Etherial Cat

Member
  • Content count

    524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Etherial Cat

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday January 1

Personal Information

  • Location
    Europe
  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

1,952 profile views
  1. The USA have always been a flagship of liberalism, and there was rarely anything but that in the spectrum. So I get exactly why the bipartisanship has evolved here differently than in Europe. That's also because Neo-Liberalism is your bread and butter, and how you assert your domination over your global empire. Europe has been historically the ground of multiple political battles, which is why we are or used to be more diverse. The truth is that bipartisanship has been slowly swallowing our pluralities until we got to a situation sort of akin to the one in the USA: the Neo-liberals on the left and the Neo-liberals on right. France got that case for a long time. Neo-Liberal Leftist vs Neo-Liberal Right. And they alternated for decades until people got fed up. Kind of like the USA. Except that a very common strategy in the political game was to pump the extreme right in order to make the other party lose against them. In 2017, both the Neo-Liberal on the Left and the Neo-Liberal on the Right got wiped out of the map. The two parties desintingrated. The political class ruling for decades, has been replaced by Macron's party, backed by the establishment. They plotted to get him elected. The whole process and scheme has been explained by an author named Juan Branco. His book has become a best-seller in the country. It a very good one. It's named "Crepuscule" and I would recommend it to you. Now, they've got a big Neo-Liberal party in power that pretends to go from the Left to the Center right. How convenient! It seems that the game will be the one of the Neo-Liberal vs the Facist for all the elections. I hope I'm wrong, and something else will come out, but it seems that this is the technic the elite is going to leverage to stay in place. They used to do that before with the two Neo-Liberal parties. The problem that we face is that because Neo-Liberalism is what gives them the power, it is not allowed to disappear. And since nobody wants them in place anymore, because of obvious reasons, the best way for them to leech the political space is to scare people off by using the dynamic I mentioned in my other posts. I'm wondering now if potentially, all dying Bipartisan system operating under Neo-Liberalism will not end up with the same configuration as the French one. The Neo-Liberal vs the Extreme-right. As long as the Neo-Liberal system was bearable by most of the electorate in the USA, the status quo was "acceptable". But now, we're at the end of the cycle, shit is hitting the fan and the populace is getting angry at the establishment, because their survival is directly threatened by decades of abuse, corruption and a pathetic economy. Before that, the majority could somewhat function. I'm exploring the possibility, that somewhat, in the USA the Republican Party will become only a shell of what it used to be and fulfill the job of the extreme-right party in the USA. It is somewhat already a proto-facist party at the moment. I don't see how they could reconvert themself differently. Especially with the new demographic, profiling itself. Its crucial to know if the Democrats will embrace change and offer politicians willing to reform Neo-Liberalism, or will insist to continue to present candidates like Hilary, so they don't have to change. They could very well assume that they could present a goat in front of Donald Trump and still win, because he is so unpopular.
  2. Exactly. The neoliberals appear as the least on the right option, so they know they'll absorbe the votes of everyone from the Neo-Liberals to the left by default. It is literally only a question of time until it is the neoliberals OR the facists as the only alternative. Because the neoliberals, in order to federate everyone behind them need someone worse than they are, and frankly, the facists are the best candidates for that. This technic works until it doesn't work anymore. And that's it, you wake up and Bolsonaro in office. That's why voting "strategically" is a losing game over the long run.
  3. On that one, I disagree with both you and Leo. The game in France, has been to leverage the knowledge that everyone is going to strategic vote, for ages. They know so well that you'll do anything against the facist, that now the whole political game is to be the political party confronting the facist. So, the game theory of the politicians is that they make it on purpose that you have the extreme right in front of the Neo-liberal, and then ask you to vote for the Neo-Liberal in order "to protect democracy". There is even a special term to design this type of behavior, because it has become the norm. It's called being an "electeur barragiste", which literally means being a "damkeeper elector". The French language is full of this set of political terminology around this exact phenomenon. But in a nutshell, that shtick is how they got Macron vs Le Pen (daughter) at the latest elections, and Chirac vs Le Pen (father) in 2000. In my opinion, the best way to stop that madness, is to collectively ditch that behavior of what we call "vote utile" (utilitarian vote). Because that very sheepish behavior is already taken in consideration into the political parties's equation and you are playing their game. Even worse, in the case of France, this has been going on for so long now, that it has became so sort of collectively enforced overlay, over the original rules that are regulating the elections. It has become an implicit rule that everyone follows: vote against the facist. As an exemple, for the presidential elections, they have 2 votes to cast. One for the first round, one for the second. The utilitarian voting used to be only a thing for the 2nd round, but now people vote in the 1st round, in prevision of who they believe will be on the 2nd round and so forth. The whole election revolves around calculating how to vote strategically and outsmart the others in their strategical choices. That's collective madness to me. Which is lame, because the corruption is going against how the constitution was intended to contain the political power. The constituant wanted people to express their genuine choices, not play chmess with one another. This way of thinking has ruined the tool that is supposed to give legitimacy to the government. Now, nobody is happy, the country is under extremely weak leadership and is condemned to inertia. Political matters asides, as people who are conscious of how our focus and emotions shape the reality, we should be aware of the fact that we need to vote FOR someone, and not to vote AGAINST someone, out of fear. This is probably my major concern, if you consider how reality is working with the LOA. That said, I really think that democracy is seriously impaired by any system which isn't using proportional voting. My country (Switzerland) is using the proportional voting system, so I'm technically out of the problematic we are talking about. But I always find it so cringy to see bipartisanship at play, even from a distance, that I can't help but wonder what I'd do in that case. My take is that I'd vote for the candidate which I truly like, even if my vote falls into oblivion. A vote signifies a choice, and the whole social contract behind the voting system is that when you vote, you express your voice on what you want to see in office. The constituant haven't designed the system so you vote in functions of others and play chmess. If you end up voting for X, you voted X. Your choice is X. Regardless of why you did it. If you voted for the neoliberals, then you are a neoliberal voter and supporter. Ewww! So I wouldn't do it. I'd pass my turn, and wouldn't feel guilty about the outcome of the election. And that will spare me the anger when those neoliberals then pretend to have my support, when they know very well they attempted to make me vote for them at gunpoint and steal my election.
  4. It's a good question. I guess, it depends on what qualifies as trauma. What I know for sure is that, as we are children, we start learning via small and very big disappointment how things works in this world. Whether it's grounded in reality or not, we stick to that way and believe it's the default mode, and that this way is necessary for our survival. Each of them is somewhat painful to that tiny being, and it builds from there an ego for survival purposes. I'd say that each misunderstanding of how reality function is somewhat traumatic. Whatever the ego doesn't understand, and makes it separate from Truth itself, is grounded in pain.
  5. Many of us are guilty of doing it, at different level. It's probably related to the fear of death, through its social component. A bit like the fear of speaking in public, which is very common. There must be a childhood trauma, which anchored a belief where your pattern is based on.
  6. --- I'm not foolish enough to watch this type of horrendous videos, but I've been through the angst you're describing regarding the various level of cruelty going on, on the planet. The video above has been of great help to trigger a few satori moments and expend my consciousness regarding those matters. Hope this help!
  7. Aurélien Barrau is not Yellow. He is operating through a very materialistic paradigm when it comes to physics. I'd peg him at Orange/Green. But the Green component is very strong otherwise.
  8. Great comment there. I fully agree. I'd also think whether this pattern- of living through other's people judgment- is not only impacting this area of your life but other ones as well. Following that behavioral trail could lead you to release a deeper rooted issue, which needs to be worked on. It's likely that it will pop out again under different forms.
  9. @Mikael89 What about working hard on trying to change your belief system ? Meditation, Visualisation, going out of the comfort zone by doing new stuff... etc? Your brain is actually very efficient at believing, but unfortunately it believes in perspectives that aren't beneficial to you.
  10. Beautiful story. I've always thought that love presupposes for a being to dive in someone else's perspective without any judgement and try from there to nurture that other person so it can grow further. That man did exactly that.
  11. That's not how it works. I'd advise you to read more about how to interact with women in general . Maybe try David De Angelo? It happens but its quite rare. And at 23, most girls will find a 32 to already be in the daddy zone .
  12. Oh! Happy to know this behavioral pattern has a name. I agree with you Nickyy. I somewhat feel sorry for those guys in the PUA community who can't find their way out of those unbalanced mental scheme. Quite often, their imbalance leaning towards the masculine energy is reinforced by the fact that they will only consume stuff they see as masculine content, and justify their behavior with "science", and "rationality". Unfortunately, since the pull of our mainstream society is Orange, it leads them in a difficult loop to escape. They can get trapped in this sad patterns for decades of their whole life. I wish there was more healthy role model for them. It's hard to find the escape of this maze on your own.
  13. I think that most of the disagreement in this thread might come from the fact that everyone pictures a different definition of what is a nice guy. It's quite a relative concept. I can't fathom being attracted to a man who isn't nice. He needs to resonate with my sensitivity, compassion and love for other fellow human beings, nature etc, otherwise I won't be able to build intimacy. But in this thread, I can't help myself but to picture the type of odd guys I used to meet in high school or very early 20s. The type of dude who would be nice because they are overly naive, delusional, lack survival skills, do certain actions because they expect something in return for their niceness, etc... Niceness doesn't mean yes to all. Some guys will be yes to all, and disappear in his attempt to please you. It's unhealthy and unattractive. My nice guy has healthy boundaries, a life of his own, is self-confident and won't take no shit from me and others, when times comes to stand for his principles.