Parththakkar12

One of his high-consciousness ideals is Personal Growth, even more so than materialism. This is huge, because it is fundamentally based on the Absolute Truth of Impermanence of form. I see 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' as a Yellow/Turquoise book. Of course it's Orange because it's about money, but it's about the psychology of it. His understanding of the issue of lack of financial education is systemically accurate, which is Yellow. He is all about shadow work. He also manages fear in a way very few other people are able to. He's able to be present with the fear without suppressing it, but also without allowing it to dictate what he does. An Orange person will be like 'Man up! Man harder! Push through the fear!!', who will not care about understanding the fear.

He speaks out against the Fed, the education system, the banks. That's Green and Yellow. He also says that giving the masses financial education is part of his life purpose, which is Green/Turquoise. He has this question 'What does God want done?' which he uses to guide his life purpose. Edit: He is very spiritual and he does a lot of inner work on himself. I think that's Turquoise. He's had awakenings. He meditates a lot and is very intuitive.

The Donald has the most incredible sense of humor, is the President of the most beautiful country, has the most amazing wife and kids, has great amounts of debt (I mean, wealth), ...... (I'm callously using these words like he does. I learned something from him!! Yaayy!!!)

The 'everyone working together' is everyone who is a stakeholder in the specific issue we're resolving. What's being worked for will be decided in the process of resolution. The principal problem here is that we have different groups whose agendas clash. People will have to be willing to reconsider their agendas and ask themselves what it is that they're really wanting out of this. A common goal will arise out of that resolution process. I feel this is important in today's time with the current situation, when there are so many warring agendas and differing perspectives. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but it is definitely worth a shot. Now you may say 'What if the problem people don't participate in your resolution process?' Maybe they won't. That is the vulnerability of it. We want to do it anyways. Maybe we will have to fight them if they don't participate in the process, but this time it will be to resolve the conflict as opposed to winning it. The end goal of this process is to arrive at a peaceful state where everyone's happy with the result. 'Everyone' in this example does not include the people they're hurting. What it could actually look like is this - they could work with activists who represent people's best interests, or politicians who want M4A and they could come to an agreement, provided everyone is willing to honestly question their agendas. Is it practical in this situation? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the specifics of this issue. This is a different scenario altogether. It depends on whether everyone is in favor of slavery or not in the specific society. The slave masters are of course happy with it, maybe even the slaves are happy with it as their survival needs get taken of by their masters. It is archaic and barbaric if you think about it, but there's gotta be a reason slavery lasted all those centuries. So 'everyone working together' could mean working toward maintaining and expanding slavery. Or, once Black people start wanting out of slavery and start empowering themselves, then it's a completely different story. Then it would mean White people considering the perspectives of their slaves and letting them go, which is highly unlikely. Because of the nature of the problem and the time we're talking about, 'everyone working together' did not happen. It wasn't the best idea for Black slaves to wait for their masters to let them go, the better option was for them to fight the Civil war. There are a lot of considerations for whether this strategy will work or not. Things like specifics of the problem we're addressing, the time we're talking about, the willingness of stakeholders, the level of consciousness of people. For example, pre-WW2, the concept of World Peace was not thought of yet. It is when America dropped atom bombs did we really become weary of potential extinction if we didn't keep our wars in check. For the first time in history, we're at a time where our level of consciousness is such that we can aspire to create a peaceful world. If we really want to do this, conflict resolution would be the way to go.

Adding to this - If you're gonna go through with my solution, I feel it's important to not skip steps and go through the process in the right order. Every step will give insight on how to progress into the next step, if done in the right order. Genuinely being on each other's side, working on effective communication and resolving conflicts are very important prior steps if you look at it from my eyes. Here's the point - once we have everyone working together to solve this issue, doing it will be much simpler. Then we will have multiple heads coming up with workable ideas on how to resolve this issue. The activists can be leading this process, using all the help that will be much more readily available once the conflicts are resolved. It will be a matter of creatively coming up with solutions. Of course there will be a lot of debate and deliberation even on the workability, feasibility and effectiveness of solutions. But the process will be a lot more frictionless if we're on each other's side and organized together.

The thought of calling women vagina-people makes me cringe lol

That's a classic Stage Blue/Orange solution. I'm no expert in solving these problems. What I'll say is let the experts debate the feasibility, debate the effectiveness and arrive at a multi-faceted, technically complex solution to a technically complex problem. Then to try and test the different solutions until you see positive results.

The part where I mentioned helping them figure out more conscious ways of meeting those needs. If I were a BLM activist (or some sort of racial equality activist), I would take the lead in meeting those needs. Say for example, in my inner work where I find out their reasons, I understand that some racist White people come from White-trashy backgrounds where they were poor. Now when Black people are having more of a say than White people, these people are feeling jealous of Black people, which has turned into hatred and resentment. The problem here isn't that they think Black people are inferior, the real problem is they're poor. So, I'd team up with other activists who are in charge of lobbying for creating blue-collar job opportunities in their area, where you can learn a particular trade or skill. If they're willing to work hard, figure out a way to recruit them. As I said, I don't really have experience as an activist, so someone who does have that background could debate me on the effectiveness of my ideas. My point is that I'd dig hard enough to find the root before deciding what to solve, and I'd do it from a space of awareness that they are a part of Me. The more their motivations for hating Black people go away, and the more secure they feel about their survival, the more they'll be naturally motivated to get out of their narcissistic bubble. The more they'll want to wake up to the reality of systemic racism. The point is to remove incentives for being racist and add incentives to wake up to it.

Before doing this, step zero would be to do an honest enquiry on what's to be gained from doing this, what good will this do for yourself or the world. Will this boost your sense of significance? Will it give you a sense of intellectual superiority? Would they want to see what you're about to show them? I'm not saying the selfish reasons are bad, I'm saying it's important to be conscious of them so that your ego doesn't hijack the process. The first step would be to wake up to the reality that they are a part of You. Leo describes this very well in his video on 'What is the Devil - The Mechanics of Evil'. When you see that, you are able to get insight on what they are missing. It almost always turns out to be something you weren't expecting! When you understand their perspective, you will understand the following - It looks like they're crazy to miss the elephant in the room that is systemic racism, but it's very easy to miss it from their perspective. Then, you want to get good at communicating. You want to become conscious of projections on your part and their part. It's a good idea to understand why those projections are there. The point of this would be to have clear and coherent communication where you generally trust each other and are on the same page. You also want to become conscious of what their motivations are and what they need, what they're scared of. When you do that from a conscious perspective, you start to have answers for them on how they can get what they want. This makes your opinion very important to them, as importance corresponds to needs/desires. This will make it so that when you talk, they will be all ears. The next step would be to go ahead and figure out a way to meet their needs. I don't have any business experience, so I'm still figuring out this part. But someone with business experience/marketing experience would be able to figure this out. Also, someone with a background in social work or activism would be able to figure this out. The hope from this whole process is to first resolve the conflict, then to create incentives for them to wake up to it. What we need to understand is that they can deny it all they want, you can't take away their free will. So waking them up is a vulnerable process for you, where your success/failure entirely depends on what they decide to do.

You guys seem to be interested in winning the intellectual battle. That is important. What I mean by that is bringing in the science, proving your claims about systemic racism and debating with them. It is important to prove to yourself that those claims are based in reality, otherwise the conservatives will end up gaslighting you into believing it's BS. That's step 1. The next step though is to wake them up. That is an entirely different ballgame altogether. Debating with them does not work, as they become more contracted and resistant. Debating is important if you want to get solid in your perspective on it, not so much if you want to wake them up! Waking them up will first require you to put aside your selfish reasons to do so. If you don't do that, you will end up perpetuating their dysfunctional indoctrinating practices. It will have to come from a place of genuinely being on their side and caring about them. For this, we must first wake up to the reality that they are a part of Us. How bad do you want progress? How hard are you willing to work on yourself to create it? This will be an important question all the way. It will require you to see things about yourself that you will resist like hell. It will also require you to reconsider your opinions, be radically open-minded and work on your beliefs. (which is standard practice for folks like us) Once you've really found and put aside your selfish reasons to do so, then the next step will be to borrow a page from Spiral Wizardry. To see what they're missing, and what they would be open to seeing. These are my insights. I'm sure @Leo Gura understands this because of what he teaches. My hope is that other progressives also understand this.

Denial is a behavior. But the people doing it have an important and valid perspective. The reason I say that is they're all a part of You.

Maybe they will deny it. Their perspective is limited. But it is still a valid and important perspective. You can say it's 'egotism that distracts from progress'. That is undeniably true. Having said that, the ego is still a valid part of human beings. I'm gonna ask you this - what kind of a relationship do you want to have with your own ego, or our egos, or their egos? This is an important question we must ask ourselves if we, as progressives, are wanting to wake them up.

Alright. You may have to fight the powerful and selfish. But, when a sizeable swath of the population is not happy with what you're doing, are you sure you're doing them a service? The whole point of SJW-ism is to serve the public by creating the change you want, am I right? Let's not forget that the people in power are there for a reason. If you ask someone 'Should Black people have rights?', most Stage Blue people will say yes. There will be some Alt-right Nazis who will say no, but most decent people will say yes. However, it's these very same people who are not happy with BLM. If you ask them why, I'm sure they'll tell you it's because they aren't happy with the way it's played out. This isn't one or two people, it's actually the majority. When you have that going, the people in power will successfully uphold the status-quo against you. I think they'd be right to do so.

Realistically, no. What happened was inevitable. Having said that, what's unrealistic today can be realistic tomorrow. I find that an inspiring vision to aim for.

Depends on the position of power of the person in question and what you're wanting from the whole struggle. Also depends on the specifics of the issue. In certain situations, you will have to fight. I was talking about the video in question, where it shows white people who are unhappy with the movement and the general reaction of 'racist' white people and SJWs judging them for those reactions. This specific issue shows a resentment of white people towards BLM. They weren't technically denying systemic racism, they were expressing their dissatisfaction with how it was handled. Were they racist? Yeah, but so is everyone else. Human beings are biased creatures. I don't agree with making an enemy of it if it isn't warranted, or it doesn't cause problems.

There's only one way to get them to listen without being triggered - We expand our circle of concern to include them. If they feel neglected, it's very possible that they are. Of course White people were the slave owners and Black people were the slaves, so if you look at it from a 'social justice' perspective, White people are 'privileged' over Black people. So we will have to let go of the concept of 'social justice' or 'privilege' or 'equality' in order to really resolve this conflict. Tbh, I never really understood the concept of social justice. The way I understand justice, it is about preserving the integrity of the rules of the community. That is the whole point of punishing 'bad behavior', i.e. it's bad from the perspective of community survival. I don't quite understand why 'social justice' is needed, i.e. why do we need to re-surface past conflicts between races, sexes, etc. It isn't needed for community survival. I understand when minorities, women, LGBT community, etc. want to empower themselves, but when it comes at the cost of taking away the power of the majority, that's when 'social justice' becomes problematic. A lot of times the fight for 'social justice' becomes about taking revenge for the past. This doesn't solve anything, in fact it perpetuates the same cycle of hatred and resentment. What's really needed here is conflict-resolution on a mass scale. All parties involved need to be willing to come together and honestly resolve it. That won't happen if we cling to fighting for 'social justice'. It also won't happen if we try to manipulate this process for our own selfish ends. We could debate on what's 'natural' all day. My point is that the human mind is fundamentally biased for survival purposes. I don't think this is changing anytime soon. I understand what you're saying. The unfortunate reality of our world today is that most people will never know what compassion is. This does not mean we can't get them on our side. What we need is genuine resolution where all parties are willing to go through with it.

People are triggered because they don't believe that BLM is for Black lives, they don't trust BLM to be true to its agenda. It can come across as anti-white. When you say BLM, it can come across as ostracizing and neglecting white people. It's not about making them bad. Here's the thing - SJWs in general come across as anti-society, or as antagonists to society. You will get antagonism back, especially from Blue people. Most people don't really make the connection between the problems of today's Black people and slavery in history. Even if they did, their reaction will be 'Why should I pay for my forefathers' crimes? They owned slaves, I don't.' Racism is not the exception, it is the norm. Everyone has unconscious biases, and they aren't necessarily bad, they're natural. It takes much more of an effort to be politically correct and not offend people. Maybe you understand why SJWs care about social justice, but you yourself don't really care about it. If you don't really care about social justice, your normal reaction will be 'Why don't white lives matter?' This is rationalized as racism by SJWs.

I find it interesting that you expect people to trust BLM. Why should they trust you when you've been out rioting on the streets? Why shouldn't they be pissed and mad? It is natural and normal for them to ask the question 'But what about White lives?' You're basically showing them that you don't care about white people. Calling them 'haters' and 'racists' is a big rationalization. Even if you stand for something good and noble, so does Christianity. So do the KKK Alt-right Nazis. The mental story is always 'I am a good person and I have good reasons for doing what I'm doing.'

Do the Dems have a plan of what to do if he does drop dead, or become seriously ill? It's one thing to stand for election, it's another thing entirely to be the President for 4 years. What happens if he drops dead when he is President?

@Eren Eeager Because The Great Donald deserves only the best and nothing but the best!! On a serious note, here's why - The problems that today's America faces are complex systemic issues that progressives haven't really evolved to understand and solve. Also, the issues were in the shadows where most people were denying them. In such a situation, it can get difficult to put your finger on them and really understand them. The Devil can do it's work in the shadows so to speak. When you're faced with this, from Universal perspective, the most efficient way to make progress is for those issues to come out of the shadows into plain-view. Trump represents all of the shadows of today's America. He basically serves as a bearer of bad news for us all, that we have a lot of work to do and if we don't, shit could get pretty bad. His egocentrism and impulsivity is very attention-grabbing precisely for this reason - he represents our shadows. The more we work on ourselves, the less we feed him with energy, the more likely we are to beat him.

Ok fine. Lets just say they're able to continue their spying activities. How will they enforce any 'breaking of laws'? Will there even be a force to use? They will get very crippled after the collapse. They are beatable. You just gotta strike when the iron is hot.

They aren't invincible. When (not if, when) the dollar falls, then we'll see who's talking.

@FlowerNote There is. Mining is rewarded, hacking attempts are punished.

@FlowerNote There is the reward and punishment system, which will penalize you for tampering with the blockchain. Other servers will catch on to this as the blockchain is publicly available. Because the consensus algorithm is public, you need more than 50% votes to make a change in it. That's where regulation on the validity of transactions can really happen.

@Leo Gura It's decentralized, but it's not unregulated. It's very heavily regulated. The regulations are publicly voted on, i.e. they're not enacted by a central authority.