should I take your word for it? You're just like "trust me bro". But you sound exactly like every American right-winger who doesn't acknowledge that immigrants statistically commit fewer crimes than people born here.... and still claims that immigration increases the crime rate. How can you prove to me that Europe is an exception and actually has a correlation between crime and immigration? Provide some real evidence, and then we can talk about it.

They don't seem to have done much investigation into it. But trust me. There's plenty of anti-Mexican and anti-Latin American xenophobia here in the states. Yet, we still studied this and released the statistics. It makes me think that European nations may not be as proactive with these kinds of studies because they will likely find similar outcomes... that crime and immigration aren't correlated. Countries love to use this false assumption that immigration leads to higher levels of crime to create a collective of people to scapegoat so that they can divide and conquer the populace and redirect people's dissident energy towards people without power. If your ire is going towards immigrants... then it would be directed towards the powers that be. And if your ire is directed at immigrants, you won't be forming a united forced towards advocating for the interests of ordinary people. Basically, xenophobia is for suckers.

What does this have to do with being for or against Poland shooting immigrants on sight? You may not be able to find a totally conscious community. But does that mean that you have to lower your own consciousness and advocate violence against an outgroup to fit it?

Neither of these are actually evidence that more violent crimes are committed by immigrants. The first one you posted is just about how Sweden is allowing police to wiretap young teenagers because of gang violence. The second one is called Gript, which appears to be a right wing biased outlet. So, of course they're going to lie and say that immigrants commit most of the crimes because it plays to the bias of their audience.

If you won't bother providing any evidence, what logical reason do I have to believe your claim? Now, it's hard to find reputable European statistics in either direction because it doesn't seem to have been studied as extensively in Europe. But here is one that seems to have a study connected to it... https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/20635-eu-research-disproves-link-between-immigration-and-increased-crime But in America, it's pretty conclusive that legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate to that of natural born US citizens. Though of course, xenophobes will say otherwise to fear-monger about immigrants and try to justify their xenophobia logically through claiming every immigrant that comes into the country is a rapist Fentanyl-smuggler from MS-13. And I can only imagine that it's the same in Europe. And one-off instances of an immigrant committing a crime can always be cherry-picked to create a narrative that immigration rises the crime rate. Here's the link about American immigration.... https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/debunking-myth-immigrants-and-crime

Yes

Sorry. I thought you were just being disrespectful. And I was matching that energy. But if it's genuinely difficult for you to read it because of a language barrier or something like that, the long and short of it is that humanity goes through phases where there's a strong group identity and phases where that group identity breaks down.

I'm sorry that it was too complex for you. You can copy paste it into ChatGPT if you want to simplify it for your reading level.

I'm going to need some actual statistics on the heightened crime rate through immigration. Here in the states, immigrants (legal and illegal) commit crimes at a lower rate to that of US born citizens.

First off, you didn't explain what was illogical about my point. You just made another point. So, tell me what I said specifically that seems illogical to you. Now, I don't know the statistics on this from anywhere but here in America. But in terms of people who immigrate to America (legally or illegally), they tend to commit crimes at a lower rate than people who were born and raised in the US. I don't know what it's like in Poland specifically, but I'm imagining it would be similar. Immigrants mostly want to stay off the radar of the police to avoid losing their ability to stay in the country. So, they tend to break laws at lower rates. But if your claim is that the border police need to be brutal to be effective, I'm going to need some actual evidence of that claim... and not just your assumptions.

The way that society develops is between catabolic and anabolic phases. And these go back and forth until humanity is untied as one. It the anabolic phases, the collective coalesces and a strong collective identity is forged. And in the catabolic phases that collective identity is dissolved and broken down. In early human times, small nomadic groups coalesced together under a strong identity (the anabolic phase). Then, the catabolic phase hits... and those identities faded. And in the following anabolic phase, they were absorbed into larger and more developed tribes with an ever greater stronger collective identity. Then, the catabolic phase hit again... and the tribal identities were broken down. And the anabolic phase comes again where those tribes are absorbed into a greater empire and nation state with a greater national identity that unites far more people than the tribal and nomadic identities before it. And now, we're on the cusp of a catabolic phase once again... where national identities fade and are coming into an anabolic coalescence with a global identity... which will have a greater collective identity than nomadic, tribal, and national identities of times past and present. And those who are attached to the old ways and keeping strong national identities are in a collective death knell where they're trying to keep a grip on what is dying. And so, there is currently a resurgence of hyper-tribalism... and an attempt to go backwards in time. But it is just fighting nature... and nature will eventually win out.

Explain what I said that isn't rational.

It's not like entering someone's personal home. It's more like... one of that little yappy dogs who is operating under the delusion that the street they live on belongs to them personally. And then, when someone walks on that street the yappy dog takes it personally and believes that the random person walking on the street is a territory invader that means harm to them and their family.

@NewKidOnTheBlock If you don't support Poland shooting immigrants on sight... then it's not you that I'm talking about. These violent ways are obviously backwards and unnecessary to manage immigration concerns in Poland. And it's not a good sign for the state of the world if a European 2nd world country is regressing backwards in this way. And it's especially a sign of tribalism with all the guys on this post that are cheering on the shooting... and acting like territorial little yappy dogs that get up in arms when someone is walking on "their street". I feel like that should be obvious that shooting immigrants on sight is not a skillful or well-developed way to run a society. It's the type of thing you expect from 3rd world countries... not 2nd world countries. So, it's probably a sign that Poland is degenerating into a 3rd world country... and maybe other nations will follow suit. But maybe that's just my more emotionally conscious Feminine sensibilities.... like you said. It's just very obvious to me that all of this is bad news for humanity. It's like being a mother and watching your child be violent towards their younger sibling... and it's very sad. And it's clear from the mother's point of view that the dispute is a silly one... as most children's conflicts often are. But the children are still too underdeveloped to share the ball... so the mother must find ways to deter them. And eventually the mother will get fed up and take away the ball... just like Mother Nature will take away the Earth from us if we keep up these shenanigans. But I always hope for a better, more conscious, and Feminine principled future. It's difficult though, when there's so much propaganda that normalizes disconnection and anti-social tendencies. But if anyone who's cheering on other human beings getting killed, should not complain when they too are killed in the violent world they advocated for. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. And you have no right to complain when you're the one on the chopping block. I personally tend to side with Jesus on this one when he spoke about the tale of the Good Samaritan and "love thy neighbor."

100% A bunch of guys lacking in heart-wisdom and empathy and believing that they're highly conscious human beings.

I get that you're using this as a metaphor. But I think your grandfathers were telling you an exaggerated tale. And you definitely shouldn't take that as gospel regarding how to raise a baby... nor suggest that to anyone else. I'm sure you wouldn't feel very good if someone drowns their baby because of your suggestion. These notions of "back in the good ol' days we used to _____. But now we're too soft and spoiled." are things that you can find every generation of older people saying about every generation of younger people. And you find older people idealizing and embellishing stories about how they used to face with all manner of exaggerated dynamics. You can even find accounts from ancient times of older people talking about how the younger generations are too soft, disrespectful, stupid, etc. And you're not going to save society from "softness" by throwing babies in a river. Whoever does that would just go to prison.. and rightly so. You teach babies to swim by getting them to feel safe and comfortable in the water as they develop the skill. Babies have a reflex called the "Moro Reflex" where a startled scared baby will automatically throw their arms out and their head back. And a baby who is drowning would just be doing the Moro Reflex in response to being thrown int he river and wouldn't be able to swim. Plus, swimming is a learned skill... not an instinct. You just traumatize them and make them feel powerless by dropping them in the water without an adult to help them get used to the situation... especially throwing them in the river that way because the river would just take them further and further away. And the adults wouldn't even be able to save them. I worked with a client whose mom did that to her as an infant with the same logic. She dropped her in a swimming pool as a baby thinking she would eventually swim... and a man nearby had to save her from drowning. And even though that happened to her as an infant, she still has trauma patterns around that experience.

@Leo Gura Serendipitously enough, I just watched Teal Swan's most recent video. And she's sharing a lot of the same perspectives that I was discussing with you earlier. So, I decided to share the video. Here's the link...

To be clear, I'm saying this because I get concerned about you. You seem to put up a lot of walls and use your paradigmatic tricks to rationalize why those walls are correct and even superior. And perhaps trying to rationalize you out of them isn't going to be an effective approach because there are likely deep-seated reasons why you might be blocking connection and intimacy. But in this context it's all that I have at my disposal, so I will try. Evolutionarily, men and women have both relied on being part of a collective to survive. So, everyone's survival depends and has always depended on socialization. It's wired into us on a biological level... like other herd and pack animals. We can just live in denial of that fact now because of how well-resourced our society is... so our collective is more spread out and antisocial. But this is just an illusion of independence/solitude that enables this denial of basic human needs. And there is no such pattern in all of human history where it's common that men as a gender group go out into the wilderness to live alone for an extended period of time. So, even if you'd like to think so, men haven't evolved biologically to be independent of a collective. And there was a study that was done that showed that older men tend to respond much worse to isolation than older women. So, there's zero evolutionary scientific basis to your claim that women need to be social to survive and that men don't. Also, I am and have always been introverted but I don't find socializing inherently vapid. So, that isn't something that all introverts agree upon. Every person is like a tapestry of experiences and perspectives. And when you interact with people, with adequate sensitization, you can feel these currents flowing through them. Overall, I'm saying that you would be wise to consider whether you're post-rationalizing your social avoidance through different intellectual paradigms. The intelligent mind can trick itself with all manner of self-lies.... and can even use truth to lie to itself.

Not sure this is directed towards me. But to be clear, I'm quite familiar with Jungian Cognitive Functions. And Myers-Briggs-wise I'm an INFJ myself... with a strong sway in the direction of introversion. I do get a lot from solitary contemplation, and I'm a very internally-oriented person.. always have been. But I still stand by what I said to you before about considering if your disenchantment with socializing comes more from avoidant tendencies.

I just don't buy that Leo or anyone else is so different from any other human being when it comes to basic human needs like connection. So, I see it as far more likely that there's a resistance to connection and a repression of connection drives... rather than a true transcendence of the need for connection. I feel the same way about Breatharians who claim to not need food because they're 'so spiritually developed'. What's more likely? That someone transcended the basic human need for food? Or is that someone is secretly eating? What's more likely? That someone transcended the basic human need for connection? Or is that someone "secretly" spending hours per day socializing on a forum? In a medicine journey that I did several years ago, the medicine brought me between two states.. back and forth. And one state, I was polarized into divergence and extraordinariness... and I was like a puzzle piece that had come out from the rest of the puzzle and all the pressure in existence weighed down on my head, neck, and shoulders. Then, it would reintegrate me with ordinariness... and I felt very connected to humanity, nature, and the universe at large. And it kept toggling me back between these two points. And even though my tendency was always to seek divergence from other people, and I had a resistance to sameness and ordinariness... it was only in the embrace of ordinariness that things felt so profound. And I see in Leo and others on this forum... people who are in the same patterns of polarization into divergence and extraordinariness. And this leads to feeling alone... even when with people. That's what I meant by what I said.

You'd be wise to consider what I said. Certainly, there are monks. There are people who specifically choose that game. But it doesn't appear to my perception that you are choosing that game. It's a very unpopular game... and for good reason. You seem to spend a lot of time socializing. Just be honest with yourself.

Even though I don't agree with the tone of the OP because there's no need to get angry... I do think it's wise to contemplate deeper into whether your viewpoint that 'socializing is shallow' is actually true or just a means of perpetuating self-isolation and Avoidant Attachment behaviors. My experience has been that it's the small and simple things that are the most profound. And being able to live my life with other people brings a lot of meaning and joy to my life. I enjoy solitude also... but it's only good as a contrast to the status quo of connection. When I was 20 and went through a period where I was truly alone in the world, I couldn't actually enjoy my solitude. But it appears to my perception, that you actually value socializing quite a lot because you spend a great deal of time on this forum. Though you may consciously think differently about why you're engaging on here, which could obscure from your conscious awareness how much you do actually prioritize connection. Plus, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (which your channel is named for) even states that you must meet your Connection needs to fully focus on Esteem needs and Self-Actualization needs. But there is a pattern that I notice with a lot of intellectual men who go into this "too deep to socialize" mode. And they end up in the unspoken competition with others to be the "most developed" and feeling intellectually/spiritually elevated over others and isolating themselves. Quite a few guys on this forum fit into that category. There's this sense of trying to differentiate one's self. But any type of polarization into extraordinariness, specialness, superiority, divergence to the exclusion of ordinariness will create intense levels of disconnection and isolation... from humanity, nature, and the universe at large. And it will give the sense of being deeply alone, even when we are with people. But true connection and intimacy on an ordinary eye-to-eye level is incredibly profound. It's hard to experience it through the insulation of devaluing ordinary humanness.

I've told him that. It caused him to pause a bit and think about it... as within that tendency, there is an assumption that men are inherently emotionally stronger and more resilient and that women are inherently powerless in relation to men. He gets it in the abstract, but would often tend to default to the assumption of "man = bad aggressor" and "woman = good victim" with himself and others. And his tendency would be to always sympathize with the woman, even if she's in the wrong. He reminds me of me when I was a kid and going through my "not like the other girls" phase where I was always assuming that everyone thought girls/women were cruel and vapid... and that I was always trying to be an exception to the rule. In recent years, he's been a lot more even-handed... in part because of our friendship. But previously, I was always having to get onto him about his radical Feminist takes where he would always see men as the aggressors and the negative ones and women as the victims and the positive ones. This tendency came from him being raised in a very patriarchal high control religious sect and having a bad relationship with his dad. So, he had a lot of internalized misandry from those dynamics. And when he deconstructed from his religious background about a decade ago, he polarized over into the polar opposite ideology of rad fem (though he doesn't actually believe men can be true Feminists... in true rad fem fashion). So, it makes sense why he would have gravitated towards those perspectives.

Aye Aye Captain Kangaroo!

No, identity of any kind (including gender identity) comes from someone's beliefs about themselves. So, it is independent of physical features. That said, a person might feel a deeper sense of embodiment of their identity if they feel like they look the part.