Parththakkar12

Yeah lol he was like 'Oh shit. I won. Now what?'

He's even littler. He's a 2yo who cries mommy whenever the media talks against him.

There is only one way we really see the damage of zero-sum games to humanity as a whole. We have a third world war. We will have to see massive bloodshed as a consequence of zero-sum game style survival. We will have to physically see this survival strategy backfire. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way. I wish I could say I see a peaceful way of getting there. Human beings don't want to lose each other. No matter how bad a relationship, losing it doesn't feel good. Human beings have evolved to want to be together under all conditions. If we have a third world war, this will cause humanity enough pain and suffering to admit to each other - 'I don't care how many problems we have, I don't want to lose you.' If you wanted realism, this is what I realistically feel will happen. It sounds very New-Agey and idealistic on paper, but the process to get there looks very dark and scary, and maybe even not worth it.

Except that true anarchism isn't forced or 'brought about'. It is naturally evolved into. It is realistic from the perspective of nature, or God, or the creator of humans. Nature can make it such that zero-sum games just stop working as a survival strategy. All the conflicts that were suppressed and hidden can come into plain-view. People, who have no idea how to resolve these conflicts, will inevitably pick sides and go to battle. Life with zero-sum games must get difficult enough for people to want a better way out. It is possible for the greater universe to make human life incredibly difficult in response to zero-sum games. It would in fact be in alignment with the Absolute Truth of Oneness. It can be made such that unconsciousness has greater and greater consequences. Now of course you can't take away someone's free will cuz they are God too. But you can make the consequences worse and worse.

Everyone. If one person wants them, we'll have them! For this, conflicts need to be resolved first. That's when there will be the possibility that people will actually trust each other enough to lay down their weapons. This is the easy way to denuclearization. The hard way (which is more likely) is people keep playing zero-sum games and they escalate into WW3, where nukes will be used. Then, people learn from history that 'Maybe we should care about each other if we want to live peacefully.'

Well, I have to make this assumption to make a case against democracy! This is the only possibility I see where democracy could fail. And if people do evolve into well-behaved angels, my point is democracy will fail.

My bad. I missed the specifics. My point is we'll voluntarily get rid of the bombs, cuz we'll see that we don't need them to live peacefully.

Except for one possibility - if humans have evolved past zero-sum games! In that potential situation, we will voluntarily de-nuclearize.

My bad. I probably used the wrong word then. I meant anarchists, people who don't believe in enforced government, people who believe in no enforced government. They can have collective responsibility. They believe in privatizing all services, in people voluntarily coming together and creating the kind of society they want. My point is that this can work in a world where zero-sum games don't work as a survival strategy within human society, aka individual humans see that 'It's bad for me to play zero-sum games with another human.' You're saying it can't work in a world where zero-sum games do work as a survival strategy. I agree with you on this.

Humans are capable of better. When I say 'zero-sum games', I mean the ones humans play with each other and maybe the ones humans play with animals. Of course, a lion must play zero-sum games to survive. You can say this is a very self-serving potential consideration, that nature won't do this for you. Well, we're still talking in the realm of theory here! Humans have been wanting a peaceful and loving society. This isn't technically the case for animals. So humans could potentially be motivated to create it!

The whole point of real libertarianism is it can't be enforced. If our systems fail, we will naturally evolve into libertarianism. The question was 'Can we do better than democracy?'. This question is relevant if democracy inherently starts to fail because of the 'majority wins' zero-sum game. The whole idea is if a zero-sum game style of living becomes naturally untenable, aka evolution starts to weed out those humans who rely on zero-sum games for survival, then democracy collapses and we naturally evolve into a peaceful, loving libertarian society. If zero-sum games work, then yeah, democracy is the most efficient we've got. Then I agree with everything you've said in your video on libertarianism.

My only argument against democracy is that it is fundamentally based on a zero-sum game, which is the 'majority wins' system. It is a peaceful way of the majority dominating the minority. It is a pragmatic adaptation to the issue of genocide and war over what different groups want. But it still doesn't resolve the conflicts between the groups. How do we solve this? We go through a peaceful libertarian phase where everyone is so evolved that we've woken up to the reality that we are all one, so we realize that it isn't in our natural best interests to hurt each other. Then, we come together and consciously create our society. Our current society has not been consciously created, it has unconsciously evolved. We've never consciously created our society in history. That has yet to happen.

@creator20 These are good questions. You are on the right track. We talk a lot about what's 'good' vs 'bad' in politics. However, from our understanding of non-duality, we see that there is no absolute 'good' vs 'bad', it's all relative. So what is 'good' vs 'bad' relative to in politics? It's what's 'good' vs 'bad' for the country/community. A community will make rules according to what's good/bad for itself. This is true of religions, countries, civilizations, etc. These rules will serve as the 'boundaries' of the collective, aka a collective ego. The morality will be a part of the collective ego. This morality will then be enforced by a government, police system and a court system. The definition of a particular rule will include enforcement protocols and punishments given out for breaking the rule. Now why punish the breaking of the rules? Because the rules weren't naturally there, they were artificially constructed. So, they must be artificially enforced. The whole point of 'justice' is to maintain the integrity of the rules created by the community. There are new arguments against the whole notion of justice, that it stems from a revenge mindset, that the collective wants to take revenge from a bad actor by 'punishing' them. This is an interesting consideration.

Healthy blue would be about teaching morals, ethics and values. You can be taught how to be a 'good person'. A Stage Red person who is tired of fighting for their safety will really lap it up and embrace a peaceful, stable, safe and secure Stage Blue life if there is someone to teach them.

Neo-conservatism is more about lamenting the loss of the 'good old past'. I've legit heard conservatives say this - 'It's very hard to compete with the Left cuz they bring up and campaign for all these crazy changes. They can garner attention very easily cuz of this. The Right is having a difficult time attracting attention. When you say 'Change Nothing!!', that doesn't really polarize and radicalize people so it doesn't work to attract attention.' I must give credit to the guy saying this for at least being conscious of the fact that conservatism is all about resisting change!

Won't really get to people cuz they'll think he's kidding. For people to really wake up, he's gonna have to do something like 'Hey everyone! I want to steal your money. Please put all your money in this bank account in the next 2 days or I'll send in the troops!!' Even then, I don't know.

I'm noticing something interesting. When you have a few mildly positive, mildly negative or even strongly negative things to say about someone, people will consider it. But when you have a lot of strongly positive things to say about someone, that's when the doubting begins! People assume you're 'under their spell' or something. This is why negativity sells so much on mainstream media. We're actually scared of positivity! Especially unexplainable positivity, which gives us no direct benefit. It's probably cuz we're scared of assuming they're perfect and idolizing them.

Lol no. My point is this is a really high-consciousness resource. Kinda underappreciated.

Read Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad. It is an awesome personal finance book and it will show you how to manage money. Going about finding your Life Purpose will also help. It will fall in line with your spiritual practice.

"The problem is the human mind is a dualistic, often ego-driven mind. Our mind is like a split-screen TV. It sees the world through the prism of right and wrong, good and bad, up and down, in and out, pretty and ugly. That is why all humans have a good side and a dark side. Many wonderful and magical human experiences are derivatives of our split-screen mind. So are wars, arguments, fights, divorces, crimes, unhappiness, addictions, depression, murders and suicides - all derivatives of the same dualistic mind." "For humans to evolve, the next education will require us to turn our minds off, shut up, and tune into God." "If humans do not learn how to turn off their split-screen, right and wrong, dualistic mental TVs, we will use our mind-created technology to destroy ourselves. If we do not learn to turn our minds off, humanity is finished." Quoting from the book Fake Money, Fake Teachers, Fake Assets.

This thread is about the media. Don't derail it.

Don't watch news. Full of coronavirus fear like 'Today 17,000 more cases' and 'Today 90,000 more cases'. That's literally what they do!

Ralph Smart did believe that George Floyd was really killed, that his killing wasn't staged unlike certain other 'conspiracy theorists'.

Massive trigger warning for this one. Triggers are the vehicle for higher consciousness and awareness. I trust yall to understand this and not shoot the messenger. You can do this. This is the exact opposite of Leo's opinion on Trump. It's a complete experiment on my part, I have no idea how the forum will respond to this.

@Annoynymous We can't really control the result of the election. What we must do is prepare for a Trump win in our individual lives, aka prepare for the worst. Here's what I suggest - Go under a rock, the most comfortable one, and sit tight. Sit tight, cuz fireworks will go down. The political situation is just waaaay too unstable right now to do anything crazy. There's potential for all sorts of shit to go down. For example, Trump does something stupid and he spoils the relationship with China. If that happens and if China stops buying US Treasury bonds, the dollar will go down in value cuz there's so many of them. When that happens, Chinese goods will become too expensive to afford and Chinese exports will no longer be tenable. This will be an economic catastrophe as the world depends on cheap Chinese products. Inflation will just get too bad. The COVID crisis doesn't help with this. Once chaos ensues, well, then we're on our own to fend for ourselves. I wish I had something more positive to say about this.