Carl-Richard

If somebody merely flirts with nazi rhetoric, especially when they've EXPLICITLY stated that they will not reveal their most radical views, then that is more than enough for me to discard them. If you don't, then you should probably answer why, because that tells you more about you than about me. What; a huge New-Age lib like me is concerned about somebody being a potential nazi? Wow! — who would've guessed? But a guy who frequents the same community who isn't? Well yeah, that's more interesting.

Sounds = taking the red flags which is him flirting with aspects of nazi rhetoric and inferring that he might be an actual nazi, and then deciding to not entertain his views. Smells = taking the red flags as they are, and then deciding to not entertain his views. Am I close-minded about being against killing Jews for being Jews? Yes. I don't think you'll convince me on that one. Are you open-minded about nuking the entire planet right now? I think Nick is 10 years younger than Destiny and that there is a good chance he'll be somebody else by that time. Destiny used to be pretty conservative. But again; being smart, articulate, charismatic does not grant you good values. Super-smart people experience just as much child indoctrination, self-bias and trauma as we do. I mean for fuck's sake, Chris Langan has 200 IQ and gets into email fights about who has the biggest conceptual dick.

Back to my first comment in this thread: if you're openminded towards nazism, that says something about your values. They would think your values are fucked. You can be smart, articulate, and charismatic and still have fucked up values. This is what Hitler was. This is what Nick Fuentes is. This is what Andrew Tate is. ...and yes, of course whether some values are fucked or not is relative to who says it. However, a bigger problem is if you're holding contradictory values. For instance, if somebody like Destiny is really compelling to you, but someone like Nick is also really compelling (two intellectually rigorous individuals who seem to hold internally consistent value systems which contradict each other), you're probably holding contradictory values.

You're asking me for a picture of a camouflaged animal when I'm saying you should use your ears, or in fact that you should've smelled it already. If somebody is merely flirting with aspects of nazi rhetoric, that is all you need to know.

The frame of "show me direct quotes where he explicitly states his position" I don't think is important here. What is important is whether it's reasonable to entertain his views or not, and that involves these red flags (with swastikas on them): he has explicitly stated that he deliberately hides his true views, has made claims that denies aspects of the historical legitimacy of the holocaust, has endorsed violent solutions against those with power (who he believes to be Jews); which is, if not itself a reason to not entertain his views, an indication that he might be an actual nazi who wants to kill Jews, and if so certainly a good reason to not entertain his views.

I think leading a political movement which rhetoric includes killing Jews is bad.

@Raptorsin7 Tell me what "Zionist world order" means and I'll tell you what "all Jews" means.

Again, how many Jews are we talking about? If that is not explicitly stated, then we're back to the ambiguity game.

If the amount of jews is not clearly stated, that is a problem. Is your idea of evidence him saying his true views explicitly? Do you not see the problem with that given what I've just said? He thrives on ambiguity. Here is an idea: if there is even a slight indication that somebody might want to kill just any amount of Jews, should that not be enough to completely disregard them?

How many Jews is that exactly?

When you think that Jews rule the world and you say "who runs the media? Globalists. Time to kill the globalists" or "what can you and I do to a state legislator—besides kill them?", or when your rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of a nazi (white supremacy, holocaust denial, antisemitism etc.) and you've stated explicitly that you're deliberately hiding your true views, and that you're constantly seen hiding behind irony and jokes, it sort of says itself.

The fact that you actually don't know that is the problem.

Nick Fuentes wants to kill all jews.

They're talking about Destiny's recent IRL streams with Nick, and Mr.Girl wants Destiny to hold Nick more to account for his views. I wrote a comment after pausing at 2:04:00: Then 40 minutes later, at 2:48:55, that was the exact argument that made Destiny reconsider. Imagine if I could've jumped in and saved 40 minutes of spinning in the mud

McKenna had a period where he was scared away from psychedelics. I think he started hitting on the more spiritual ramifications of tripping, and he didn't like it. I believe McKenna used psychedelics primarily as an insight-making tool, of the intellectual and visionary kind, not as a self-help tool. So intention and cultural machinery matters a lot. You might hit on the same insights without it (like I think McKenna did), but you might interpret them differently and find them undesireable, which is of course not a surprise. Hardcore ego deconstruction is no joke.

Can you give an example of something toxic and non-toxic?

Thank you for being so succinct.

??? Did I write "Andrew Tate" as my male role model in that thread? The only thing I've learned from discovering Tate is that I have a similar kind of energy inside me that I've been neglecting most of my life and that I should work on integrating, but this has nothing to do with buying Boogatis or reverting to ancient gender roles.

I never said he wasn't a piece of shit.

I remember back when I first started smoking weed, I felt that a part of me was starting to fade away; that neurotic and conscientious part of my identity that was nagging me about what to do and who to be, who and what to care about, and who cares about me, and it struck me as both freeing but also a bit eerie. "Am I just letting a part of me die like this? Who could I be if I didn't hide away from these feelings? Why are those feelings there in the first place? Am I maybe supposed to have them?" Anyways, soon this feeling, along with pretty much any feelings about that aspect of myself, fell on the backside of my mind for years as my life was crumbling... which eventually lead me to spirituality and my first awakening. There the same thing happened. Suddenly my mind had entered this very different place; quiet, serene, but also empty and in some ways severed from an even larger aspect of myself. It was on a completely different scale than before, and this same eerie feeling caught me: what have I lost in this new change? Have I forgotten something? Not many days ago, I remembered back to this eerie feeling, and then I viewed it in context with my current self who is 6 years older, and then I realized: maybe I have forgotten something. This idea of self-transcendence being preceded by self-actualization, of burning karma, of uncovering the shadow, is what my mind was trying to tell me about all those years ago. What I was trying to ignore through substances, and then later meditation, was the very thing I needed to face. It's so obvious, because the same feelings are still there, only magnified and projected out into my actual surroundings: my lack of social aptness leading to less relationships, lack of direction and decisiveness leading to being years behind my peers, etc. That change cannot be reversed either. My mind will always be different. There is no anti-weed or anti-meditation. I'm also intrinsically less inclined to address those feelings, as I've become accustomed to bypassing the entire machinery. Neither did it help all the spiritual bypassing tropes I was engaging in ("there is only now" = you don't need to work on your future; "practice is ego" = self-defense mechanism for having squandered my plans to join my friend to a year of music school, etc.). Anyways, the lesson is that the thing people call the ego, you should probably listen to it sometimes, because it does have say in your life no matter what you think about it. Then again, maybe I wouldn't be here at all if I didn't take this path. What did I actually lose??

You're talking about concrete things. You want me to make you a grocery list for things to do. I'm doing something different. I'm talking about abstract concepts from which you can derive which things to do. If you can truly understand the concepts that unite all healthy things, that is much more powerful than just following a list, because then you're the one who knows what to do, and it creates intrinsic motivation towards applying that knowledge. This goes back to meaning again: merely engaging in the process of meaning-making; of making sense, of understanding; is in itself healthy. I'm trying to make you do something healthy

Ok.

You make it sound like the police was hunting him down. He said he moved because there is generally a lower chance to be falsely accused of rape. There is no #MeToo hysteria there.

Dispelling false information makes me a supporter? I'm disappointed in you.