Trump shot at again (shocking)

[El Zapato]

@Hatfort Absolutely! One striking thing about the guy is that his personality is vastly different depending on the political sway of the reporting agencies.

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

@Hatfort yeah, I agree, the problem is now I'm getting the nagging feeling that Trump and/or one of his minions hired this poor sap with nothing left to lose to play the role of an assassin.  He hid for 12 hours, he had his gun visible from how many yards away? He never fired a shot, he was not injured in the exchange, he casually rode down the interstate until they captured him and the whole while he was whistling "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah".  It was a conspiracyyyyyyyy.

Stop it. Do not spread baseless gossip.

[Joshe]

The propaganda machine is effectively operating on all cylinders.

It's currently spreading the idea "An attack on Trump is an attack on you. You and your values are under attack, and these attacks are intentionally orchestrated war efforts from a wicked adversary who seeks power above all else. Running this country into the ground is part of their strategy to extinguish your right way of life."

The assassination attempts provide abundant opportunity to strengthen conviction that Dems are absolutely evil. The hatred is intensifying now. I anticipate an uptick in anger and heated debate in the next few days as a result of these narratives.

"They're not coming after me, they're coming after you. I just so happen to be standing in the way."

 

Edited September 18 by Joshe

[What Am I]

17 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Running this country into the ground is part of their strategy to extinguish your right way of life.

Yes, this is an especially important part of the belief system. Similar to how the left can be driven to extreme measures via the belief in Trump instituting fascist rule along with Christian nationalism, segments of the right believe in a conspiracy theory involving the ushering in of a global illiberal technocracy that's part of a mystical multi-thousand year plan for a ruthless one world government. Not all on the right are smart enough to handle the full scope of the conspiracy theory, so it gets watered down as it reaches the less intelligent.

Leo made a blog post a few weeks ago that highlights a talk by James Lindsay. I'd consider Lindsay's presentation a pretty decent representation of the concepts involved in the conspiracy theory. Though he's prone to misunderstand quite a bit, since he doesn't realize mysticism has a literal basis in fact.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/butchering-post-modernism

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

Similar to how the left can be driven to extreme measures via the belief in Trump instituting fascist rule along with Christian nationalism, segments of the right believe in a conspiracy theory involving the ushering in of a global illiberal technocracy that's part of a mystical multi-thousand year plan for a ruthless one world government.

These are nowhere near comparable IMO, lol. 

What do you think is going on in this scenario:

Persona A: Thinks Democrat rhetoric contributes equally to political polarization and political violence as Republican/Trump rhetoric

Persona B: Thinks Donald Trump's rhetoric accounts for the vast majority of political polarization and political violence 

Now, obviously, any rational, honest, intelligent person would acknowledge Person B is correct. 

In comes a centrist who doesn't like this and they try to find perspectives that can diminish the truth. 

If you ask yourself, why would the centrist have a problem with the truth...what answers do you come up with?

Why do they seek to balance out the positions? Why not just let the truth be what it is? 

What motivates them to diminish the truth?

Are they just winding up lost when attempting to think critically? 

Or are they trying to protect vulnerable psychic structures they aren't ready to dispense with? 

Centrists often seem to fall into the trap of thinking all positions can be understood from this meme. Their mom and dad might reside in the blessed homeland and their best friends might reside in the barbarous wastelands, which is a conflict of interest. My theory is centrists prefer harmony over truth, which is how they usually wind up at their positions. 

But this is a fallacy. There is a higher perch. 

Edited September 18 by Joshe

[What Am I]

Just pretend I didn't include this part in my first post: "Similar to how the left can be driven to extreme measures via the belief in Trump instituting fascist rule along with Christian nationalism." My intention wasn't really to draw a comparison between the two, though I acknowledge that may have subconsciously leaked out. Were you previously informed on the rest of the info in my post?

[Joshe]

2 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Just pretend I didn't include this part in my first post: "Similar to how the left can be driven to extreme measures via the belief in Trump instituting fascist rule along with Christian nationalism." My intention wasn't really to draw a comparison between the two, though I acknowledge that may have subconsciously leaked out. Were you previously informed on the rest of the info in my post?

I figured you weren't making a point about that, but I'm like a bored pitbull man! 😂

No, I'm not familiar with that content. What did you get from it? 

[What Am I]

13 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I figured you weren't making a point about that, but I'm like a bored pitbull man! 😂

lol, no problem. You probably weren't overly inaccurate in your analysis.

13 minutes ago, Joshe said:

No, I'm not familiar with that content. What did you get from it?

To deviate from Leo a bit (perhaps?), a large part of the stuff touched on in that video is definitely a matter of historical fact. Mystery schools really have been training their adherents in the perennial philosophy for thousands of years. You could even consider this forum as a modern type of learning center for the higher mysteries. And throughout the eons, a whole lot has been written regarding the nature of reality and how human society should best be organized to appropriately fall within a kind of divine order.

Like I mentioned before though, a non-mystic such as Linsday wouldn't really grasp what he's looking at, since he's simply ignorant of his ignorance when it comes to higher consciousness. His interpretations would always be tainted by a lack of understanding, and his assignments of malice could easily be misguided.

I do commend Lindsay on at least becoming aware of the material though, even if he's not pulling what's useful from it. It seems like these days, so many who discover authentic spirituality seem to believe they're the first and only humans to do so, and there's no need for any historical reference because they're already the tip of the spear. There's a treasure trove of unspeakable value from those who came before, and it's worth at least being exposed to the material if you have serious spiritual aspirations. It's so helpful, so long as you utilize the words as pointers rather than Truth itself.

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

There's a treasure trove of unspeakable value from those who came before, and it's worth at least being exposed to the material if you have serious spiritual aspirations. It's so helpful, so long as you utilize the words as pointers rather than Truth itself.

Totally agree. I've heard wise teachers I respect and admire talk about things like realms, astral, hidden energies with agendas, etc., which I have no direct knowledge of, so all I can do is probe them intellectually and try to find ways to penetrate them. I remain open to their teachings but I can't use them to build on top of or make decisions with, nor do I have any reason to lean towards them being true just because they say they are. Rudolph Steiner and Alice Bailey come to mind. I'm glad I exposed myself to them, even if their ideas are no good. It's valuable experience.

One problem with this degree of flexibility is people wind up believing in bullshit. When an egotist considers being open-minded, they end up believing in shit like flat earth. The point of exploration for them (most people) is to find something new to fit them, rather than what is true. 

Edited September 18 by Joshe

[What Am I]

24 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Totally agree. I've heard wise teachers I respect and admire talk about things like realms, astral, hidden energies with agendas, etc., which I have no direct knowledge of, so all I can do is probe them intellectually and try to find ways to penetrate them. I remain open to their teachings but I can't use them to build on top of or make decisions with, nor do I have any reason to lean towards them being true just because they say they are. Rudolph Steiner and Alice Bailey come to mind. I'm glad I exposed myself to them, even if their ideas are no good. It's valuable experience.

Ah, nice, I see you've learned about Theosophy. Yeah, many of their ideas are not what I'd call great either, but I'm also with you about the value of being exposed to their perspective. From what I can tell, many of those in theosophical groups had at least some amount of legit skill in spirituality, with a lot of it focusing specifically on the subtle-level aspects like you mentioned (astral, energies, etc.) Personally, I prefer a more Eastern approach to mysticism, but the esoteric Western teachings have their own unique value.

24 minutes ago, Joshe said:

One problem with this degree of flexibility is people wind up believing in bullshit. When an egotist considers being open-minded, they end up believing in shit like flat earth. The point of exploration for them (most people) is to find something new to fit them, rather than what is true. 

I suppose this is undeniable, considering the nonsense that's so prevalent these days, but I think it's more often a problem that arises when a person explores the unknown while having an unfortunate combination of weak traits. Stuff like low intelligence, lacking discernment, excessive gullibility, and perhaps even poor genetics for spiritual exploration. Whatever it is, they're pushed in a direction where they end up at the most goofy and useless conclusions known to man lol. A very far cry from what's actually possible and verifiable in their own experience.

I'll leave it at that though. No need to take the thread even further off-topic.

[Joshe]

Yeah, Theosophy was strange. I didn't dive very deep though. I've put spirituality on the back burner for the time being. I actually liked Alice Bailey's book "Glamour - a World Problem". It's not really spiritual but it had a lot interesting perspectives. 

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

I suppose this is undeniable, considering the nonsense that's so prevalent these days, but I think it's more often a problem that arises when a person explores the unknown while having an unfortunate combination of weak traits. Stuff like low intelligence, lacking discernment, excessive gullibility, and perhaps even poor genetics for spiritual exploration.

Yeah, those definitely play a role.

I have a theory that the vast majority (~90%) of people aren't born stupid, but rather, the ego boxes them into certain ways of thinking, which we might call stupid. I don't think it's inherent to most. The reason you can't fix stupid is because you can't make them surrender their cherished ways. If it weren't for that, you could fix it, as far as I can tell. 

For example, Joe Rogan's cognition is better than mine, in at least a couple of ways, but he's much more prone to believing falsehoods than I am. He's not mentally lazy, he loves to explore and question things. He has access to a mental apparatus that can be used to explore and inquire, just like I do, but he uses his in service to his ego, which first and foremost seeks thrills. If he had some experience in his life where he saw the truth of this, he could turn over a new leaf and just as easily start using his mind to seek the truth, which would manifest the appearance of him not being duped by kitty litter box stories. The only way for him to not be "gullible" is for him to understand why he is gullible. And that's a bitter pill. He'd have to admit his immaturity AND he'd have to let go of the payoffs/thrills. 

I get the sense that if you could show them their error and as long as they had the courage to admit and own it, they could correct themselves, thus, move closer towards non-error / "intelligence", but, they resist and resist. But yeah... I've rambled on enough for one day. Thanks for the conversation man! 

[El Zapato]

14 hours ago, Joshe said:

These are nowhere near comparable IMO, lol. 

What do you think is going on in this scenario:

Persona A: Thinks Democrat rhetoric contributes equally to political polarization and political violence as Republican/Trump rhetoric

Persona B: Thinks Donald Trump's rhetoric accounts for the vast majority of political polarization and political violence 

Now, obviously, any rational, honest, intelligent person would acknowledge Person B is correct. 

In comes a centrist who doesn't like this and they try to find perspectives that can diminish the truth. 

If you ask yourself, why would the centrist have a problem with the truth...what answers do you come up with?

Why do they seek to balance out the positions? Why not just let the truth be what it is? 

What motivates them to diminish the truth?

Are they just winding up lost when attempting to think critically? 

Or are they trying to protect vulnerable psychic structures they aren't ready to dispense with? 

Centrists often seem to fall into the trap of thinking all positions can be understood from this meme. Their mom and dad might reside in the blessed homeland and their best friends might reside in the barbarous wastelands, which is a conflict of interest. My theory is centrists prefer harmony over truth, which is how they usually wind up at their positions. 

But this is a fallacy. There is a higher perch. 

I like this, you two are conducting a good conversation.  Sometimes, I'm asked what I do and I respond that rather than doing what I should be doing I get out and win friends and influence people.  Lol!

[numbersinarow]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:25 AM, Leo Gura said:

Don't shoot baby Hitler.

Unless you want to become one of the biggest utilitarian heroes in human history?

Did you come to this conclusion on your own or did the mainstream, popular understanding of "morality" and your parents extremely, extremely influence your decision to say this?