My Blog

My Blog

Oh yea, the Testimony

Fundamental/EmpiricalPosted by Nicole Sun, April 22, 2018 13:07:40
OK, lets face it: If I'm wrong - then there is no Testimony. Because "the Antichrist" has the power upon it. So, "of course" it would come in my favor. So, in this sense there is 'nothing' one can trust, except ... for them.

Hmm ... sounds like someone ran out of arguments there!

Get it: God - above all - Eternity - Existence itself - alive. You - pray - asking that one on the top. And you think He can't answer? Really??

Siding with SJWs

Fundamental/EmpiricalPosted by Nicole Wed, April 04, 2018 14:58:39




At the very least is there a good joke to be had. Saying: It shouldn't be too difficult for me considering how 'feel' (as in "over facts") driven my content generally happens to be. But not am I just that, ... I'm also hardcore, fundamentalistically Christian.

Feelings over Facts

It should be emphasized - to start with - that a lot of being 'open-minded' (as in this sense) comes down to context and angle. Saying that: "You can be forgiven (for as long as you don't/didn't know what you were doing)" - and thats the thing. The more we extend the general horizon, the more it is a non-issue which side you're taking. But somewhere here is also the problem. That there is this 'barrier of knowledge' - and another one is following along, which is a corresponding barrier with communication; But 'there' we also would rather start talking of me being on neither side. Obviously. But sure, we can note that this is - if we really want to dig in that hard - another problem. "When are we "where"?".

I feel, maybe perpetuated by the 'wrong side', that there is this ... "accumulative problem" that I as siding with non/anti SJWs create this wrong idea - although not really wrong per se - that you as an "SJW" are supposed to give up and cross over. All the time I however expect those Anti-SJWs to notice that they themselves are required to do the same. Its so plain and obvious in the context - I'd feel really really stupid were I to try and tell that to them specifically.

Respectively should I feel ashamed of myself to use that as a means to condescend upon others, ... but the struggle is real. I would speak of a ruse, ... where now bad people would abuse their stance amongst others to basically 'guard' them - or represent. Respectively are anti-SJW people, no matter their stance, still 'ANTI' SJW people where the fact that they ended up standing on the right side is perceived as somehow unfair or what.
And thats where I see the Anti-SJW vs SJW thing going. Its less about one side of society vs the other, but more about those few SJWs that are yet sotospeak held hostage.
Hmm ... I wonder: This was the topic I had on mind which would have become the previous article - and to me right now this notion ... triggers the feeling that I get when I have just too much stuff on my mind - too much for me to be comfortable. Here I have a somewhat subjective idea of how the things I work on weigh in over time. I get precognitions of stress, cluelessness, difficulty - stuff like that. When it gets to topics - in the mode of me trying to get into all of them I feel like never getting any sleep ever - and still being hopelessly behind.


The more that you (folks) make real progress, the more this SJW nonsense becomes an abstract of the past - and we move on towards recognizing people by their standards. Thats 'anti politics' in that we have an empirical recognition of individuality from where we have to acknowledge that everyones political idea must be valid when 'ripe' enough. Which doesn't mean: Equal to any other.
We can say that politics as we know it is harmful - although, ... I think ... things kindof balance out, eventually. Kindof ... because, ... we an say that about World War 2 as well. And can we compare Trump to Hitler? I mean - that question ... its ... uh, ...

Hitler wouldn't succeed these days. Except he changed his strategy. How to get to power? Represent something that people want! So was Hitler going sure in that there was enough hatred against Jews - so he could give them something they wanted. That this wouldn't work today anymore is good. I was powerless - and that was good too. It wasn't I who defeated someone - it was society that remained resilient to yet another take-over. No matter what we imply or extrapolate from whichever group at whatever point; Or how we suppose the plan looked like; The good in people that was abused to drive it all remained - for the most part - on top.

Which would have been the biggest mistake of the enemy. That there wasn't/isn't enough evil to capitalize on. So, its closer to bad luck than it is to a mistake.


A pointed synergy



I have to however get a bit more detailed on the part of how I related to things before I actually learned of them things. The first thing should probably be the issue of me being manipulated or exploited. It turns out for instance, that the way I felt was as though I was an SJW that had to argue against Anti-SJWs - which is the part in me that got triggered by Atheists and had to denounce them. On the other side however I felt a deeper wrong, ... and that was about whoever took what I was about and just went with it, but without God.

The angle of approach

can be shown really well here. There are certain issues I have in common with SJWs - and based on those I could synergize with them. The same goes for Anti-SJWs. (Taking some weed now)

But here's why I really can't roll with Anti-SJWs: I feel uncomfortable. Yea - this is shorter than what I had thought of - please ... I'm sorry!

I had this situation where I was immersed in the things I had in common - to a point where my mind 'glued' with them. So, yea - thats a thing. What then happened is supernatural - its a Unification thing kicking in I guess, though such could happen to anyone in slightly different ways (not as ... 'luxurious'). I felt uncomfortable and ... thats my armor kicking in. It imposes a feeling of vulnerability or something upon me where I then can focus on and it will lead me to its source. I don't know how normal that is - actually. So, what happened there could happen in many ways. To some this might be the entire lifes journey - and eventually even within Unification.
Where - the important thing I guess is that we are humans, ... with or without Unification - and God can still interact with us. Whenever I write about Unification - ... when I write of new stuff I generally find that what I write about has 'shadows' in the eightfold. It takes some time for me to learn how to adjust so that what I write doesn't do that.

Anyway ... thats ... just by the way stuff. I guess its more important that I mention stuff, rather than elaborating on them in depth and detail. (Especially or at least once I'm not entirely buffed to do that)

... yea, so or so; Or else whatever.


Sense in Senselessness

Huha, ... yea - we could say that about SJWs. There is an empirical senselessness which however compels through something of meaning therein. Its an idea though that can be captured in words. Its not that big of a mystery either. All one has to do is to evidently listen - for if the point were as far off as that it wouldn't be anywhere to be found - we don't really have a meaningful discussion.
So: Safety, ... Justice, ... thats the stuff. Yet so are SJWs piked against Anti-SJWs - although Anti-SJWs want the same, even if maybe coming from a different set of empirical virtues. What Anti-SJWs say is: How do you want to achieve that? A good example is equality: We legally do have emancipation; So, how do you want 'more' of that? So the problem goes: You want more by now adding privilege to the implied "minority" - ... and well. Striking! Women are the majority. And so by giving women rights we chose our new oppressor?

Say: As we have emancipation, the 'more' on terms of justice couldn't be taken as a gender issue/conflict. So, also racism. As we in Germany have it in our Law that all human beings have a right in their dignity, ... we have racial emancipation - ... err ... you get the idea.


So, ... I got immersed and then somehow 'glued' "with" the SJW mindset. Think of the tip of an arrow made up of a set of blades that are made of only the sharp piece flowing like an ornament. At the tip of it were the bits I agree with. But backward, that pivot of agreement branches out in a whole lot of stuff ... that I can't agree with. And thats also where I have to stand against it on my own. Independent of how Anti-SJWs have it, ...; But that then also invokes "those" that take what I say in a veritably "Godless" context.

Anti-SJWs on the other hand generally share a set of empirical concepts that I synergize with on a foundational level. There is a ring of light that basically 'locks in' with it. And so, "No, we can't use our feelings to tinker with the things that should be empirically contextualized as safe standards and defaults".

I mean - we are free, but should that say that we should be free to decide whether climate change is a thing or not?

Put your statement (reasoning) on a sheet of paper. [As between brackets] as a ... thing that delivers your point in as few words as possible. I mean, when dealing with politicians this seems to be necessary. I've seen a lot of clips where answers just didn't get answered. But well, admittedly - people can also ask a lot of bullshit questions. SO, we have to find the right balance.

Yes or No - 'because'.
Maybe.


Straw-mans and shit

Somewhere in this (the SJW "arrow-tip") is something that to mee feels like a true arrow, or spike, erected against me. I suppose its even just that - taking my own words against me. Where what I refer to as God is however lessened to a degree they can compete with. Or reversively are properties of the divine applied onto whatever they have in Gods place.

So, if I have the right to refer to God as above us, they have the right to refer to their God as above us. Where they miss a point is at the points of how that effects the unbeliever. So, my God has reign and dominance upon me as I give it to Him - to, as I assume it of him, decide within reasons and tolerances when or when not to do something. To the unbeliever it matters not. To the unbeliever God is just God - as far as there is a God. I do not have the right to 'claim' that God, unless that God also claims me. Yet I cannot claim that claim either - unless its objective enough. So - there is a point where we have to step out of individual ideology and acknowledge "empirical society". So, here we can say stuff like: If I throw a stone at you - hard enough - in your face - you're gonna get injured. Empirical Fact.

Here we contribute unto by voicing our opinions, ... and yea - he or they who would forever try to bullshit around at it ... need I go on to try and explain it to you?

So God as a thing is that God that we can all objectively relate to. That we can inherently not since God doesn't present himself that way to us. Its like in that Scotland Yard board game, so, where he who plays Mr. X moves around the map invisibly and only shows himself ever so often. So, we can know God by what He gives us objectively. And what that is is something one is to individually understand - as with all things in reality.

So, the God that I impose/shove/push on folks is the God that they can find for themselves. I draw a huge, thick, fat, borderline continental line around God with me and that. If that God compels you to listen to me - you're welcome!


But so it also matters ... yea - I should work that into a page update - ... how many that respond to these things actually know of that, ... and have understood it. And internalized it properly. But what is 'proper'? Sufficiently. Sufficient enough to ... well, I guess at this point I rather have to hit the "not too much" side of things.


Externalized Misogyny


So is the issue that of what I 'externalize' - of my ... 'religion'. I mean, thats how 'they' have to see it, because they don't really have that omnipresent God on their end. To them what they do must be a matter of providing something that people must then let into them. That is what they have in place of this empirical line that I draw. Or, when moving onto their playing field - what I externalize is this one thing. While you can't get that one thing you must remain outside until you do. Simple as that. Whatever the things are that I do write about, whatever "micro-context" (the individual things) there were - it will always come down to that, ... first thing.

Thats the only thing you have to let into yourself. The only thing I shove onto you, ... what you so basically have to trust me on.

The rest is just about doing the work. Producing them words and terms and structures ... thoughts, ideas, ... and such.


Catering to Feelings and Worries


That. I mean, ... thats ... ... well, the things we want - that however happen to be complex gains. I mean, ... think of ... the war between Muslims and other Muslims and Jews. Its easy to say: "peace" ... is what we want.

So, there is the enemy, ... the 'demon' that is to scare you ... the monster I think I have the solutions for.


Internalized Correctness


A.k.a.: I suppose you can only agree with me. Everything else must be wrong - by definition (or are you not for the "good things"?). And sure - I could extrapolate that towards a more serious talking point ... one to externalize ... and then argue from and about. So, I have living evidence. You?

Therefore my external authority must be superior - and subsequently all those who oppose me have to be punished in some way.

Rule 1: I'm always right. Rule 2: If ever not, Rule 1 takes effect.

And sure, what you should learn of me goes a different way; But anyway ... . So, the God you'll find IRL is my God - and therefore I am right. I notice: This is significantly 'darker' than what I'm serious about - its ... worthless if it ain't true.


Anger Management Issues


Well, touch a "Rational Person" on that nerve and they'll be as emotional a SJW! Speaking of Pedophilia as opposed by Undoomed. It doesn't go a long way. If we're upset by something we only have what we are aware of to argue with. What we see of Undoomed there, so - actually, should concern us. That he does not, matter of fact, have rational arguments while generally being grounded on denial.

"You do wrong and I oppose that!" - so the general gist - and we all have those moments I guess. Sometimes with more and other times with less truth behind it. So, getting annoyed by something might be the most universally shared reason to "get triggered".

And sure - there is a reason why Undoomed would or should get Upset there. Its the same why anyone should or would - get upset about stuff. Not just that. And in case even so against it. In a best case scenario we can have all that, while each side is grounded in truth and reason of truth. An abstract one I guess.
If we were to so embrace Pedophilia - what do we need to expect? This we can ask - and get to conclusions that outweigh any reason to understand whether or not Pedophilia is generally wrong.

With legality of it - new questions emerged: How does the dating happen? We can no longer pull out the 'fate' card because then it becomes a legal market. So, what otherwise must endure social harassment is then eventually also introducing trading back into the romance. Giving it to the parents - they could see daughters, ... or boys, ... as value - to sell to the highest bidder. Or ... "sell".

So, that is mostly a societal issue - and it is ... 'even so' ... (as it turns out) ... important. The thing about "the Orwellian Future" (I haven't read Orwell myself) is that it is the consequence of ... what happened. Sure. As any fiction of future - it assumes certain events to take place. The manifestation of power within an elite that suppresses the working class is one such thing. Thinking of how it can or could or might happen, money is of course one thing that can come to mind. Balance shifting on that scale - add some madmen into positions of power and boom. If we so live in poverty and pedophilia became legal, and balances of power would create enough grey-space for child-trading - that would enter the 'norm' - as, because it happens, society is in some way skewed towards it. So, the powers that reign leave a mark.

So, by opposing Pedophilia on legal terms we also oppose the concept of trading with it. Outside of legal definitions we simply value childhood - we exalt it - as our culture shows: We try to give them paradise. Funky Wallpapers, Flashy Toys, ... everything is Fluffy or Super or both, ... but so, the older we grow the more of the fluff goes away.

A happy family is a family with happy kids.

And this is a very crucial detail if we now wanted to settle the discussion on base of 'simply talking about the legality of Pedophilia'.


I would have to vote against it for as long as a few critical elements were missing; And that in ... like: For as long as I don't know them - that is as a division by zero. So, sure. We first want to know that its safe. But ... we don't want some silly studies either, shoved in to claim that it works out while ... we as a society don't work out that way.
Here's a thing about studies done on people: If you take a sample of a group of people that lives in a way that works for 29% of people, ... the results of that study most likely just apply to those 29%.

Pedophilia is a very serious topic. And ... it is certainly one reason why I perhaps had to ... become a little bit irrational about going out of my way to write about certain things. It is though serious as in: Genetically serious.

Analogous to that see I my setup when it comes to me, my clarity and my privacy/intimacy. But that for another time?

So, if we imagine a Paper Magazine that would be all ... family friendly ... yet also focusing on the progress made on understanding Pedophilia - it would only be as true as the society that is reflected therein is your own. A danger ... so it seems ... if we suppose that the reflected society is the ideal we should strive for.
Well, it might be - in deed! It would so be in this case. Conditions wherein Pedophilia works out well - that however would only apply to ... 10% of the population maybe?
So, we should strive for it - sure. But one danger so is if we use that as an excuse. If the majority would live like that - then sure! Thats what I'm saying though. Otherwise the magazine would however only mask the truth - of what the legalization of Pedophilia means to the majority of people.


And so I am a victim of society in that I were a Child in for Pedophile action, though I can in hindsight ... be grateful ... about having been protected. Get it?

Sure, ... I mean. There is the standpoint from where I could grow upset at society, speaking of how miserable my life is because I can't live up to myself - but I don't need to have it "at all cost". And well, that differentiation makes it ... complicated. Or difficult.
Yea, difficult is the right word!

We could say: "Society will find its way" - good, but ... if we don't have a real influence, individually, that is as leaving it up to itself; With all the balances in place as they are. And because of human nature - well, ... this has to lead to conflict and what not. Something. Chaos. I mean ... anger.

Whatever
.


So, what I mean by 'genetical' is that ... speaking about Pedophilia, we first of all speak of a "Child". A Child is a Child as it is not yet 'matured'. We ... so have puberty. We have to grow up - understand the world around us - and so there is that period from birth to that which we can label as "pre-mature" at least ... and that is synonymous to DNA. It is an idea we from a grown perspective must understand of our own, as what we do isn't all driven by instinct. So, more or less. Once there is such a thing as a Doctor, we would come to that person if our child showed symptoms of an illness.

These days, I think ... well. I mean. In terms of what future generations might look back at and laugh about is how we exalt parenthood into an end all be all argument. So, whats best for a child is up to the parents to decide. That is good while we have no common sense understanding of Childhood. Because the Parents are compelled to Love their Child as some last line of defense.

Clearly: What I so imply - or get to imply as first solid thing - is an environmental aspect that takes care of our children instead of their parents. But here so again it matters how the balance is shifted. So, how 'elite' is one to be in order to "comprehend" the decisions being made?
So is that which I propose in the same breath also that which I oppose. And I got to make that explicitly clear here. "Oren Ishi" style.

I mean, if there is ever a chance that it is a "we take away your kids" institution, ... definitely no!


In totality do I want to say that we as a society first have to change - starting to organize properly around child-care - and that we cannot force that out. I ... in that guess have to emphasize one more thing:

There seems to be something about fashion. Like, that Illuminati have no hand in anything sleezy. Which is the next thing: Who are our fashion "Gods"? And what is our science of it?

It matters!



A parent is an individual that has the first hand responsibility to decide about its kid. Its ... the first thing. That because the individual was involved at creating it - so, it is 'his' and 'hers' - and if they assume they have to decide for it, thats what they have to do - period. Anything else is a 'taking your child away' scheme.

So, if a parent doesn't trust the person that were to 'care' - or make any decisions - it would commit a sin by not using its parenthood as a reason to oppose it, ... society would ask a sin of each individual and therefore must be opposed. Basically.

So do we have to look at common wealth and archetypes of living conditions to first of all map out what we are. And so we need to figure out how to achieve that. From there we will evolve as we improve those - coming up with new ways as getting rid of older ones - and so there is this 'us' ... the 'we' that there is. Which is: An issue of who is in charge. Who basically decides which voices are being heard and which ones are not.

(I think I got it: My enemy plays the "Kings looked away from him" Card by arguing that his politics are controversial.)

And so, well - we get to the root of the 'issue'. The 'pike'.


We can discuss it all day long: If you as the majority want it one way, thats how its gonna be. And so the consequences; Whatever you had wanted them to be. If a boulder is rolling at you, ... you either a) get out of the way or b) get hit. You can also c) imagine it to roll around you, ... but whether or not that is a viable third option, ... is kindof debatable but generally ... not really. I doubt we would find volunteers to test it!

"I wonder why that is!"

"Can somebody please tell me!?"

"Noooooooooo!" (Darth Vader)

LOL! George Lucas, the bringer of the most High Quality Meme!


But if you want to say that I want to bring about the legalization of Pedophilia, you have to contextualize that by all the other things I want to bring about; And I might do well by adding a bit more clarity to that.

I first want a society that can discuss things properly.


ANd if you, so my perspective, can't get your ass up and "go to church" - to connect and socialize - I don't really see it happen!
And is this me now teasing you?

Well, in order to tease you ... my promises would have to be promising, right? I mean - if you wanted it, you could all go on and do the exact same thing without me. Which is maybe even what someone has risen up to do already. "There is the way" - maybe.

You can talk of me as a Pedophile; And what society makes of it will forever be that!! If I ask society to be tolerant of it - I ask that of 'it' - ... while what 'it' does ... is written on a different page. As I would generally ask of society to be more considerate ... within such tolerance. To learn about what you don't understand. Which yea, isn't easy - but, ... thats why I count on Unification/Enlightenment.


So, ... round about this topic ... I generally ... feel like I'm kindof producing blueprints; And wherever I pull the "God" card they just have to make up something. Or they would try to skew my way to what they think they can conquer.


ANd as before it stands as my first argument. God first. Once you get through that - so I'm sure as I'm sure that my God is the true living eternal One - we can get together in a way that'll work out.

Otherwise - and thats a given: We will have to find a way to 'select' those amongst us that we trust at making the right decisions. While, the more power is involved, the more we have to change how we think about it. The danger is always that the top doesn't do as we would - and probably thats also an issue of how responsibilities are structured - but ... well.


Atheistically speaking: What we need is a process thats focused on 'the Childs way' - so, moving to a situation where the grown person can look back and attest righteousness at the system.
And that, as the story goes, isn't given if the child has absolutely no choice!


Except when things align just well. But that is a different story.


But thats all for now!


"Thank you God this is EPIC!"

Fundamental/EmpiricalPosted by Nicole Fri, March 23, 2018 20:13:43


Mansplaining

Fundamental/EmpiricalPosted by Nicole Fri, March 23, 2018 18:40:15

[Diversity, Sexism, why I didn't get rich - probably]


In defense of Matt Damon 'mansplaining' diversity to a black woman:

Isn't it obvious. I'm just seeing it as the 'Counter Arguments' channel is pretty much the interesting thing for me right now. [Splaining]. And the first offense I took was in context of Matt (I'm really not much of a fan of his. I couldn't sit through 'one' Bourne Identity movie so far - but yet I have a somewhat elevated opinion of him - and that mostly since Dogma) explaining that they look for diversity in the cast of the movie not in terms of the cast of the show - which triggered a [shocked] reaction from the black woman. Its to my understanding a conscious misunderstanding of what Matt meant. I don't really take offense to that, but what follows is nonetheless a back and forth of microagressions.

Splaining. I feel like I need to throw something else into this. I have to think about what Children want. Kids are a huge driving force in the entertainment industry and if one manages to please the taste of Kids thats pretty much a win. And so there are two ways: A) You're an adult and you have an idea that you think kids would enjoy or B) You're making it up to kids to envision what they want. So, asking Kids for what they think is cool and moving on from there. A) is "Adultsplaining" - and so is education.

The negative connotation of the term 'splaining' eventually makes it impossible for the rational person to have an opinion.

Since I however also have a defensive stance regarding the black womans position in that story - I could also splain @ Matt Damon - but the problem I'm facing there is that I've listened to Matt Damons position and it happens to make sense to me. I don't get the idea that he doesn't get already what I would have to tell him. The next step from there would be to fire all people from the board that aren't in to prioritize diversity in all aspects of the thing.
So, splaining @ Damon to me would feel like doing some damage control comforting like you would @ your son after he got beaten up by some bully at school. Or so bonding with a friend that just cut the loose end of the stick in an argument. "You got to understand that this and that and so and so". "Yea yea, you're right [sigh]".

I mean - I read this situation on a sense of tensions. Matt comes in from, yea, lets just say: A position of privilege - but that privilege is mostly that of his status as an accomplished actor. Whatever the case - he comes into this project with a benevolent intention. Giving "noobs" a road to success. And so he would construct an idea in his mind about how this benevolent intention could be carried out - and in this diversity conversation ... there were no point to invite a "non diverse" group of "noobs" into the show if from the start none of them should have a chance of success. Yet so ... there it goes ... the diversity argument. Because of a black hooker in the script. Arguing for a woman and a Vietnamese guy to handle that because of their 'diversity' is however not much of a compelling one since none of them so happens to be a black hooker. The woman would most likely inject feminist perspectives which not all hookers might really be down with, or however skews the image of the prostitute into that of a victim that in no point had any choice - the black guy ... is "hetero-normally" not in the position of relating to a female prostitute. We could say. And in this circle of producers, in frame of a show, I'd pretty much end up speaking for ... if we're picking by diversity ... white male 'specifically' because not doing so would be bad for the entire discussion as obviously, so it however happened, the entire discussion revolves around: Does a white guy understand?

Can a white guy handle the issue of diversity?

By the reactions - the "common sense" would suggest 'no'. Nobody were less qualified to do so than a white guy. While all these 'diverse' people clearly sit in a position of privilege that supersedes those of white guys of their age.

And now it stands, as of tensions, that all white men have to resign from whatever they are doing because not doing so is offensive to people of color. So, we sign over our entire civilization to people that might not be qualified because 'diversity' and hope that it doesn't collapse.


And while we're at it a few words about Affleck? It ain't hard to see that to me there is the impression of a wild, bloodlusting mob with torches and pitchforks bent on taking down every white man of privilege - and this alone could already be considered as me being a rape apologist (...) - which in this sense I am not. Thats not my motivation. But when I think about rape and Hollywood ... well ... . I don't have insider insights ... and that already tells you that I'm somewhat biased by all these "whom do I have to sleep with in order to get into the business?" jokes. Which takes away a huge amount of seriousness from my ability to actually say anything. To say its up front a bit of a huge joke. And the rest is pretty much a power struggle as any other. And if that were boldly a white-male trait we wouldn't have any conflicts anywhere on earth ... . I mean ... . I'm no fan of that power nonsense in any way. And that because I believe that common sense, humility, respect and such work out. Well, that ... recalls the Emmerich Godzilla movie. The whole 'elbows' thing. If you're boxing yourself in illegitimately ... your victory is illegitimate. And if you're doing so and are being told how your behavior doesn't work - you're gonna have to call that 'splaining'.
And ... we're most definitely at a point where a white guy is not allowed to have personal issues with a person of color ... 'because'. And if all people of color that are so boxing themselves in are people that just don't 'fit' in - the impression that its a racist thing hardens, but what can the white guy do?
I mean - working with a person of the opposite sex can be pleasant. Totally without romance or sex or any of that. But if that person is ... "special" ... whats to be pleasant about it?
And yea - I here want to give headspace to the 'angry white male' that ... just ... sees insanity unfold around him. Simply put. I don't say that "there" has to be a white male in charge - neither that a person of color should be. I say "there" has to be who 'is' "there" - which is to say that it isn't ours to take away someone else's accomplishments. Or mine. Thats bullying. Its worse! Its ... organized bullying.

I would though also argue that there is a lot wrong with Hollywood. Its hard to digest all what comes out of it otherwise. And as low as my regard for Hollywood as a thing there is my regard for its men ... AND women. So, if the one is a rapist and the other a "stupid slut" - I don't really care that much! Two types of people I don't really care about - and that they all point fingers at each other but that 'after' the checks got signed already ... I don't know what to make of it!

And ... moving on ... I feel like a lot of white men are starting to feel really uncomfortable because of being heterosexual. Because of what so comes with it. Express interest in a woman and be somewhat clumsy and woops ... your a sexual harasser and what not. I mean ... I write all these things and I don't have a clear context. So I just impose that the entirety of Hollywood is a snakes-den and practically implying that Mr. Affleck is no different. I don't want to defend him in that sense. Whether I think that is right or not. But you got to understand what these "diversity warriors" want is a ... well, the common perception compares them to racists and finds a lot of matches, but I'd for balances sakes say 'sterile environment'. So, a place where a man better not look at a woman until he has written consent to doing so. Which is basically again, practically speaking, a reason back into Apartheid. A step back to flush out all the parasites.
Thats what I would have to do at this point were I in charge of the whole thing and supposed to come up with a decree to "fix things". That means that only the accomplished would remain - which is also a good way to get rid of the white guys we don't like. But because what I/we do comes down to who makes it in ... thats ... kindof whats gonna happen anyway.


Season 6 of Stargate SG1: Daniel Jackson got replaced by Jonas Quinn - and while at first a hard pill to swallow, he worked out pretty well! ANd when it comes to politics in entertainment - thats one right way of going. You don't take your enemy, write a villain thats just like it and put it into a movie. You rather think about why your enemy is your enemy, invent a villain that embodies those traits and put it into a movie.


And what is it for those DWs? What, after hours and hours of content, or days, month and years of it/discussion, ... sunk through, to the bottom, ... into the 'bucket' of stuff that we would have wanted to look at way back wondering where all this might be going. You know - the point where some disagree with an issue but have to roll back because a lot of it is just suggestive, giving them the benefit of the doubt ... ? "Lets watch the ..." ... hmm. Selecting one single movie that had the highest chance of delivering an answer ... I think the female Ghostbusters movie would be a good one. Its full of those SJW type people - so - looking at it should be a great example of their view. And what is it? Manhating! ... Hmm ... If I were surprised I'd probably say: "What a surprise" ... but, less cynically.

Or Star Wars. What was Poe Damerons fail? Actually thinking like a man in a critical situation or ... being a man ... at all ... in that mess of a script? Kindof ironic. The white guys lost in a hopeless situation while the people of color get a free ride to Las Vegas.

"The force is female" [trollface]

Hmm. But it checks out. Luke Skywalker ... a ... green milk-chugging escapist who's only redemption in existence is suicide vs a grand universal badass that can only be challenged by a Mary Sue. Interesting what a psychological understanding can generate! If the author identified as the good guys I guess I could feel flattered.


Further I'd argue that if you wanted a black hero you'd need to make it believable too. You can't just take a white guy and replace him with a black guy because ... we're not all equal. We understand that black people are at certain disadvantages ... but a lot of it to my understanding also comes down to cultural ideals. If we take something built by white people ... and I mean 'culturally' white people (which can also include people of color) ... culturally black people won't fit in. Same thing as with the rap industry. That is built by culturally black people - which can also easily embrace white people. To get in you got to rap - and not wave around the diversity card. Thats basically the gist of "Dance off"s.
So, I was wrong. You can replace white with black - but the implied cultural background remains. And that background is important to the discussion or else there is no discussion. I mean, we'd be arguing that a culturally white black guy would be culturally accepted within a culturally white society. And wouldn't that send an undesirable message?

Not necessarily. It would depend on the context of the film.

And the female Ghostbusters fails on that end since the black person is again ... "just an import". I mean, thats how I can 'regard' the original Ghostbusters. 3 white men being one social entity that starts something because its not unheard of that people of the same color socialize - and the black guy comes in from a different background. And thats how I can criticize it.


Now I want to speak of accomplishments. Thereto I want to think of Batman v Superman and George Lucas. And that because of a few specific things. I'm now beyond trying to argue that BvS is a good movie - but I still don't think that Zack Snyder screwed up. I don't know much of his work either though. But what I know gets me to respect him for having some Talent; And I believe that talented people have that talent they have - so - its also there in whatever movie he screwed up the most. And so I think of the final scenes - the fight against Doomsday. There's that moment where Batman grapples to a building - Doomsday comes his way and you can literally see whats going on in Batman. I mean - "oh oh!".
On the other side ... of my argument ... George Lucas. More specifically the fight between the Emperor and Yoda. It occurred to me at some point in my thinking about Star Wars in my fandom that being a Jedi or a Sith is intimately tied to Lightsaber skills - and as a competitive art there are probably different strategies to be effective with it. There I got it as an inspiration basically to think of the Sith style of Lighsaber fighting in a specific way. And as I saw that scene again I realized that it fits. SO, probably the choreographer of that scene had the same idea. WHich is ... a 'poking' based fighting style. Some snake-ish 'straight for the hit' type of fencing. (Where the Jedi might be more focused on disarming the opponent. Something that is more effective in general as opposed to just at killing).

These are examples that don't change anything. They don't change the quality of the script, the quality of the acting, art-direction, etc. - but they are nonetheless integral to their depth. You can regard that in case of Star Wars some thought went into fleshing things out and not all of that would be worth talking about. But more objectively can you regard that in case of BvS some thought went into how to present the Characters. And those things shouldn't be highlighted. I guess thats the pride a director perhaps even 'must' take in his product ... which is ... to let it speak for itself.
Else all a move is worth are the Special Effects that 'need to be seen' - because the rest we could just publish on a sheet of paper.

Now, most of the criticism I've heard about Star Wars is about Jar Jar; And when it comes to BvS its about choices which roles which Character got - and in both cases their quality as a movie is disregarded. And I guess thats fair. I mean - I guess I wouldn't right away notice how I have similar arguments when I don't like stuff. So - whatever. Not the issue.

What I mean here is that I think of these two guys as guys that take their work seriously. Its easy to just take in the "guaranteed cash" while somehow fiddling something of a film together - but a different thing to actually try to make something good. Compared to that does the final fight-scene in Age of Ultron look a bit cheap. I'm not speaking of the quality of the effects. To its regard I like the situation that has been created there, so, that there is this one spot they have to hold - its, kindof like the end of Jet Li's 'the One' - but the visuals ... are kindof bad at times.


And 'that' is finally what I think "SJW"s take offense in. I mean ... that now a person that maybe tends to overthink things has a certain perspective and therefore decides against certain suggestions. So, I think Django Unchained makes for a reasonable understanding because I thereof know of a particular vision thats substantial to the movie which I can here play around with for that reason. Django first of all had to be black because Tarantino wanted a Black Hero - and he had to be a Slave because he wanted to tackle that topic. Those are very deliberate choices. Abstract to the current political discourse we could assume a "we need more white people" pressure, or more in touch with it we could find offense in Django being a slave. In that sense he were now convinced that his vision for the movie was good ... and now we come in with whatever 'important social issue' we think is relevant but his artistic vision would compel him to disagree; And our perspective were that he's wrong about it. And if there's a huge offense taken that sets loose an avalanche of outrage over taking things out of their context - sure - the movie would "suck", even before release, ... and the movie would have a harder time.

The problem here is the 'we'. What 'we' do, should do or could do, what 'we' want, what 'we' think is right, what 'we' think should happen; As though this 'we' is some shadow government that has the right poking into everything, fiddling around with stuff and having zero consideration for how this stuff works (out) in the end.

And sure ... blaming "it" all on "the Patriarchy" goes that way of assuming that there is that kind of other 'we' that makes all those sexist/misogynistic/racist decisions.

What else would empower a person to sit into the jury of a contest and demand we ignore the performance of the participants because of the color of their skin or the things between their legs?

Hmm ...

What would an SJW say about that?

If not enough women or people of color make it to the top - the problem could be anywhere. Starting at the very bottom. Then there are cultural issues. Or social ones. The thing being 'maturity'. Where, comparing white folks to black folks as a whole - speaking of accomplishments - doesn't draw me to picking one single discipline. Obviously ... kindof ... my argument here is going into the direction of 'white culture is more advanced' ... or more mature. And while that could be true once we look at movies - we could find the opposite once we look at music. And while further in the past we again get to white folks ... we have to consider that the white culture was technologically and socially more advanced (organization wise) - primarily speaking of the instruments and the tools used to make music; At which point those "white accomplishments" aren't 'white' accomplishments but accomplishments of a social structure; Where we could argue that if we injected a black guy into that culture the black guy would make the better music.
Which then allowed us to argue that white guys make better movies just as Asian guys make better games.

And even if we found that all this is actually true, I don't think we should really care! Because 'we' - don't matter.

Hip Hop doesn't exist because "we" decided that for some reason. Maybe at some point you could perhaps say that - but - there's a difference between being presented a piece of music you're supposed to like, or hearing a piece of music you enjoy and wondering who made it. "Oh, its a black guy ..." ... . I can imagine that this is how people reacted. "Back in the days". Even those that ended up putting aside their biases. Maybe it was a reason to set them aside. I mean ... 'the lost city Z' ended up being quite interesting in that regard (its good to watch passively, but not really all that interesting to sit through) in that it shifted the focus on the racist issue of how europeans thunked of ... well yea, people of color in general I suppose. Which is kindof where the plot doesn't make a lot of sense because Africans and Arabs and the Chinese and Japanese had culture as well. So, white guy travels to south America to prove that the native Americans are more than just animals by finding a lost city.

Now, there are certain things I have to point out but they aren't ... really good. Like ... the Affleck issue previously. Similar. White guys socialize with white guys because we're still secluded like that for the most part. ... How do I ... best ... ? I'm a German and beause Germany is pretty immigration friendly the topic of 'integration' is a huge one over here. And that is the issue of us having a society that works a certain way because it must which is confronted with a lot of different cultures flowing in that aren't universally compatible with ours. Revenge and Honor for instance are things - where we take issue with men beating their women, Muslims bullying their own family members for dating a Christian ... stuff like that. And this attitude of "I have the right to execute revenge/protect my honor" is a noticable trait of certain individuals - and I'd be shocked if the same weren't true for any other ethnicity within any environment stranger to them.

Well - I acknowledge that this is kindof racist thinking - but whats true about it is what problems there are at bridging the gap. And the reason why we can't just put white and black guys into a room to have a discussion is because that one incident will not change things in the whole. If I get along well with one Arab thats one thing - but that won't affect every Arab out there. Or 'any'.

Discussions about integration that I witnessed generally acknowledge that there are these and those. Thats basically the first things thats getting established - even when talking with right-leaning individuals (not talking about the extreme cases) - and thats where the "why don't we just ..." phase of argumentation doesn't even occur. The problem shifts to those places where "outlanders" are vastly amongst themselves - where at this point I think we would classically think of the Muslim bride that spends most of her time at home watching Turkish television, for instance. A person as detached from the society she lives in as it gets. And while I've heard nobody talking about getting them out of that I assume that this discussion doesn't exist - yet what does exist are thoughts about 'offering' solutions for inter-cultural understanding and outreach.
Microagressive: "Oh, "Thoughts"" - well no. It also goes further than that!
In other points the issue is more tense. Thats when negative things happened, we wonder how or why, ... and we have to realize that our system is flawed. So, we for instance don't/didn't require immigrants to know a lot, if anything at all, about our society, laws, norms and such. As of recent so that was an issue to say: "OK, we can no longer just let it happen like that" - and so solutions have to be devised which can however only take effect after their conception and not already years ago.

Which is 'laymens politics'. The *facepalm* reaction to everything that went wrong because "Duh (when it happened) its obvious!".


To cut this short - the general issue round about is the question why those 'obvious solutions' aren't implemented so easily; And the answer is either that the thing itself is more complicated than it would seem at first - or that some Political nonsense is going on. The latter is very true and if you're a US citizen you would know about that. Whether its Trump or Clinton we're talking about here.
Which is the thing. Hillary certainly qualifies as a woman - I suppose - but ... as a politician?
Trump certainly qualifies as a bold man ... but smart?

I guess we can in both cases answer with yes - but not in ways that generally work with people.

Thats what I gather from what I hear over the Internet.

But thats the thing. If we fail to identify the real issues - regarding those obstacles - what do we gain? We can empower a person of color or a woman - but where's the guarantee that its any good?


Let me talk about Black Panther for a moment. I didn't see the movie - and the only reason for me to watch it at this point is some pro-black solidarity; And the Marvel/Disney label ... doesn't make me wanna.
Its a freak project - in a way. I would say that its "forced" - but the thing with Black Panther is that there are organic roots to it. So, it had to happen eventually - and naturally the movie would sport a vastly black cast. Unless you wouldn't bother settling the movie in Wakanda; Which wouldn't make a lot of sense for the first Black Panther movie, nor any Black Panther movie at all. It would be odd to leave Black Panther out - and that especially because most certainly there happen to be Black Marvel fans. So, there is anticipation - there is tease - and if I were invested in the Marvel franchise I'd definitely have watched it. Because there is no reason to expect any more or less than from the other movies.
What I mean by 'freak project' is that the whole jamboozle about how its an all black cast and such ... well, I mean - nobody is surprised. I mean, "of course" thats what the PR would be about. In the world as it is right now. And at all its certainly worth mentioning anyway. I don't want to take its status as a milestone or say that it isn't worth celebrating. But it doesn't change anything. Its the progress of the past that made it happen. So, that there was a Black Director (who had to go to school and all that) and Black Actors - that somehow had to get into Hollywood prior to that. And it makes sense that Disney would lean more towards diversity, being the better platform for you if you're a person of color and want to succeed ... pf ... maybe. But these sexist and racist attitudes don't fit into Star Wars!
If we were to pretend otherwise - I mean, if we argue that the way hasn't been paved a long time ago already and take it as an SJW victory - ... we generate this idea of there being a fight, the logical continuation of which would be more and more of it. But where are the resources for that? Where's the money, the producers and the writers to continue off of this victory? Where's the audience?

I'm sure that its there - but I think its more on the level of ... low-budget/art movies. For as long as it is only a token thing that exists for reasons but not because it exists on its own.

Thats an obstacle you can't just "duh" away. If you want to change something, you need to be a black guy that wants to be a director, actor, writer, musician, etc. - and do it! "Lose yourself to the Music". I actually haven't seen 8 mile yet ... ... .

And sure - I guess Rap is an easier game to get into. Because the stuff that white guys built is as complicated as white guys tend to have it. Because Culture. Gotta go to school and perform well in all the tests. But making it through that is probably one bit of what it takes to stay on top!


I think that way of myself too. I mean ... I've had artistic ambitions that I believed in - but my life didn't take me down that road. I had no education, not much exposure and experience; And so today I'm not feeling confident about those ambitions anymore. I guess I spent the time I should have spent on refining those skills on other things. And that ... was a choice I made. That turning 21 alone in my room story - I got to retell it. As I've been having the thing on my mind: "Now is the time! What I do now might influence all of my future!" - and there was no outlook more compelling than what I 'do' (rather than what I could accomplish) - by doing what I ended up doing. Important stuff I found myself in the position of doing. I mean, its more than just the outlook. There are ethical considerations - the morality of it. I had reason to believe that I have the talent to get filthy rich - but I didn't actually get to the point to think about that a lot. It was a thing at times, like "Yea, that ... might be a (good) thing" ... and my family would love me for it and what not ... - but taking that any serious would require me to disjoint myself from what was important to me at the time. I didn't realize that very well at the time - so, ... I could have argued to myself that I could do the other things that are important to me as a hobby. As my ... family would argue. I might have taken that seriously - but it would have been a fallacy because after I'd have done all the work I ought to do to become successful I wouldn't have had much time for anything else!

But yea ... I shouldn't overlook other issues I've had ... which happen to be social anxiety issues I guess. The understanding that every school I'd (have to) attend would most certainly crowded with ... hostile units ... which at that point could have been both sides; SJW or Anti-SJW; Be it really that or just as I was used to ... as something thats just everywhere. Ignorance. And what I ... perceived ... as I thought about what I would be getting into basically shapes my mind of whats going on in schools today - and whats going on in the USA in that regard ... doesn't tell me that I'm wrong!

It to me is 'next Level Bullying' - the Bully that hides under the PC skin. In hindsight I had to realize that what I suspect would require a lot of people - or a talent of figuring out when to be where doing what.

I would picture it like that: Some person would approach me, trying to make friends - and there would be both. Folks I get along with and folks I don't. Folks I don't get along with would include folks I "should" get along with - and thats one edge of conflict. In the "God takes care of everything" scenario of course things would play out nice somehow. I would have friends to mark off to - unless they would befriend folks I don't get along with ... and ... I don't know but ... creative ineptitude is something I can't handle - I suppose. I'm extremely protective of what I'm doing and want to make sure that it isn't corrupted. Someone there to basically assassinate my attempts at getting somewhere would befriend me and then play me. As, we're all there because we want to have success doing creative work; And so whatever Idea I'd have would be guaranteed to run opposed to another.

[Pro Choice: The Kid is alive when it starts kicking | Or technically just once it were effectively capable of maturing outside of the womb without some abstract sci-fi growing chamber (except general life support (Medical Aid)). Should be around the same time. Conception is a physical process and so is biological growth. It happens as part of the Laws that rule our Universe and not as form of divine intervention. Its a part of the chain of causality. Unless the woman is unfertile we can guarantee pregnancy under certain conditions as for instance through an artificial fertilization. (Because its a physical process). If we say that life starts with Mitosis/Fertilization we're in the realm of (non-matured) micro-organisms - and though it sounds harsh is that comparable to bacteria or germs - where us cleaning up our house would add up to genocide. If we want to now force women to bear children they didn't want to begin with - as the 'common sense' margin to set for what "Choice" means - because we value that little bit of something as a complete human life; And you continue to persist with all ferocity you can muster to demand her to go through 9 month of pregnancy to bear it - to "Poop it out" just so that either she is forced to raise it or she can flip it off to some child-care center; Why can't we value the lives of bacteria? (Macro-aggression with rhetorical fade-out). "Where does life begin?". OK, this is naughty - and sure we would kill flies no matter what the answer to this - mosquitoes at least are begging for it - OK, and flies too ... sometimes ... - but so the real question is: "When is a life ethically valuable/existent?". At which point are we actually killing a human being? Pregnancy is the process where after two became one a new life is being generated. It is the process where a single cell turns into a complex organism capable of hosting the human mind. Biologically taken we don't need a mind to exist though. Our body has an auto-pilot. The heartbeat isn't regulated by my intentions. I can take more control upon my breath - but ultimately that also happens automatically. And because the human body works by those systems, so - our biology is dependent on them to live, there is no way the body could mature in the womb if they wouldn't grow as functional. So are there reasons for those systems to function that are purely mechanical. Here I would argue that the kicking comes as consequence to there being a mind that is at the beginning of its consciousness - which occurs as the mind starts firing into the brain and the machine is getting "animated".]

Now, me complaining about my idea running not unopposed is whining. In and of itself. If I however am purposefully assassinated, this whining is actually more of a serious issue than just being a whiner. Calling out the symptoms as a negative is something that actually really triggers me - if those issues continue to get dropped onto concerns that are expressed to regard their reasons/origins.

[Steven Crowder just convinced me that male privilege is a thing. Although he takes the opposite side. The first guy in that video did it - without even saying much. I can there see what I feel when I get to shove in a few notes of caution ... but I figure that this dude ... Crowder I mean ... is a whole book of its own it seems. This conversation with that guy is what TYT pointed out about the conservative mindset. How fear fosters the conservative stance. The one guy feels save, Steven says he shouldn't. At other points he argues that his counterparts argue in circles or miss the point while at the same point he doesn't seem to show any consideration for changing his mind; Which might subjective yet is pivoted by his expressed agenda where changing the mind of the other is the proclaimed goal. (His video on Pro Life). I don't think he's unfair though. He's conservative, defensive, ... which expresses itself through a demanding position. That showed in his video on Hate Speech where he shrugged the guy off that he couldn't handle; Who - actually - has been a step ahead of him. Its the situation where the one knows already what the other guy wants to say - or thinks so - where he just left enough in for that to come through. The conversation didn't go to the point of arguing whether or not Hate Speech should be allowed or not - but the other dude was just about to establish that the "There is no Hate Speech" argument as presented by Crowder is about Legislation. So, if the conversation were to roll out, I suppose, the stance of the other guy would have been that Hate Speech exists, is a bad thing, based on our human intelligence to call it what it is - and he would only be satisfied if Crowder admitted that Hate Speech exists. Not whether or not it should be legal. Thats totally beside the point ... to that guy. While Crowder is however prepared to make the legality arguments. And same goes with Male Privilege issue. I mean, from the point of the 'point' thats being made.
There is a certain naivety that liberals have ... inherently ... when beheld from a conservative point of view. That can be translated into video-games. If we can establish that the conservative mindset is not only rhetorically, but also functionally defensive - that would translate into 'turtling' - when thinking about Starcraft maybe. The person that bunkers up and essentially hopes that the opponents offense will fail at his doorsteps. Its the "no risk" approach. Or ... least risk. And yea, its annoying to go up against folks that play that way. Because yea, its effective. Its 'naive' to go out and risk your life. Thats what I'm arguing there. On the other hand however do you gather experiences by going out and risking your life - and eventually grow experienced enough to crack any turtle shell.
And yea - thats kindof the excitement in competitive play. That there is no 'true' safe zone - however you do it you can do it wrong. That because both sides matter. Offense and Defense in tandem.
In real life this naivety is more of a problem because in real world ... game over is ... sortof ... final. And whether thats pro or anti gun-control is up for debate. And I don't think that I can |solve| this by providing a 'point'. But, lets get back to ...
Try to agree with that guy that claims that male privilege is a thing. If you think you have to disagree. Try to agree and you may find that it is a stance you can acknowledge without loosing your own point. So, once the issue is one of legislation - there is no male privilege period. And that is all throughout the western world. Even if that isn't the case. Which is true - even if it sounds like bullshit. The dominant public narrative is clear on emancipation. The social norm that we consume by media suggests to us that that is the case and until a government were to rule against that, thats the given case. But another point I like to repeat is that most of the time, in real life, legislation doesn't matter. It matters passively in that it establishes the general frame wherein we're free to move which then (#Integration) is something we're growing into as we're getting older. If the issue however is one of social stuff the harping on legislation is rather counter-productive in that it urges the listener to accept that we live in a perfect world. No, they don't say that. But the problem is that problems exist despite there being legislation against it - and we can I guess there speak of the unwritten laws of isolated groups. These can be criminal - and while there is no privilege in that once that hits the legal wall, they yet exist. So, if its a social issue, there is male privilege period. And the "patriarchy" (the biggest of those groups). Yet, as there is this pretty clear line between the social and the legal side - we can rationalize that the solution here can't be achieved legally; Because what can be achieved has been achieved. At least when taking emancipation as the desired thing. By which I mean that the desired shift has to happen within society - and arguing that there is no problem is problematic once it shuts those ambitions down.]

Now am I however not in a position to effectively whine about being assassinated because I didn't expose myself to that situation. I'm still arguing that I'm assassinated anyhow - but as that is related to the grounds that I'm standing on I'm also confident that I'm gonna win that. Which is also the next step to the previous point where "if God existed" I had to believe that that they won't succeed in getting rid of me. Its written and so it shall happen.

I guess it could have worked out so that once I stumbled upon the Matrix thing the case were won - or whatever crazy fantasy so happens to be within realistic parameters - as, how much did all my 'learning' really help? Well, turning 21 I wasn't really baptized yet! And since I got baptized all went auto-pilot until another point where I again thought about my way. Since 'then' - arguably - my path has been pointless. For me as a male anyhow. But in the next update on that I'm gonna tell you about my internal shift to dominantly female. That could have worked out too though. I suppose.
But I feel like thats not going deep enough. And I think that because these religious solutions came easily to me it wouldn't seem like I shouldn't strive for financial success.

Assassinations. Well - its kindof funny. Throughout all the years I had all these arguments floating through my head - and by expressing them while "on the way of failure" their counter-response, so - what they prepared in order to failsafe against all sorts of eventualities (like, when arguing about which idea is better and I'd come up with esoteric reasons the logical situation is that a recognition of those is a matter of faith/belief/opinion) didn't have an effective obstacle in their way and so could spread and grow ... and now we're entering a time where I don't really have to do jackshit and you solve the problem "for me" - because the problem isn't just mine anymore. Which is what I was/wouldbe trying to "sell" you - which I would-have or could-have achieved by harping on the meaning or value of salvation in regards to free will. But ... me selling you on a problem you have a hard time seeing ..., well. I would have backup to help you cross the line - but ... hmm. Yea. For once I'd be a public figure that would automatically grow into a parenting position - which as I do now would be simply due to me voicing my opinion and you'd look up to me - and ... that dynamic is sortof problematic. We yet would accomplish salvation and over time that would gain gravity and what social problems exist would vanish - but all that without much of a basis in society. So, if I am to succeed in my current situation, the whole story has to be digested as to travel through the social structures wherein there is resistence. Its this 'dense cloud' where ultimately all the pro-active people have set-up shop as of their nature. So, that is the "engine" of our civilization - in that once I get it onto my side will sotospeak run for me. If I however were in a socially dominant position much of that would be achieved by me practically dragging you in as you no longer have an argument to resist. And sure, again, at first glance there is no reason why that couldn't have worked out. Except maybe that if I had to argue against you perceiving me as a leader person I would have to argue, ultimately, that I shouldn't be in this socially dominant position. Because now you have to argue for yourself, regarding realtime issues, you produce knowledge and wisdom ... maybe I should just admit that I made a mistake. ...
Uhm. You produce knowledge and wisdom that now can be past to the future. You're in charge and you inherently don't have me to look up to. At first you wouldn't get it, but once it gets you it gets you. And I doubt that once that would be going that you would have wanted it another way. Now you argue in place of me - while I just write here where I can only argue indirectly and can't correspond to counter-arguments effectively. And so I now "unlocked" the realization that they, so it seems to me, were only concerned of blocking me from "making it out".

But yea ... time's up! [...]

The inner Momentum

Fundamental/EmpiricalPosted by Nicole Thu, January 25, 2018 16:38:03


[stuff about Clarity, Law, Freedom and Individuality, Religion and Order, ... privileges, marriage, ... and Sin]



"They say, that what we propose is a means of escapism" - or something like that - is written in one of them books where I got that Unification stuff from. It sounds like what any other sect/cult would tell its followers about its teachings, providing something of a refuge for the irritated individual. And well - nothing is going to change 'that way' when entering the true Religion; And why? Because it are those principalities of existence we prolong that eventually make us want to stay. Its like family. By such superficial arguments, families are cults. Who would deny that?

So, when entering the big family of God, what would be different? The issue with this "real world" and "real life" thing is - escapism. We would try to deny it. The bible tells us that Jesus came to bring the sword, to part family members from each other. So we would go and seek to keep contact to our family members "because" - yet we traverse the world on our own, seeking as much distance from them as genuinely possible. Some there have a closer attachment to their parents than others.
Even incestuous ones.

I cannot tell or claim that such exists outside of fantasy, ... but I've ... read stories. Apparently it happens. And apparently those situations that would seem that they could only happen in fiction, ... do actually exist here and there. But maybe usually less pretty than an artist might envision. Either that is how it is, ... or it is just so in the Media. Who knows?


Of course press is biased either way. It tells the stories - and woe the public opinion finds distaste in the positions these take.


So would incest seem to be the direct opposite to what Jesus claims there in the Bible. But that also only ... from certain perspectives. I mean, the issue is that we all have something of an attachment to our parents. In one way or another, ... family is family. So - OK - good, I have my new one now. Apparently. Though - apparently not. First of all, choosing God to be my father is an ideological choice - based on the or some ideals of idealizing God in His/"its" fatherhood. #TheCreator. But also so within the Bible God is endeared to us as Father, ... and when getting beyond the strictness of His, ... that is when taking the reasons for Him to be strict/"grim"(harsh, rough, angry, ...), then there is God as God is within which there is a Father aspect that is quite pleasant.
It is through this invisible hand that I learned ... of the ways, or some of the ways, of this world.
So in a manner that truly shines out from beyond. As anyone would ... well, maybe its a thing, ... easily explain stories about God through natural means. Its ... "in there". Like in the Matrix thing, ... cosmic flow issues.

First it was the Matrix for me, then it was Joe, ... then I tried calling it Cosmic Flows, ... while Cosmic Convergeances would make more sense, but ... that term would also cover a lot more than just that.
Same could be said with Flows, ... but whatever.
"Matrix thingies"?

So I would be delusional, or ... somewhat, ... overzealously interpreting stuff into stuff.

Well - I got a mindburn from some weed now. But ... thats part of the story I was going to tell here.


We introduced escapism and implied that within it, we find a lot of what we actually want. Or may want. It was issued that we yet seek to escape, ... seeking ... the distant. This is a cultural paradigm, ... in that "back in the days" families had greater value. Its so that from within the roots, ... traditions would be kept within families. Father does this, Son does the same. There so is that issue of privilege. If your dad had something built up, it is of privilege to be able to work and learn there. From that would come a higher standard which 'ordinary peasants' could not have.

Nowadays however these boundaries do not exist anymore. Through our educational system we can all have free access to information of centuries and that in a wide variety of subjects. You don't need to be the son of a biologist to ever learn about biology. Fiction only adds to that in that it sparks/sparked our imaginations for what there might be.

Whether 20.000 miles under the ocean now inspired explorers or just movie makers, ... well ... who cares?
Might be interesting.


So we're in this society where the bonds of family loose meaning. Actively so, probably. The "old generation" is that which has come forth from those ancient roots. I however remember my Gramps (no longer alive) who used to take us to Bohemia for hollidays once or twice showed us his old 'home'. It was a hat in the middle of the woods, or ... what remained of it. Just a few barely recognizable walls.

He told us stories about eating his first Banana. I though barely remember any detail of any of it. But the gist of it is that civilization was a bit off. Out of the way. He had to walk through school essentially on pathways through the wilderness. I don't know how wild ... but well, ... it was family. Quite a few live here in the area. Also part of my granmas. Which is ... as after the war ... my Gramps eventually however ended up nearby, ... and two of his brothers live around here too. So - of course families would look for each other. Gather in camps - and from there on out it was living on food-stamps for a while.

Well - according to him, for those whom it matters, the sentiment after the war - or starting with the loss at the front of russia - the sentiment amongst the soldiers began to shift and in prison camps ... jokes about Hitler were ... certainly a thing.

What changed?

Maybe its wealth. Overpopulation even. So, the more people there are, the more work can be done. Businesses grow - and a lot of business just revolves around money. There is no resource other than that - as - what is bureaucracy? And ideologistic complex of nonsense, just there to ... keep us busy. It seems.


When we're dealing with Incest however - we got to ask ourselves the question: Is it rape? I don't mean to ask: Is incest Rape? I meant to wonder: Is "that particular" case of Incest rape?


So, that is in about the goodest angle on the topic of clarity I found so far. To start off by asking the question: "What about Incest?". Which - I would assume in this case - you would want to ask me at some point, ... had I mentioned nothing of that sort. Now, how to take a proper apostolic position to this? Can I tell? Well - I didn't learn anything from any apostles. And if I did, I didn't know they were that. Maybe I assumed something of the sort ... or 'somehow knew' ... but ... got it?

Anyway, ... it has been a personal issue of mine. I wondered. So, because after Christ left the Apostles there, ... they were left on their own and much of the Bible itself is ... well, even just on behalf of them. They didn't create the New Testament themselves. The new Testament is a report from others - so, as a letter that: "This is what happened and I have come to the belief that it is true". Does tell.

So, whatever 'Christian Knowledge' there is - we got to wonder. Where is it? Or, where has it come from? How is the duty of an Apostle? They were asked to go out and preach, yet apparently left clueless about what to do or say. Until ... enlightenment came to them, ... or something.


We learn from the Bible that the Law is naught, but not naught. "Not a yota will be taken from it". So, the law is valid - but then, whats all that Sacrifice "nonsense" about? We got to wonder. Some would have an answer that sucks, other would think they know it better. That seems to be the case there. So - I got to 'ask' as there is no unity about it - it seems.
And that is the issue.
What would an Apostle tell?
And why? Or how?

How are we supposed to know anything???


So - I wondered, totally different subject, about this Force thing, ... within the Ninefold - ... how it works, or ... how to describe it when inevitably I have to. I would usually describe as something ... 'beyond'. Something ... that isn't in the Eightfold. Its ... that way hard to actually tell ... in which way it is different because ... it just is different.
It occured to me from time to time that people were wondering, or might wonder, ... suggesting that in some way it has to be comprehensive within a form. Which Form does the absolute and infinite take though?

The one thing I would say now is that it seems that it is the 'knowledge' itself that takes 'phase' with infinity, 'reflecting' of infinity its own intimacy about a thing, ... thus adding a certain 'shine' to what is "rendered to us" within the spectrum of limitations.


We could take this in a naturalistic way, ... but should not forget that God can also ... think for Himself. Thus, the matter here is the spiritual aspect of it. As we have emotions, those are based on spiritual capabilities - things the spirit can do. Therefore God can. The issue is that ... speaking. So, God can generate these "fields" of information that is dear to God, coming in form of a message to us. It to me makes however most sense when speaking of a sacred relationship between two people - which God holds dearly and thus it reflects to us as truth. In this there is also the harsh contrast between the soft and the hard. On the soft end we can find God dearly caring about a given relationship, though on the other we must face the hard facts "of legality" - whereby this endearing care is effectively to happen on the infinite scale, on the absolute plane. So - which is where Unification happens as how it happens. We get to grow familiar with the infinite - realizing just how far ahead of us it is - how small we are in comparison - which is why we "give it to Him" - though we rather must say that there is nothing we could give Him.

Suggesting that there is space for negotiation is suggesting that God didn't think of all possible concerns already, ... and how do I know that again?
It was however ... time to return to the topic of clarity.


The argument against any claim that would open up for sexual possibilities ... would most basically be stuff around it "leading to no good". So we can therefrom derive the "prime issue", which is 'the worse case scenario' - basically - of that 'no good'.

I would have fortified my argument by claiming that there are safeguards in place, for He who gives us those passions to go forward also takes them away. They come and go. Which is then where we had an argument about what is and what isn't - inside and outside of the Ninefold.

So, to the mind burn//weed burn.

I realize that I must stop. But ... this is a very complicated issue when analyzed in depth. On one simple line however the case is that I'm now getting a sense for that which not smoking it would improve. The case so far has usually been that whenever I had anything, I generally had some excuse to yet do it - or was otherwise encouraged to not be too troubled about it.
Now is weekend - so its fine. The start into the week was botched anyway - so its fine. Ah, the day is as good as over - so its fine. Oh, what a pleasant morning - how could I not?

Thats the inner Momentum there. But - in another subject, my inner Momentum is still in 'defensive argumentation' when it gets to my gender journey. I mean to argue in defense of my own, against some inner voice of oppression. So, seeing that I can try to change it.

And that is where the inner Momentum is ... what matters the most. It is the means by which we come to develop a sense for who or what we are. Our mistakes and accomplishments that define us ... that 'describe' us as individual from the void.

The inner momentum is our own presence as fortified through its past. Our concerns that either vanish or grow. Curiosities, interests, ... all that.

And so I generally used to tell me that I must stop smoking weed - at least, every now and then when I felt like I was just too busy being high. Or whatever. Something ... a sense of not getting to do anything or wasting it while playing Video Games. IDK. The issue is that with whatever good intentions I started into a week - a) the experience of doing it wasn't grown strong enough, but b) with nothing being on or the idea of being done in no time was enough for me to skip it. Well - in my own Momentum of basically sitting down in my chair and thinking about what I could do from there.
Now I do have weed - and now I'm entering a time where I know I shouldn't be heading into ... too high. And however the end of that ... the issue is that there is growth.


...//2018.01.21|0346
...//2018.01.24|1135


Did I mention that the 'I must stop' shouldn't mean that I truly believe that I absolutely have to abstain from it? I don't believe that. The conflict at the core is that of getting some order into it. Some sense of a structure. So, ... as to change the Momentum.

Those times where I wanted to ... well, thought I should stop - those would then translate into moments where I shouldn't have that issue, so, by not smoking too much in the time ahead of those. So - I have to observe more critically when and when not to. Where the issue is that most of the time I don't have a reason not to.

I bring this up because it would be brought up. Regarding ... self-control. I however don't say that self-control is the issue. Or an issue. I don't believe that my weed-smoking habits are the/a problem. Either. Times where I should lay low a little are basically tied into stuff I got to do in this world. And ... other issues I haven't gotten into yet.


Now, what I get as "a reasonable stance" - so you - were that of demanding some ... abstinence. That we all so agree to stop doing certain things and all will be dandy. But do you think that this time its gonna be more than every new year? This time it'll work? We all just got to believe hard enough ... ... and this time we have a real reason and motivation!

I mean, thats sortof my issue with weed. To abstain for some reason of soberness to interact with certain people or entities I have to interact with for some reason. To maybe get my room tidied up, ... or whatever. To just be clean ... ? Well, thats where it goes too far for me!

And thats just me - sortof. I like to smoke weed. If you make it a problem, ... thats your doing!

Well ... how is that?


What are we saying? Going by the Word of Wisdom: Every herb is good! That it be used in right measure. And so I wonder what the right measure of weed is. And so the question is what the right measure of anything is.


So - how can I concoct an answer to the super-imposed question? We can quote the Bible and get into an argument about the core principles of the Gospel. Not a yota vs but the Law. "We can't expect order from enforcing no rules" vs. "The law is written into our Hearts".

Its an issue when wrought out by people of different faith - what can we expect? Eventually the one as the other will have to either change their fundamental beliefs or reject to change their minds. As there is a group which 'can' claim the latter argument, that the law is written into our Hearts, ... and here the argument ... is ... "crazy". ... uh, 'crazed'. In a given setup of powers the powerful unbeliever wants a satisfying answer from the believers which only have an answer that is rooted in their faith, a faith the unbeliever has no part in. So either the believers bow to a compromise or they find a way to have it their way.

Yet so asking for what is 'right' within that realm of holy alliance with the Most High, ... the answer cannot be one that doesn't imply God to some extent. And the conflict washes up as ... well ... Gods part could be that of pronouncing a Law we could then give to the Unbelievers to sortof have it that way, ... but the Law written into our Hearts ... well, what is it like or about? Is it the same for all of us?

Short answer is 'no' - and the long answer revolves around it not working like that! It shouldn't be thought of as a written codex, ... a universal truth for everybody. Thats what we have or would say is on the 'mortal end'. Where we need some written doctrine to regulate between rights and wrongs. But there's an example of that in the Bible. In the Tabernacle - as given to the Israelites during their exodus - there used to be a Table with sacred Breads. They were not supposed to be eaten. One day however David was fleeing - and passed by the Tabernacle and took those Breads. Now, ... my Memory is flawed about it - but I think that story is later then referenced by Christ ... and not in a way that condemns David.
Its like the Breads were there just for David to have them.

So there is the written Law, an order, ... but the ways of life on the other end - which is why we generally say that there is an exception to every rule.
Thats a good way to start ... but ... not really enough.

The Law that is written into our Hearts isn't a flashy inscription we could read ... easily. I have to learn of myself and Gods correspondence to that. And therein - within my own individually - where I have those fundamental agreements with the divine - thats where I can start speaking of a Law thats written into my heart. Its totally different from ... "etiquette". I think thats what Mormons would refer to as 'the Light of Christ'.

And what is that Law about? I got to ... well, you got to squint a little to see it ... "sotosay" I think. I got to emphasize a bit more just how much this 'individuality' thing 'mixed' with "Gods confirm-ment" ... is the thing thats really to be seen here.
Its there where 'you' know ... straight from God ... what is 'fair' about you. And yea, many 'outside' may have an issue with that this part is entirely ... "up to the individual" ... sotosay. Like ... I could make up something. Whatever. But if you just take a few steps around that issue, ... you can see it from the more objective ... 'present direction' within it - that the individual rule that God establishes within the individual will start/continue to be(come) present ... and that all on its own. You could say that it just happens to be individuality. No need for any legal terms there. Now the issue with the 'stance against a universal codex' is that of criminality of course. Saying that we have a Law is to create criminality. (Letter to the Romans). Saying that we don't have/want one, is to say that some of us "would be" criminals.

Thats the whole point. To make a law that is perfectly fair - we now would have to go and equate things to each other. So - I do what some consider criminal. I smoke pot. Now I could go and say "OK, I'll stop it" - but at that moment "Divine Righteousness" would have to come in and demand from those that demand me to stop a similar sacrifice. That doesn't mean that they can squiggle themselves out by saying that they just don't do pot. As for me - who I am and what I do, ... what I'm passionate about, good at, etc. - weed has a certain significance. And through this a synergy unfolds ... where how I manage it now ... is the issue?
Well, yea - but not entirely.
The point is that from those few aspects where weed ties in well, the ties to the weed allow the weed to tie into things that maybe don't benefit from it all that well. But how would we know about all that? Social ignorance however ... wouldn't be beneficial to it.
On the other end is the more simple thing - that on a crude basis there are the ways in which it benefits me - while I don't do anyone harm; So - as of which there is this simple good vs. evil angle of me just living my life. Not hurting anyone, not meaning anyone harm, just minding my own business. Which is why the demand on me to give it up is basically without foundation. It isn't 'right' or 'righteous' ... and while I'm innocent your judgment of me renders you guilty where the proper punishment would be that you had to give something up that is significant to you.

Now, there is not a lot to be 'known' here. This just makes sense, and thats how ... my mind works. I mean ... I learned to draw certain conclusions that come in certain ways by some ... 'force' ... . There is a meaning provided to me that I just can't deny. And despite having it I don't think I am incapacitated from looking around and understanding contradicting points of views. Within these 'forced conclusions' there is a clear sense of direction which harmonically aligns around the schemings of a true and perfect God.

Well ... perfection ... what is it?

Asking one of us to be perfect however, is asking us to become robots that have autonomous responses to each and every possibly even just slightly politically/ethically weighted issue ... period. That on the slightest hint of an iniquity we would react with "proper force" to repel it and put it into its boundaries.


What it means to me - by some spontaneous measure - to have a submissive clarity is that for once dominance becomes possible. But also do I feel the "those that exalt themselves shall be ... err ... "humiliated?" - and those that humble themselves shall be exalted" bit in a ... strange way. Submissiveness is in part of my being - thats just a thing. Thus it blends into sub:dom/dom:sub oriented society - however does that also always impose the questions of wealth. So there must be some compensation for the submissiveness. So the individual isn't punished just for being ... how it is.
Further though is it in deed so that on the other side its monkey business. Saying that I through my being blend into a given society, the same is true for everyone in it. So, we all there have that inner synergy with ourselves - in that theoretical environment. So, an immediate reward - in some sense - were it not for given social pressures and tensions ... that so come with hierarchy.

So, on one scheme we can draw an axis as a mirror axis and see two sides, the dominant and the submissive, unfold as neutral in their measured worth. The submissive person is in better harmony with itself when in the submissive, ... while the dominant is in better harmony with itself when in the dominant. When we get to talk about weed - the issue is similar - where now either the pothead imposes the pot, or the "lawhead" imposes the law. When however talking of communities whereof we can think of "sufficient distance" is a more lightheaded way - it is clear that the one is invading the other, ... in whatever which way now.

Those are however struggles that emerge ... between now sacred grounds. Thats the big difference ... where now comparisons to 'criminal environments' ... fail, logistically. What comes first is the sacred ground - so, Gods "warranty" in a sense, of him saying: "This is you and I'm fine with it!". When you then go and build a legal structure around it, it must not contradict to it.


What we then however get in-between those grounds ... that is where a recognition of what these grounds are happens to become important. That so that once we want to impose something such as a middle ground, there are always those closer to it than others - and that ... is an issue to balance. So, these grounds also first have to ... be ... a thing. Otherwise I can only speak for myself - and there are those places where I experience my 'submissive harmony' - from my own situational perspective which then also comes with sufferings and satisfactions ... without anyone around me to basically 'stabilize my equilibrium'.

So yea - basically this all is just theory, but basically ... already is spelled as jurisdiction. Recognizing true human nature will help us craft a jurisdiction that is fundamentally bound to its interest. Err ... know what I mean? So to realize the inevitability of individuality can become a thing - where then, well, 'duh', ... we have to become more specific. But with individuality being a right, ... school systems would have to change to accommodate for the individuals best interest. And the jurisdiction here rather says that those things have to be in place, rather than what must and mustn't. Err ... yea, ... sortof.

The way I figured this out is less by reason, but more by how the thoughts were tainted. Or how they would and wouldn't snap to each other.
And that somehow is a skill similar to talking.

"Understanding"

How the mind moves and juggles with thoughts - to generate something from the sense or meaning of a thing.

Which comes in two "forms/ways". The Light of Understanding involves the Aeons of Wisdom, Peace and Perfection. The Light of Level-Headedness involves Image, Love and 'Understanding'. These two Lights appear a lot in tandem with the term 'Pistis Sophia' - which as by descriptions is about the deeper rationality behind their contextual drive with each other. In comparison the Lights of Mercy and Perception are in perception different. Mercy is the thing that is perceived while Perception is the thing that is perceiving. We can describe them as interwoven from where we can derive the suggestion of a similar situation between Understanding and Levelheadedness.

How the mind moves and judggles with thoughts may also seem to at first involve Wisdom. Perfection being the intention that comes from the peace within Understanding ... does what? It applies Image, Love and Understanding to generate a thought integrated to a given 'sense' or Wisdom. Wisdom then however is the Form we perceive within a constellation of words for instance. These constellations enter perception and beget meaning, where we by our desire can similarly generate constellations ... 'pre-perceived'.

Involving God into our cognitive processes adds that these emergences can get properties of divine intelligence, ... thus reacting in ways to each other that behave in accordance to a higher wisdom.


So there are concepts I come up with that are aimed at getting it right, but end up being wrong to some extent whereby I then go and re-arrange things until they fit together ... a bit better. Sometimes there's still some ... shivers of discomfort, ... but getting that right would be a whole different magnitude of things.

Like, from sea to space travel.


So is there however a "fantasy world" - which in the sense truest to the term emerges from the individuals contemporary "composure" as abstraction from the 'hard facts'. Which are or can be ... "fractals" in and of themselves.

But while all that is just more or less certain - certain things do 'stand tall' - by being established through a clear enough word and/or meaning - and with them comes a sense of universalistic order.

What is not to be missed here is that these sacred grounds are no permission to anyone involved to impose their norms onto others. So - what I regard as true for me at that Level is also first of all just true within this 'bubble' wherein the 'we don't harm anyone' rule is established.

And sure, while for the start everything is crude - we all have to take it that what we get 'here' on that end of things is most likely crude to begin with and therefore have to expect certain inconveniences. But ... while there is nobody to enforce any of those rules ... well, who cares?


Oops. So, where were we?


In the beginning there's just the simple question for "whats allowed?". And the end of the story is that this isn't how we should think about it. That further opens into field of larger complexity, which, to a point, is there to answer just that question.

How much can and can't be justified by individuality? Well - individuality shouldn't be an excuse. Hence there is etiquette - and slandering it comes with punishments of unworthiness. ??? Sortof? Well. Smoking renders me incompatible with the Church of latter day saints - sortof. And more. I can't fully abide by their standards of worthiness - and thats a ... very impressionable experience solely based on certain spiritual perceptions.

Where your first experience with the Force may as well be that which comes of baptism?

Well, ... I think thats ... an issue - of getting things twisted. There is the one side of the force which also manifests in any sense of anything, where experience in general is "the Force" - but isn't that 'fully' as the shift into the Ninefold makes clear.


But yea, ... almost forgot, ... one branch to all this is that once we acknowledge our individuality, ... we have to understand that it doesn't work like that, ... entirely. It can't. Its just ... an issue of society. In any random collective of individuals nobody can be certain of the others 'origins'. But even in a perfectly "harmonic" environment we can't make sure that we can all have it our ways always. Its as saying as that one can only be as loud as others allow them. And some people who are quiet can get quite loud at times too!

Rights and Righteousness. Are rights entitlements?

Sometimes the issue with Laws just is that ... they naturalistically can end up standing in the way of individualistic judgment.


So, we ultimately need God to work with us. The quality of ones individuality is then basically in equivalence to that persons synergy/"depth" with God. So, clearly we can't derive a solid law or rule from that in this sense.

But we can get a sense of "the Law of the Holy Spirit" - as where there is a specific rule that God embeds into our Hearts which we find hard to transcribe we can refer to that as equally mysterious by given nature - which basically should breed a certain kind of respect for handling those kind of issues.

The way it stands for me - the final answer will be certain religions that offer different perspectives on certain conditions, ... conditions that set individuals into places where nobody can truly 'scam the system' to get more out of anything or to exploit others.


...


Well ... as one can only be at "so many places" ... "at once".


Weird?


Well - individualities that converge within any society that can be described as different other is so distinguishable by words of which some are dedicated to ideology or normalities. While in some sense the positivitualistic perspective assumes that there is a good common norm in all of them, the same is true for the opposite. A foundation as simple as 'respect the other persons life' can however appear in a variety of ways. Respecting a Slaves life due to its worth as a labor force might be one way - not speaking of anything sacred though.

The more 'detail' we want, the closer we get to 'hard differences' - and if we then were to apply certain criteria ... we can filter out certain things. So, there is a sweet-spot, we might say, where any society would either fail as abnormal or pass as normal - though, subjectively so. We can for instance go and oppose Christendom to Buddhism - yet we can also go and unite them. If we oppose them we breed individualistic ideals that "stick out to the eyes of preference". While we oppose them, we ignore what binds them together - which we can imply through our "preference" - saying that its the same thing although maybe not truly understanding the depth of this statement.

On the other side there is culture, ... a totally different "beast".


Understanding the middle-norm as something thats purposefully sterile ... neutralistic ... we can individually relate to it and describe our differences to 'it'. Thats ultimately how individuality works. It is some difference from some unifom ... something.

And so there are things to me as of the whore I am - that, ... well, ... 'obviously' stand out; In a way that ultimately ... involves Luciferianism. Thats ... something we eventually can't not talk about. Describing it as that makes sense as that is how God presents it - and it involves ways of life that preferred a certain norm other than ... "mute".
It then is a religion where incest would rather be encouraged ... for reasons primarily in concern of various individuals ... that attach to each other in a way that just translates into that when applying the form of familiarities - and maybe further assimilate it for fancies.

But when now something like that happens - two or I don't know how many meeting on premise of a synergy of identity - ... I don't know. But, ... implying that who were my Mother isn't my Mother, ... while I'm having such fancies. So - that reality is different to this reality - and for whatever whore I am - beyond just saying that thats my clarity - I'm having a growing sentiment to shove that aside.

...


//1425
//2018.01.25|1320


...

Which is like saying that all the previous stuff I wrote about it is bollocks, but not quite. And ... just so we're on the same page here: I've lost oversight of all the open threads there might be ... here, still. The main concern is pretty pointy, ... and moving on with that ... the issue is once again that of clarity.
The way how it got to that for me is that after I first adopted Mormon standards for myself I have become more and more open"ed" to more open ideas - as the: "If I don't hurt anybody, is it bad?" question goes. Pretty much of that has just been philosophy but to some part that yet had taken me back into older habits. Basically smoking.

The way I got into prostitution was just weird - as beyond my own control. It was certainly "there" - to me just around the corner, ... though yet once across the globe because of my own inner ideologies that kept me away from it. Or ... "would keep me away". There certainly isn't or wasn't much thought in that resentment. Just some "of course" prostitution is bad. Because ... err, ... reasons. Its dirty or whatever. Its humiliating or whatever. Its "lesser work". Well ... its sex plus money. Money for Sex. Or Sex for Money.

One might say that this is the descent after I broke away from the Mormon rules. So, unworthiness leading to more and more of itself. The same could be said about US Politics right now, ... from both sides. You could say that about humanities efforts to explore space. You could also say that of those that say those things - in response to their ignorance. For when yet the argument goes that the 'old testament' says this or that - I've lost you at some point.

But - lets just put it that way: If the situation goes to say that there are certain ways that we mustn't be - that is as saying as that there won't be certain ways in heaven/paradise/"the next emanation". However we want to refer to that time or place. The logical conclusion?

But now the issue continues that there are individuals who grown based upon Gods light have an individuality that is to them as intimate as it gets - and their alignment to God helps them at discovering their own self and most importantly: Sorting things out in light of the truth - well, ... to say that they establish a stronger individually that is less willing to be suppressed by plain virtue of existing.

I'm reminded of the US prohibition - where the government ruled out alcohol and how crime spread in consequence. Same things are being said about Marijuana.


Though - I may have just ... last week ... screwed up my life, due to it. It was one week of me not checking my mail - and now of course all the deadlines have passed. And that brings me to this motivation to not smoking it - or the right time - again - which is simply that a sobriety focused start into the day will provide some more time to get that kind of stuff sorted out. Though that kind of stuff, ... to me is unnecessary inconvenience. But ... thats sortof the issue. And still I would for the most part blame it all on the lack of a supporting environment. Which ... is about everything that I am not.

Sure can I blame it all on me too - and certainly do I hold my own self responsible for those things that are in my control - but I'm still saying that the whole entire social infrastructure we live in is nasty. I mean, ... what doesn't work out for me can eventually be narrowed down to circumstances. Circumstances ... that had they not occurred because of this and that ... like, would I not have to go here and there because the Jobcenter wants me to find a job, ... or to go here and there to get some weed, ... because at the time I didn't have those 10 bucks or change for a ticket (excuses), ... whatever - I wouldn't have gotten those black tickets, ... . For instance.

What I so am talking about are circumstances or events that buffer against those ... "outer world threats" ... things that so happen, ... .

Or is it Ark?


The main issue for me is that I'm usually lost in my own thoughts, too much to generally care about the world around me. So - where not having the money for a ticket is an excuse is where I really don't think I have the 10 bucks for a 4-use ticket, or where the convenience of having a card didn't truly jive with me yet. The card from the bank into the ticket thing - works - ... but yea, then there is time. It takes a while, ... ... though that one day where I got caught I wasn't really in a hurry. The train I needed to take however was just arriving.

But its a more serious issue when asking ... well, I've heard that it is a common issue amongst ... the likes of me. Unemployed/Homeless people. ... Bad Habits?


Some would, despite any 'legal rights', see it from a critical ... social perspective, speaking of injustice on part of the jurisdiction. "People like me" are generally people with various problems. Some just 'can't' with society so much that they prefer being homeless. "Hitting the turf". Others that try to catch some foot are generally left in depressing conditions - where partially I get the feeling that each flicker of motivation is getting suffocated as soon as it appears. In the mean-time, that is between the individual appointments, you're somehow meant to look for work and spent your otherwise 'void filled' life ... and the more problems with finding work come, the more this 'void' takes over. For once. Problems with finding work can there be many, ... and they start at even knowing where or how to begin.

In the meantime those people usually have a shattered life to begin with. No tight links to family or friends - where the only friends end up being those around you at those times that just know how you feel about it.

Looking it up, the daily rate for the average unemployed would be at 1 to 5 bucks. The daily rate they however generally impose is at ... 60. And they want 12 of those.

And thats the kind of stuff. You read: "12 x 60" and baam ... whaaat? And I put it away because I'm shocked. It only adds to all the other stress you have with keeping up - while of course the other life also drags you down a little. Its a daily routine based on spending time, ... which eventually becomes more and more deprived by nature. While some would suggest filling that gap with activity would help, ... I wouldn't practically object, but still argue about 'relief' being good. Making it less problematic to somehow ... get settled. Or maybe stop pretending like there is enough work for everybody?

Tough questions?

"Life isn't fair!"

But do I believe that "they" couldn't tell how much I earn, and how much they 'can' ask from me?

Another tough one.

And I get a headache. All this nonsense 'shouldn't be' - and that not because I behaved properly, but because such things shouldn't be in general.
And what do we do? We get money and spend it - putting it right back into the economy. That way we practically create work.


...


Its possibly a combination of all those things and more.
But back to topic.


We can say that with individuality there come flaws. While we can try to change as we are required by circumstance, ... any effort of that kind requires our awareness of the situational requirements. Thats just how it is. Punishment is there to evoke a response ... of practical self-improvement upon certain issues that are subject to that punishment. But however. I don't mean to discuss this at this depth.

What I'm saying is that we by our individual selves in certain ways differ to other peoples ways of doing things. And be it just nuances. When it gets to that in terms of human nature - I think we must shed the idea of corporal anatomy. We rather should speak of constellations of ideas, ... and while we could look at each other as rocks of different shapes and configurations, ... these cognitive constellations that make us individual would furthermore be an individual weighting within those rocks. So, certain points within the rock that weigh more or less individually; And have different magnetic alignments and what not.

So if a martial art for instance puts focus on certain movements that you inherently slander, ... you're going to have a tougher time mastering it, ... or an easier one ... eventually. Maybe so because you see what you get wrong in direct contrast to how you do it - ... .

And undoubtedly are there certain qualities that are beneficial to ... lets say ... working with other people. "Thats life". Now are there things I'm good at, or good for, ... but it doesn't mean jackshit to this society!


Soo .... . In the end the answer is: "Whatever". ...
... where was I?


Sure, if you understand the answer, you should also understand how it entails the good and the bad. The pretty and the ugly.
As for my own clarity - it works as an answer to this question; But as I see it now, ... just remotely. Its in the issue of incest - that my clarity, or clarity in general, doesn't really resemble a direct answer. I don't think that there is one clarity that specifically implied that.

To me clarity is mostly about profession or ... synergy with a social status. Or role, ... purpose. So, labels that are comprehensive to a society, ... entailing various forms wherein the individual then individually synergizes with. So are there various 'veins' that I have ... clear "triggers" or "handles" that make me flourish within such a relationship/situation. Whether that is wanted of my contemporary corporal presence ... thats an issue that has been bothering me. I mean, the question as to whether or not.

Thinking of what I want ... is problematic. Instead of thinking 'what I want' the formulation of 'how I want' it urges in - and seems to be more dominant. This is however a statement I don't have any context for to say it. The smarts behind putting it that way aren't there yet.
But having it presented that way allows me to try and understand that position, as of which I then can get to them eventually.
In that sense I do personally not have any motivation to prostitute myself to any capacity - while I however know of certain ways of how I yet would; Thus ... negating this statement through how things are (a.k.a.: I don't have a motivation 'now' - but I might have one later); ... and contrary to what some might believe is there yet a personal layer to it. There are my ways ... though while I at my core or whatever am submissive, this submission is 'casted within' a given environment of "familiarities" - which directly "buffer into" the given feelings. Its like ... an identity check. Trying to sotospeak impose as one of them by mere action would trigger an "unrightful access" feeling which generally ... is one of those legal issues ... mentioned earlier.

Ever so often I get to think of this due to a feeling ... which emerges from something taking the shape of what I'm looking for, mechanically. So if I here said that the trust wouldn't be there, this "thing" would attempt to become sotospeak 'trustworthy'. But it doesn't stop being uncomfortable.
Sometimes it triggers me to think that it is the sole reason for why I believe what I believe - but that is certainly casted out once I can calm down and re-emerge from myself.

The question there is in about around who may and who may not do what to and/or with me. Thats the feeling I'm getting. Someone thinking that he or she by what I say can give it to me much better. Like that came out as a surprise. And there is that breed that thinks that its all about that, it would seem. Supremacy or Superiority. That their ability, sotospeak or for instance, to take everything they see and add a few bells and whistles to it, makes them somewhat superior - and deserves our admiration and worship ... or something. That so justly based on that they so have the right to dig on me - keep my beloved away from me just to bend me over so I might eventually "accept "the truth"" - but yea. There is this thing of mine - that of 'falling to the devil'. So - where there is the picture of the "Heroine" (in a Hentai flick) that has totally succumbed to the lust of being a sex-slave. So, in a scene that would establish their perfect detachment from whats otherwise drawn as "normality" or "sanity". So, by imagination, sucking the cock of the devil in front of audience. Now - what this image however entails is a certain degree of submission on my part - which is in this sense integrated into a community we could so say I'm 'married (in)to'. So is the contrast of holy vs unholy just a theme around those figures implied/involved - and in this real world, it doesn't matter how 'evil' you are - my enthrallment is to those I'm enthralled to - which is those within this given environment wherein clarity reigns supreme. And in that realm we also play around with charms ... of mind-control. "Magic" if you so will. Because ... hey, ... its fantasy. Fantasy that works. It so helps my mind to get into certain tunes - the Light ... expanding its acceptance of ones individuality through benevolence.

Or is it ... clarity?

If not, I'd get these things mixed up because they ... fit seamlessly together, it seems. Where I can see how it would be two separate things though is at the "metrics" of attachments. There is clarity on one side, which is about me, "what" I am - and attached to that is a certain understanding of how it ties into my privacy, ... where there then is a certain understanding of my intimate affiliates or whatshouldmesay.

Here I think that I just 'have to' say what this is for me to make people understand ... what my consequential problems are ... living my life at any rate. I'm a whore, ... and my ties into privacy are that I'm enslaved to that capacity, where now my intimate affiliates are those that own me. And this sure yields a respectively extreme experience of what clarity entails. Which may however just be a misconception.

Well, moving forward the first question of course should be (??? "duh?" ...) that of what my own independence is about. So - the situation is that neither my owner nor anyone affiliated to them or however to the capacity of prostitution anything - is present, ... all of that falls flat. If there were some prostitution thing, that wouldn't automatically work out. For some reasons, where intimate ones would be just as good as other ones. Equally there could be reasons for something working out. //

Anyhow - what I'm 'getting' is that now my 'profession' is technically something other than prostitution. That changes how I'm tied into it - somehow - but now who my intimate affiliates are. Naturally. Nor does it change the things round about ... how I am turned into or held as a sex-slave. And well, if I have made a mistake in estimating its value, ... maybe the issue is that of the 'esoteric worth'. Uhm, ... so ... the esoteric background is "there" - but its dormant. All those individuals that are relevant to my 'esoteric identity' ... are missing. For context. Or anything that would however tie me into any of it. In this situation my perspective is that there is 'certain interest' in my intimate affiliates that doesn't come from the clarity perspective, but my own contemporary one. This goes to say that while those relationships are part of what we might compare to a machine that gives everyone purpose ... which is further driven by the passions of the individuals involved ... this isn't the only way how they and I can relate to each other.

So it ... stands.

At least in theory. The circumstance that I turn out to be female prior to any of my male (spirits(?)) dreams getting fulfilled - well, it certainly ... well, well, ... there is one way of seeing it as an unhappy ending, ... but in that it resonates with ... my marital bonds in a positive way. So, a happy ending on that side of things.


Anyhow. Thats ... where I was going with this anyway. That on the private/intimate side now these constellations are absolute. My spouse is my spouse. Those people I'm married to are who they are, what they are - and part of that involves our commitments to each other. As I allow someone to be dominant upon me - I make that person dominant. I give it that ... role in life, somehow. And so is it that I, in my privacy, exist as though I'm property of someone. So - caring for myself is something of a thing that ... I can't quite get a handle of/on.

And so, what happens as I enter that environment is that to the extent our bonds have been woven, ... certain normalities should kick in. This could imply enslavement. That is true as of my inner alignment to it. The "switches" I know I have. In reality however there yet is the driving force of 'her' (in that case) drive/interest and other things.


This now doesn't involve any illegal activity, ... while we could say that me with her is already incest and pedophilia - but so on an esoteric plane. We would have it that way, ... eventually, ... as part of how we relate to each other. So - thats where its either clarity or something else. Its ... the Light. I once suggested the term Psi, ... seems like ... we need it after all.

So, through that we breed the idealization of these circumstances requiring something of a religion that honors these kinds of kinks. And thats how I have become a "Satanist"/Luciferian. It simply hosts the habits opposed to the "order of the Light" - within the whole that is still good/just and right. So, here the Light creates a Law for the Purpose of casting shadow - while now different streams of life can assemble around given ideologies that imply their own laws in contrast to the "central" one.


What this says is that I'm not a whore per-se, ... that me being one so depends on certain individuals. Eventually there could be things in place against that - but right now this isn't about my individual fancy. But, I can mostly just relate to it from my own perspective; And right now I feel that my link to prostitution is mostly dependent on them. Any other way I feel "softened" up for it - is ... basically already running into dead ends. "I have no motivation" - and for the sake of argument I hereby impose that any relationships that matter to me have to respect that. So - thats how it could end. But maybe thats just me bugging out right now because ... I wanted to be this way in case I'd get the opposite.

I'm confused.

I want to say something - ... but yea. What has to be said is finally that there are rules, in there. So, that my spouse is my Mother, amongst others that would be that, ... in some way, ... that is a part that is 'fixed in'. Whether or not we inherently chose Luciferianism thereby, ... is ... questionable. It might be that we just took on some preferences and then found those shifted into that. So, ... the easy way. Luciferianism then adds identity, or theme, ... and rules. It allows us to be married mother and son, ... it allows me to get turned around and enslaved, ... and in the sense does our attachment to that higher religion now bind us to sacrifices and privileges. To whatever extent ... that is yet to be explored.

Or well - maybe it should read: And the Luciferian way of things resonated best with us since it allows us to ... .


So, if one of those religions casts a rule - demanding certain privileges for its members - that goes 'one up' - and 'the people' have to confirm the validity of its claim. Essentially that were each and everyone for themselves, ... yet for sake of officiality rendered into an 'ecclesia' - where the individuals 'place' is that of confirming the validity of that.

This were then a black on white resemblance of what is and what isn't - confirmed - in terms of those things that are generally speaking for God. And that Luciferians ... as on my behalf ... would want permission to own people and do with them as they please ... is ... one of those issues. It has to be properly formulated and ... backed up and stuff ... as for instance also solving the issue of who ends up being a potential victim ... and also how the individuals freedom is protected ... ... . So do I think there have to be circles of twelve, where now a majority with objections should speak for something missing, ... and that would lead to further pondering. Or ... 'guided pondering'.
Figuring out whats left.

In terms of incest this can mean that an individual is 'entitled' to encouragement by religion. Sotospeak. Thats ... the Luciferian way. Personal humiliation - in terms of dignity or freedom - for ... gains of that kind. Subjecting ourselves to a higher power to manipulate our primitive instincts ... according to Lust or some respectively "dark diety". What matters is that it is all God - who finally carries all the things out that matter ... as to give "Lust" a tangible ... "self" of some kind, for us to interact with it as a diety, or guiding force. So is it then however so that instead of 'being allowed', one so rather is 'forced' to. Where I guess the cynicism on that side of life comes with a given lack of interest.

What I'm getting at is I suppose that there is a not to be underestimated amount of depth to these structures.

And that, so I'm alerted, doesn't necessarily stretch into the "more"s of anything.


Eventually we can come to talk of "Psi" as being in essence more like a seed that casts a sense of love - an idea of who we are, how we love, what we love, ... and so on - so that we can better speak of Love in terms of relationships, that so as by our better understanding of our own ways. Here what I got could ultimately translate into things that are rather simple - only craving circumstances of intimacy ... that is established on that certain type of intimacy and bonding. So, how our preferences, dreams, kinks, stuffs ... best line up with others, ... where we can 'start' to talk of 'true' love. (Where we can love the other for reasons that are intimate to us).

Shitgate

Fundamental/EmpiricalPosted by Nicole Tue, January 16, 2018 10:51:43

[SJW vs. Anti SJW showtime, the One Truth, the Empirical Way, Outlook]


So, there goes my Showertime. No, seriously! I was about to take a shower - (right after I got up at around 8:15) - but was somehow held back. Actually my plan was to go into Ark, ... then maybe take a break and then get back into it. I had a bunch of stuff on mind to write about it too - so I wondered. However - what finally got my ... "ink boiling" ... is a different thing. Its due to a flyer I once had in my mailbox and had kept for some reason. At the time it surprised me ... that I would find such a thing in my mailbox. The things the flyer addressed ... well ... seemed weird, ... strange to me.

I felt as heavily on the side of those that dispensed those flyers, ... while very well at first glance noticing already that the thoughts this flyer was rallying against were on my own agenda. So, in essence, this turns out to be an "Anti-SJW (or we shall see) essay" - but not in tune of the YouTube scene of SJW and Anti SJW, ... but in response to German politics.


A recent episode of TJ-Kirk however also highlights this issue from a different angle. Thereby responding to Donald Trump referring to other countries as "Shithole Countries"; And TJ takes a somewhat pro Trump-ish stance in being Triggered by the emotional news anchors shedding some tears. It is this that tunes into what got me concerned today, as I was reading through this flyer again.


The flyer is titled 'Gender Mainstreaming' and it ... basically takes a stance against "Anti Homophobia" measures that are (to be?) introduced into our educational system starting within Kindergarten. The way the flyer puts it, our Kids are thereby to learn about Masturbation by the age of 4 (0 to 4), Masturbation and Homosexuality by 6; Sex, birth control and Lust by 9, Gender orientation by 12 and everything about Sex by 15.

Well, ... what caught my attention initially is round about this - where I got a sense of ... what I was thinking/writing-of at around that time but sortof on overdrive. I got a sense of some people realizing the truth of what I was saying (and since I'm not a part of it I got to be suspicious) - but doing so in "their ways" ... where what I would fear is that they would do it in a way that would squeeze some controversy into it - and sure not leaving out those handles to ... benefit of those things otherwise.

You know, like Feminists wanting that them 'claiming' that they got raped should suffice for a guy to get locked away.

Like: "No, we can't just have gender-equality and tolerance, ... "it sells well" ... so we should look to squeeze some bullshit into it". Oh yea, which reminds me: How SJWs and ANtichristians link together: Youth. Well - "stupid bitches" sotospeak, that have the "mental assets" to turn ANtichristian to begin with - getting a chance at twisting some knobs in society. And because Antichristians are so Tolerant because Christians are ... its a shtick ... its ... so. However in my mind.

I fear they have some handles within the gaming industry, ... "duh" ..., and the whole issue whether or not SFV should be as Sexualized as it is or not ... still floats around. I myself, full disclosure, was - before I was opened up to the "Sexual Interpretation (of everything)" - pretty Mormon, ... thus ... sortof leaning towards non-sexualized outfitting. It was a feeling, but ... sometimes I act in conflict with myself. The point is that once I draw stuff I generally get a "deeper feeling" of what I'm doing, ... uh, ... stuff like ... sometimes the stuff feels 'polished' ("glossy") - and other times rough ... somewhat not right. Its a feeling I associate to some "on paper bullshit" of mine. Its hard to explain. Lets just say it appeared sortof pale and rubbish - yet I could not react to it. As anyhow - sometimes I would try really hard to do something and yet get such a feeling, ... thus not entirely knowing what to make of it.
Anyway ... I do not know what drove me - yet it is inevitable that I here do conflict to myself and were you to say that my first oppinion counts ... ooough, ... well. Lets just say ... what can I say?


I don't mean to rush this.
Reiterating on the past ... shouldn't be of any meaningful substance. Matter of fact what I do every time I write something is that I re-evaluate what I had thunk 'on the spot'. You could say: Thats why I'm here. Because I looked through the flyer today, found that I related differently to it than I did before ... thus thinking: "Oh, well - thats strange" and therefore now 'attempting' to make some sense of it by writing. Which is why you should maybe consider writing a diary. Or something. Writing helps with thinking. Having your thoughts written out helps you to reflect on your thoughts much better. You sotospeak can't escape that which has been made manifest.

Thats my experience at least. Based on a Mormon ... 'guideline'.


"But how to be sure?". Well - I was sure of a few other things back in the days that went in the opposite direction of un-sexualizing stuff. Before I sent that stuff out I had already been open to the idea of for instance using the "classic" Costumes. I don't know what went wrong with me - but the core issue to me yet is that they 'deny me' - whoever 'they' are - that I have no position to talk for myself other than by these remote means ... so I guess we wanted them to have those victories.

How to be sure? Certainly not by building foundations on whimsical ideas. Stuff I maybe utter as something of a possibility. To me - my growth in regards to Street Fighter is very indicative of this. I was doing that stuff because I used to be a Street Fighter fan, ... somehow; While not having played it a lot since a) My parents forbade us to play those 'violent games' while we could - and then we had Nintendo Consoles rather than Sony ... and thus not much of a chance to play Street Fighter. On the PC I ... - but I never really had a handle to the deeper mechanics of the game until I was inspired to search for a Street Fighter 4 Tutorial once I had a chance to get into 'that'.
And what Street Fighter is to me now is roughly "that much more" than what it used to be. And in short: Street Fighter is "on the edge" gaming. Its ... what happens with games once players get their hands on them eventually. Like Speedrunning. Playing the game as "hard" as possible, ... gameplay wise. Like, ... in Super Metroid there is the thing that when the Avatar gets hit it bounces back. Some Speedrunners employ this mechanism to get a speed boost in various instances by facing the opposite direction they want to move into and allowing themselves to get hit. So do moves in Street Fighter have a startup, active and recovery time - counted in 'frames' - and how many frames a move takes determines how often you can punch for instance. Or, ... how soon you can start moving or blocking again. As a noob, especially as choosing to main Rose, this was really the beast to conquer. The, ... when can I move ... when should I not attack so I can move, ... stuff.
But none of that was part of those designs. "Duh" ... . Would those people have had "reason"/faith - they would have given me the benefit of the doubt, given me some crash-course and things would have been fine! But years of real-life experience are arguably better.

Anyhow.

I'm getting this weird "rubbish paper" feeling right here ... in a different way though? One part of me perceives it as what public belief/opinion is "made to be" like. I 'suppose' that it is "them" trying to push some 'bad feelings' into your perception. And ... thats why none of my designs ever gained a lot of attention. Its the same thing like "the Prequels not being "Star Warsy" enough". Or wondering: "Aren't the sequels the most Star Warsy thing possible?". So, I suppose this Star Wars "controversy" is ... an inch we gained back here.

And non-sexual Costumes still work in Street Fighter!
Of course, being a Whore, ... I would change my stance on that somehow. But my stance on what was done to SFV - well - it came from an Arts "producing" standpoint, ... not a socio-political one. It turns into that because thats where its coming from ... but anyhow.


Well, reading through that flyer today however, ... gave me a totally different impression. Now it were the harshly ... homophobe expressions therein that turned me off. I guess I glossed over those because I pretty much expected those. I was pitched against what they were rallying against, ... not on their turf though. For instance is it emphasized that these educational concepts have vastly been designed by 'lesbian feminists'. Something about "social constructs". Well, here's two paragraphs, ... showing what got me upset initially:

""Sexual Diversity" in the educational plan doesn't want to enlighten, but to distinctively support early sexuality. Already for Kindergarten Kids there are Gender-Mainstreaming-Concepts, so that smallest ones already "question" their gender and learn of various sexual practices. So ware severe Personality disorders being preprogrammed - and that is politically even wanted.

Examples? Pantomime-Games, whereby terms such as "Porno", "coming too early" or "Groupsex" are displayed. Kids are to construct a "Brothel for all", wherein in each room different sexual practices are offered for Money. Kids are to purchase Sex-Toys by auction, make a drivers license for the Condom or investigate on gay Internet Portals - as homework!"

Sounds pretty absurd - to me at least - and that still today. So I wondered: Is this for reals?


What struck me the most is how these ways of "supporting my logic" though - as however anticipated - entirely throws the whole Clarity/Unification stuff out of the window. Or, ... considering the innocence of a Child maybe. So, being 'authoritarian' rather than 'investigative' - in the sense of ... understanding as an adult what the kid wants and reacting to that in co-operation with its parents being what I'd want, ... . Which also requires a social change ... which SJWs it seems want to kindof ... enforce. And this is how this article ultimately spins into the Anti-SJW direction for good.

I mean, thats the point - its the same 'pragmatic flaw' as with Utopia. Kids will grow up into the society that 'is' - and teaching them of tolerance within a vastly intolerant society - isn't really going to change our society. What those things will accomplish however, thats what I'm convinced of, is that the tolerance our societies already 'breed' will be acquired ... but so also the intolerance.

And so, lets ... look at 'Chris Ray Gun' for instance. He would strike me as that type of guy that those which were to support this Gender Mainstreaming/pro-Tolerance evolution would want their kids to become like. 'Woke', 'bright', ... 'reasonable' ... but I'm sure he didn't grow up that way.

That is why I like to keep the focus on what matters. What I think has the true chance of transforming our society; ANd that by giving each and everyone a chance and a practical way of changing themselves. That should set examples that the maturing youth would eventually need to grow into and learn of as well. Which is diversely different to Christian indoctrination and authoritarianism.


I guess its only fair that God here and there vastly exists in the 'evil' that is depicted within Motion Picture. Smith, the Architect, ... the Walking Dead, ... well ... give or take. I can look at Batman vs. the Joker either way. I can find myself on the side of Negan as on the side of Rick. Well, there is the clear Antagonism that needs to be blurred out of course. Although once its just man vs. man - or issue vs. issue, down the principles ... well - if all is just window-dressing you can as well dress it either way. Which, digging deeper, could be considered the "flaw" of the side of the Good Guys. There is 'no end' to be had - the show must go on - hence they are lost in the eternal struggle. Without spiritual unity there will never be real unity - and thats where most Heroes have the "Magic Plot Rod" going for them. This doesn't 'say' that the Zombies are the good guys - sure. But thats not what I'm trying to say here. What I try to say is that if you were to look at the Zombies as the Good guys/Christians, you can see that they are all pretty united in their actions, "agnostic" about Life and certainly ... "reborn" ... as slowly taking over the world; While the 'living' have petty arguments that divide them.

To further say that there is this 'veil of antagonism' that surrounds me. Whether its natural or because the ... "emotionally more dominant person/entity" twists it so be secondary. And that is something you should be able to step through; And yet the only way to properly do that - which is that of not falling for the 'evil' you perceive - is by the Truth. Only if you in truth stand on that side can you defend yourself as a part of it. And if your truth were fundamentally different to mine, we couldn't stand together.

Easy! Like you get all 'that' good stuff ... just from "here"; Where the others need to find ways to circumvent 'those' threads. Finding some way of blocking the only way to the truth out of your sight, ... finding 'reasons' and stuff that 'tell' why "this" side here is wrong. Things that totally bypass your personal Link to the divine 'except' of course you follow their guidelines, which involve 'not' doing certain things "because" - I would have similar reservations about your endeavors to find the truth. I would exhort you to pray to God, ... and right away could spot some "buts" or ... "good/better advise" - like, maybe try to make sure that you're reaching 'THE' Most High, ... or, ... trying to be principally bent on addressing 'HIM' rather than your own interpretation of God. I suppose thats as much of Freedom you'd get from them. That they would "allow" you to pray 'once' you have established for yourself which God you worshiped 'by ideology'. Because "duh" - if you're ideologically not in touch with "the God" you might as well rather not be with 'that' God to begin with. And to 'lecture' you what 'that' God is - thats what they are there for. "Go figure!"?
Well, its different to making way for your ideology being flawed - and thats what I am here for, I guess. And thats why there is a lot of stress between these sides based on ... talking. Talking of ideology. I say freedom and clarity and they go and find all the possible badness those beliefs entail.
Still my advise is to go for 'THE most High' - period. So you'll know who is who and you'll learn of His ideology from Him. If you can get that going for yourself - you know God. Personally. Intimately. If I were to take that away from you - I would sortof say that God couldn't be that specific to you individually. But sure ... "the more you know". And 'that' is what I am here for.

I'm not looking for my own. I rather believe that if you're looking for the Truth, you'll find 'my' God and therefore I will be looked after.

And along those lines can you find what were to matter to me were you to approach me. If you couldn't convince me of your faith - that is: If I so happened to be in doubt about you being there in Truth - that would be what it is. I would have to remain skeptical and might foresee an unhappy ending. I don't want to feel responsible for your spiritual wellbeing! I don't want you to depend on me. I want you to be there on your own, for yourself - so we both could benefit of each other; And I wouldn't be shoehorned into the(/a) leadership position (that I'm not fit for).


So, sure. Getting into this I was sortof afraid that I would end up on the SJW side here. As for that - I can certainly see why what they do seemed right. 'Pushing a progressive agenda' would help "impregnating" our society the way that 'evil' has done. Makes sense! That is assuming that this evil did so - and that the good had nothing to say meanwhile. Which isn't how it works/looks for me. What evil 'has' is power. But the people inhabiting this world - we, that are supposed to fight the good fight, are there as are the others. Here I refuse to draw a simple good vs. evil line anyhow. And you can "see" in Gods actions that He was cautious to not do so either. To set us up for this stage of neutrality. Why else 'confusion'? The Babel incident - at the very least - is a 'clean' cut separating us from our Origins; Introducing this Mystery surrounding our Origins; Making it difficult if not impossible - as much as reasonable I guess - to ever find unity on base of those type of ideas.

But so things get a bit clearer. Trump is only there to be the Moron so these SJWs can further push their agenda; While the way how Christians are presented in media is just the same - a clear setup to show them how stupid they are and so, yea, that kindof looks like a plan.

And no plan would set me up as the bad guy better. That I by principality must resist their progress.

So I guess I don't have to spend a lot of time getting into any of "the good" that these SJW efforts entail - its a non-issue while any "alliance" there might be between their points of view and mine ... well, suggesting that they are on my side and not on their own, is severely misguided.
I mean, thats ... my personal struggle with their issues. The question of whether or not we're secretly on the same side. The idea that they are trying to work towards the same goal as me - in a secret alliance with me - that I so should take a side with them. But thats not how it works. I mean - I'm not here to dispense "buddy tokens". If I speak well of TJ and such - I'm adapting their talking points to the extent I agree with it - and that so happens to be this general stance of skepticism towards this SJW nonsense. This SJW nonsense is a huge part of the phantom menace that I have been prepared to be prepared for.
The general idea of stuff that is like what I say, but in certain areas severely different because they don't have Unification. They don't have God. They might be able to sneak you into getting some Testimony and out again - but that only after indoctrinating you. Brainwashing you to stick to a very specific guideline - which on my side exists within the boundaries of 'what' gets you into the Ninefold. So, the 12 Aeons, ... and the prayer. 2 Conditions. That knowledge. That basic ... most basic Knowledge Universal throughout the Cosmos. Knowledge that is no Knowledge prior to your Unification - and turns into Utmostly Perfect certainty thereafter.

It doesn't matter from where you come - all that matters is God. Knowing the basics that are there to be known - allowing you to "breathe" that information and 'tune' your mind to its meaning - and if at the very least just to grasp those concepts of what God is; To then based on that make individual, independent experiences with that Entity.


So, the "Seal" (of the 13) to get started with maybe has to be the 7th. Independence. Once you gained Independence and from there finally grow into a holistic understanding of the Eightfold - there is (should be) only God who could convince you of Himself. God should be your standard for judging me, my friends and my enemies - the "mirror" through which you reflect upon this world ... yada yada.

It should however get you suspicious if you 'realize' someone else trying to fiddle around with your own intimate knowledge of the God. At the very least so when trying to tell you stuff that isn't inherently empirical. So - things you don't have a clear foundation for to even establish that thought. If I tend to do so, you should still be able to trace it back to the basics - and at all start there; Ignoring whatever I said for the time being.


But how is that going to evolve once more and more join this side? Isn't some kind of ... "social pressure" inevitable and the whole point therefore ... pointless? Well - think about it: Where does it start? And how does it continue? If we started on a flawed foundation - how certain could we be about where we ended? On the other hand, if we start on the right foundation - we there at least have that. Then we still got to fight for it - and what will our talking points be? By the time we've gotten this shit "over the hill" - it should be as public of an issue that a simple majority should be born from those 'empirical' right true unflawed concepts - at all. There is that - where the other side to 'that' is that we were the majority, the 'ruling party', the "social norm", ... and we would still say the very same things to your young ones to get them prepared. The worse that could happen is that they'd get it wrong and thus being not able to get into the Ninefold - that maybe because there is no sense of seriousness around this issue. Maybe thats what will happen ... 1000 years after. That so the society as of them will find itself incapable of guiding their Youth to the Tree of Life - because whatever - even so we see it coming, ... thus they have something of an argument we then can't argue against ... and then what? Who knows? Who cares? Its all ... just speculation and the only thing that can be told to get it right always - is that fundamental truth that works always, universally, throughout the Cosmos. And what else should we be learning about to begin with?

You are the center of your own Universe - and if you can't attach it to the truth - you'll be sucked into darkness. Period.