Parththakkar12

Individually, we have infinite power, i.e. we can do anything as people. However, in society, we occupy certain positions in the system. These social positions have limited power, have finite degrees of freedom and have certain constraints on them. In the posts I've linked, I talk about the amount of power different roles in the system have. The elites, in our current system, have a lot more power than the masses. They are able to dictate the narrative of what people believe and don't believe. People don't critically examine what they're being told, which creates a cult-like dynamic. I also explain why critically examining their narrative is important for democracy to actually work. I'm not advocating for bitching and moaning about the elites or demonizing them. Those are what you may call 'conspiracy theorists'. There are some of them though who understand what I'm saying here and are calling for people to start critically examining the mainstream narrative. I'd like to know your thoughts/opinions on my analysis of systems. Also, how exactly are you defining 'conspiracy theorist'?

One possibility is an anarchist world in which there is no centralization of power. In this type of world, everyone is fully free. It's the CHAZ style police-free, government-free world. Now there could be hierarchy, but it's all in the context of corporations, who co-operate with each other. Another possibility is to have a world government. Here, there would be a centralization of the whole world's power. The most awake people would lead the world into greater levels of consciousness and evolution. I am completely spitballing here. I don't know how any of these can be actualized, which ones are more practically implementable, achievable etc. What do you think? Which of these 2 would be more favorable? Do you have a different ideal world?

Randomly searching for enlightenment videos on youtube in early 2017. My level of development wasn't that high at the time, so I kinda ignored him. Then, later, in early 2019, I remembered Leo from 2017. That's when I really started getting into his content. I was shocked and amazed at how much deeper his content had gotten!

I'm all for monopolies. I'd like to create one for myself! I like having power.

If the question is more thoughts or less thoughts, my answer is less thoughts. To elaborate, your relationship with your mind will evolve. The more conscious you are, the less you will excessively worry, or needlessly grind over inconsequential stuff, the more constructive your thinking will become.

Good question. If you look at it from a non-dual perspective, there are no such things as 'germs' or 'viruses'. Conscious doctors are looking into alternative interpretations of germ theory. They're critically examining Louis Pasteur's experiments and conclusions when coming up with concepts like 'viruses' or 'bacteria'.

Do you agree or disagree with: Lockdowns, martial Law, bringing the military onto the streets to enforce lockdowns. Masks Sanitizing your hands every x amount of time Social Distancing. Is it worth the mental health problems/loneliness it will cause? Printing trillions of dollars/Other economic measures like Stimulus packages. Are the lockdowns worth the economic ramifications? Vaccination. If you agree, would you want it to be voluntary or forced? Mainstream media reporting style Social media censorship of 'conspiracy theories' Which of these would you want to be voluntary? Which of these would you want to be enforced? Which of these measures are worth the pain and suffering they cause? For which ones do the benefits outweigh the costs, for which other ones do costs outweigh the benefits? Please give explanations for your answers.

https://www.businessinsider.in/retail/news/85-of-independent-restaurants-may-go-out-of-business-by-the-end-of-2020-according-to-the-independent-restaurant-coalition/articleshow/76325019.cms

You leave it to the employer/leasing company to make their decision. It is a case by case decision. Take away their criminal record and look at the person the way they are, right now. Do you trust them? If yes, that's a trustworthy person irrespective of their past. Just because some bureaucrats in uniforms decided you aren't trustworthy, doesn't mean it's true.

Nice question. Check out the thread on this subforum titled 'Is India really a democracy'. I've done some in-depth research on Stage Blue psychology/inner workings of the mind and I've posted it there. Blue still triggers me. I, tbh, don't really want to have anything to do with Stage Blue people, i.e. people whose egos cling to Blue. The issue with them is they don't want to evolve, their survival strategy is to cling to the status-quo. They will play fair and unfair to do that. If you're stuck with Stage Blue and want to extricate yourself from that situation, my posts will really help you.

Bolsonaro, Brazil's PM is also looking at this critically. He fears that local mayors will create their own little dictatorships in the name of COVID. Here's what he did: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UCr8ievfyRoq/ The youtube video is an NBC news video showing a Brazil hospital having a lot of COVID deaths and casualties. The bitchute video shows members of the Brazilian parliament breaking into the same hospital and exposing on camera that the hospital is empty and that the report is fake. Lets say we're done debating the numbers of the 'experts' and they turn out to be right. Even then, the big picture wasn't taken into consideration. I wouldn't react to it based on fear. I would maybe not tell people about the threat and not stir up panic. There are a lot of collective threats that the government doesn't tell the people about, that they just handle under the table. I know it is a gamble. But when you have to choose between 2 gambles, I'd go with my gut and choose the one that isn't a fear reaction.

I'd tell the people giving me the numbers to recheck them. It just doesn't seem believable that one little virus can kill that many people. There's tons of other viruses out there, and we're fine. As a leader of a country, you must have the big picture in your mind and be able to prioritize effectively. You can't react to every insignificant little threat in such drastic ways. Now I understand this can sound like idealism. I'm fine with accepting that mistakes happen. This is why we're critically examining what they're doing. The so-called 'experts' who were giving out the numbers made really sloppy calculation mistakes in reporting the stats. They said 'hundreds of thousands of people will die' when their work showed that actually, it's hundreds of thousands of cases with a small percentage of them actually dying.

I'm talking about: All small businesses collapsing Tons of layoffs happening Hyper-inflation that will happen because the Fed is printing trillions of dollars for 'stimulus packages' Food supply chains being disrupted, which will lead to food shortages. A lot of food is rotting right now because of supply chains breaking Mental health crisis because of lockdowns, social distancing The police were extra careful to make sure all small businesses die, but they didn't do anything to stop the rioting and looting. I don't think this is an accident.

Get into New-Age hippie communities. There are plenty of hot witches there!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm The fall of the world economy is gonna kill a ton more people now.

Maybe I wouldn't have destroyed the economy over a virus that kills 0.1% of people who get it, most of them being senior citizens.

Teal Swan. She's beyond Turquoise. I'd give her her own spiral stage lol

@Chumbimba You seem to be lacking clarity on who you are as a consumer, your spending ethics. When that is the case, you will feel anxious about whether you're spending on the right things or not. I'd say follow your intuition on that and find yourself as a consumer. Mistakes (in this case, bad buys) will be a part of that process of finding yourself. According to my spending ethics, all spending done on personal development is good spending. I feel confident that it will yield returns long term.

Yeah I agree it is an emotion. Demanding from people to emotionally engage with you is a dis-empowered way of going about it. The key, alluding to what I previously said, is to create your life such that you will have people in your life long-term to meet your emotional needs. This would involve facing incompatibility and finding people who are compatible with you. This would also involve showing your vulnerability and finding people you can trust with your vulnerability. That would be the empowered way of going about it. I agree with the part of understanding where it's coming from and what it has to say. In fact that is my suggestion too. The problem I have with Leo's attitude around this, is that he doesn't account for emotional needs. Emotional needs include closeness, physical touch, connection, intimacy. This will create a gaping hole in your being and tons of emotional suffering. When you're at Stage Orange, you will be stuck in the materialist paradigm relative to relationships. The materialist paradigm is very individualistic, it lacks collectivism. Individualism says something along the lines of 'We are all individuals, so only I am responsible for meeting my needs. Nobody else is responsible.' It takes 'I am responsible for meeting my needs' and adds an 'only' behind it, which is false. The whole universe at large is also responsible for meeting your needs. This includes other people. You need people who take ownership of you, who take responsibility for meeting your needs too. You can do that for other people too. The materialist scientific paradigm will also deny emotional needs, as they can't be measured or proven. So when you feel lonely, if you're in the materialist paradigm, you will make it about sex, which you will perceive to be an individual desire. Then, you will go about it in a transactional manner, which is radically different from showing your vulnerability and trusting other people to meet your needs. You will not be prepared to give other people so much power in your life, because you will not be prepared to face rejection relative to emotional needs. That is its own can of worms. The point is, understanding emotional needs cannot happen from within the materialist paradigm. You will have to start feeling your emotions and tapping into your intuition.

The point isn't to bash Leo. It is to tell you important things I see about him and what he says. His perspective is a partial one and I thought it was important to focus on what he's missing in this case.

Watch Teal Swan's videos. They're all about human emotional needs. Human beings have emotional needs that we need each other to meet. We are social animals. Loneliness (or neediness) is a symptom of emotional starvation. I don't agree with Leo on loneliness (or neediness). Leo seems to have an avoidant attachment style, where he prefers to be alone with no community, having casual sex with short-term partners he meets through doing PUA at bars/clubs. Avoidant people (including PUAs, who are also mostly avoidant) typically tend to see 'neediness' as a bad thing, they tend to project onto other people that they should be okay alone. Leo unconsciously denies this reality of human beings that we have emotional needs. He, by his own admission, doesn't really understand deep emotional wounds, emotional healing and psychological problems.

Good question. I might just have the answer for you. I have tried to socialize my way out of loneliness. It doesn't work. There is only one way to resolve this issue - Have collective goals in your personal relationship life (as opposed to individual goals) and actualize them. A collective goal is a goal you have not only for yourself, but for the collective of your social circle, or your romantic relationship, or your community. If you have an issue of loneliness, this indicates something you're wanting to create with people. It could be a relationship in which the 2 of you genuinely understand each other. It could be a family. It could be a group of friends that goes camping every weekend. I'd suggest you find that thing you're wanting to create and find people to actualize it with. It is in the process of creating it as a team, that your loneliness will really go away. You cannot just socialize your way out of chronic loneliness. You may be able to cope with it by socializing, but it won't really get healed just by socializing or 'hanging out with people'. I've found the only way to be to create your personal life according to what you genuinely want.

Absolutely! Also, if you make guns illegal, policing can get easier. You won't need to be so good at fighting a gun battle on the street to be a cop. Having a battle because of lethal weapons can really enable the issue of police brutality, it can also enable the police to get away with a lot of unnecessary killings.

If you can't see a solution or if you have no idea what to do, your understanding/analysis of the problem isn't deep enough. Solutions will start to arise as you go deeper and deeper into it.

Lol I deliberately used exaggerated verbiage. I do sometimes get the impression that everyone wants to reach a higher stage to be able to look down on the lower stages! I'm not fully sure about Yellow, but I've seen Green do this on the forum for sure. Maybe you could say it's a part of being Green. This is a different issue. Leo and you mods are doing a good job moderating the ideological flame-wars and stopping troublemakers. What I'm also saying is that it is appropriate for that subforum to have authentic, open-minded Tier-1 discussions where everyone is growing. We don't have to exclude Tier-1 perspectives to have it be constructive. Having said that, feel free to create an exclusively Stage Yellow space! No positions for or against it.