My Blog

My Blog

Embarrassed and stuff

General StuffPosted by Nicole Sun, May 06, 2018 18:54:48

[Clarity vs Nonsense]

Interesting. What is embarrassment? So, since I've been way up into the Clarity topic already I might as well smoke some weed now.
So, in the Church Article I was writing about mood. After some time I got to sleep, got into the 'good mood' again and there it was. Some echo from somewhere that suggested that I'd eventually get locked into this mood indefinitely - with the only times to ever get out of it, being times where I get reborn into life that'd get me started outside of it. That as the 'right' answer opposing the 'false' suggestion that every once in a while I'd get 'out' of it to maybe do some other things.

And yea, that sounds awesome! I thought. Until I got up the next day. And thinking about it - writing about it - made me feel ashamed of myself. But the shame doesn't come from all the shameful things. Well, depending on ... I mean, what feels shameful about it is my lack of knowledge or certainty. So I wondered - could that only happen in the "new Earth"? And it would seem so - except that only added to the shame I felt so it actually felt embarrassing.

Shame. ... What is it?

I had to think. If you're a white guy these days and talk about racism - you should be ashamed of yourself! "What?". I "hope" that there are lots and lots of people that don't see that. That don't know ** the fuck I'm talking about. It depends on what you expose yourself to. What type of media you consume. As mentioned before, the whole "SWJ issue" only arrived over here as the #MeToo movement. So, you can there basically perceive the "outbreak" sotospeak as ... although it was 'public' for quite some time on YouTube ... over here nobody really knew about it.
So, to put this into context: There are actual videos out there where people of color 'shame' white people for talking about racism. I would recommend checking out Thunderf00t. The point is: He's done a great job 'documenting' all the crazy shit in a comprehensive, condensed, yet ... elaborate way. Not pulling any punches but not going too much into lengthy monotonous talks. Also with plenty of visual examples, video footage, etc.. Then there's 'Undoomed'. He basically responds to Videos. So, they are "'grown' ups" that have some skill on display. Undoomed shows some production background in the Graphics on display. You can tell that he had some background other than just YouTube. Thunderf00t is a scientist, who at some point also shows you the inside of a Nuclear Reactor in intimate depth. This at least establishes 'some' personality. I think this is significant because the 'relation' between viewer and artist ... whatever it may be generally ... goes that one bit further. The YouTube thing is there more like a Hobby.
By that it would seem that things have gone silent, while Top Hats and Champagne is still at it, digging through mostly written Media. But that seems to be in its death struggles as well.

Anyhow. The point is that there have been instances where people got shamed for certain things they themselves could change nothing about, ... and in extension to that there is the question for how far into the psyche that goes. How deeply ones mind is as a skin-color or bone-structure or DNA, generally speaking, that one cannot change.

I for instance think about what happened to Richard Dawkins after liking that one particular video. Should he be allowed to do so? If not, then why is it that YouTube allows him to do so? I mean, thats ... an intersection between two lines of logic. The one is: YouTube is a free and open platform where people can share their own productions with others that in turn can thumbs up, thumbs down or do nothing. Like, Dislike, ... however one would think about it at the time, reflected within a simple ratio between two numbers. Maybe forgetting the second and third?
If Rotten Tomatoes doesn't count scores 'below' ... a certain point, it should though reflect those as 'spoil' - because its in the name, by the way.
So, should the Video then be forbidden? So, do we have free speech?
If you say its hate speech and you pull it, we do not!

So is it now however at liberties of an organization to disagree with someone elses perspectives onto certain things and disinvite him. In this case we so have a very public example of how one group took offense in a particular like on some video. We can so see the offended and the offense. The offense being less so Richard, but the video in question.

Why it gets back to that? Well, why not? Else the fingers go pointing on Richard - OK, lets ... look at that. He liked something that was an offense to that. Thats simply the 'act' ... subject to this whole incident. So, to understand the perspectives of that group we now need to inspect that Video. They call it offensive.
So, eventually they don't object to the video itself, but the fact that one might like that. So, the problem is 'in there' ... inside of Richard Dawkins ... and to understand it we need to watch the Video in question.


The Video so is a song making jokes about the similarities between Jihadis and Feminists. We could also maybe throw Nazis in there. And maybe even more. I mean, thats my take on it. The context now is strange. I think there is a relevant truth in that Video, which I might think is subject to why Richard liked it. A certain view on the topic, 'poking fun at' "radical Feminists" that would go out and 'ban' people from certain platforms for expressing opinions they disagree with.
Can you see the irony?

It tastes bitter though. "All your Base are belong to us now!" ... is what it says.

So, who is this group?

Never mind! At the bottom of these things lies a more significant Truth. We are who we are - and while people are free to disinvite others from their own events - the lack of a free and open 'thing' should be concerning. And it has already started to infest YouTube. "The Adpocalypse" they called it. And its also making its rounds on twitter. Sargon of Akkad and Rags ... "wiped". And those aren't the only ones.

The problem there would be the lack of a 'thing' that would go out of its way to ascertain that our freedom is guaranteed. But what would that be? Or who would that be? Who would say? And who would say who should say? And who would say who may say who should say? And who's that who says who may say who may say who should say? And so on. So, who's finally the last to say who may say? And who's to say who that may be?

Who may say who that might be to say who may be?

Or I?

So, luckily there's a God. That makes the 'you + ?' equation a lot easier. And so the 'me + ?'. ?=God. The ultimate constant. The one thing that nothing cannot be connected to. How we now are to evaluate my Clarity will depend on how we get to relate to the Clarities of one another. Its a +God thing however - and it requires us to be honest with each other.

But is that it? There's a really small hole from this 'paragraph' into the alluded 'next' "step" - to not get lost in too broad of a generalization of things. While you don't properly understand God yourself, independently, you don't really need to think you have a part in this. And anyone who would require a stance of you in regards to those things - that one is doing wrong to you. That you either see/understand or not.

It is both. A big deal and nothing at all. It is nothing because despite our differences we need a common base. It is everything because in order to understand what common base we have we need to understand our differences. And because some differences are too different, we need God to cast a unifying web. We need to be able to differentiate between constructive and destructive differences - and because only God can give us the best guidelines we need to rely on Him to give us a way of Unity.

What embarrasses me now aren't the things I have to say about myself but the confusion I have about it. Basically on one side I'm strongly drawn into a sexual lifestyle in correspondence to which I don't want to see anything else while on the other I have independent interests that go the other way.

I'm similarly conflicted when I read up on the History of Israel when thinking about Temple Whores. Especially so because the situations that enable such to be aren't necessarily all good. On another note can we say that Art is religion in that we have our temples where we sacrifice our currency to attain spiritual peace. And whats happening to Star Wars right now could be similar to what happened to Israel back in the days of/after Salomon.
Otherwise Trekkies would live in peace with Star Wars fans.

What I mean has to say - in conformity to how things are standing now - that eventually there's a point where my ability to live as a whore undermines my desires to do other things; And here the question is 'when' that might ever happen, thinking about what were required.

My clarity were clear about what it wants, but it is also clear about wanting it to start on certain grounds. There so is this definite desire to live in certain ways and one of my main 'enemies' in that is the "phantom" that obstructs the religious truth at the bottom of it. So I might say "Congratulations for figuring out that Prostitution might exist outside of it". But thats not what I want at all!

First we create a place of unity with God and then we see how prostitution works therein.


Hmm ... the Kiss between Neo and Persephone ... would be the female demanding a token of sincerety between humans and machines. Where if it were representative of the 'now' things would exist in a different context. So, if we want to see the act as of some prosaic value - there are still conditions that have to be met to setup the corresponding scenario.

Is Persephone now Wisdom or is it Eshem? There is this story of a young prince named Kosti - and he's sent on a quest for Wisdom. At some point he gets caught up by a Woman named Eshem. She would speak to his Sensuality and above all despise Wisdom, shown as a woman most beautiful above all. The bigger story between the two is that they resemble two ways of how the Prince might rule in his future.

And yea - I produced a variety of statements that would suggest that I heavily violated that. But that is only as of your assumption of whats going to happen; Which may have very well been provoked. I from myself described it as a need - I have - to come to a true expression of myself. And that is individually and independently so. And I try to describe in depth how what and why. So as though to leave no doubt about its wisdom. And that is specifically born through unity. What you expect of unity fuels what I am to you in one way or another. Wherever I would be on the spectrum, ... mind you.

It may then have something of a silly excuse to say that 'the way to make it right' is the key - sweet irony - but that also cannot be a one-sided thing. And to whichever extent I may have actually believed it to become real, I still was left reminded to reflect on what I think the proper reaction to those things should be. What I would so 'formally expect' of you.

So - once you can really start to speak about these things you can grow a proper formal understanding of whats going on - and in theory I might be with people who are older ('within it') than I am, but generally I were not. So, how does that work?

So the real question round about Whores and Sexuality in this sense comes down to understanding how Sexuality unfolds between those gathered around those possibilities in synergy with the Light. And what or how would that be? That we will see.

The point is pretty much that there is some negative potential in there. And thats why its so specific about getting the fundamentals down right first!

And so I guess I kindof have to feel ashamed ... where I'm trying to speak of something that I could forever only be ashamed about since people would not only come to 'disagree', but so essentially at the very least in ways of their own. ... Get it? Its not mine to say. I merely make suggestions about my own wellbeing; But you have to get away from this "Golden Chain" bullshit. It isn't "God, therefore Child Abuse", except maybe in a few very distinct conditions that however within their own reasoning had their own buffer-zones. "Because of God I may like [stuff]" - but even if so all of you may 'like' me as a Prostitute I would still need to refer you to my Pimps and of those I right now have none. And how anything might now become a Pimp relationship is a different questions. And if we can't find adults in any of it we damn sure shouldn't be finding any Children in it!
If there however were an Unholy Community of old, sotospeak, where all these dark things have been common for some time - things would look different as that were to join the body. However, that still were a process of some kind but is certainly the thing tied to my more extreme expectations. Otherwise, ... I could see things happening differently. Maybe - lets say I was a guy and had a male friend and we got along as buddies and Jesus told us that we'd be married and felt totally awkward. I could also imagine that, so that one time 'he' would get born as a woman and start to understand. If that were now - all that my Clarity holds thereby would still be real enough. In that story he would see himself as my mother who turned me into a girl to later be my father - and none of that would ever have to happen. The part where I'm male can remain just a thought, a memory, ... and this weird sexual twist-up is simply a conflict that resolved through certain shifts within our minds; One we individually and independently yet grew towards.