zazen

Interesting take on a possible solution But does the rhetoric match the reasoning.

@An young being When seen from that view it makes life all the more richer. @PurpleTree @DocWatts True, the issue is in reforming or liberalising Islam as a lot of muslims come at Islam from a literal lens and that the word is the absolute word of God when it was actually from a man who had a god realisation and just interpreted it or misinterpreted that realisation within the context of his time, culture and intellect. I found this video to be interesting in that he points out that maybe our whole idea of freedom is wrong. Maybe what we deem as unfree societies are the more free ones. The quagmire of Western society is that its primary value is individual freedom and liberty, but such values if not exercised correctly can undermine society itself. It's tricky to balance the moral primacy of freedom with the existential social need for conformity, and the more you emphasise freedom the more you have to covertly enforce restrictions on that freedom in case of that freedom being mishandled resulting in societal harm and breakdown. So the people being indoctrinated into the fiction of a free society collides with the lived reality of it not being so by covert means (which people like to call the Matrix). This causes people to have cognitive dissonance and a disillusionment and distrust of the system itself (being red pilled to it and the existence of a Matrix they'd like to break free from) because the system people are living in bears little to no resemblance to the way its packaged to them. The main factor around which societies arrange them self is freedom, the difference is in how freedom is approached. Overtly free societies such as the West have to covertly manage that freedom to not allow it go unchecked as opposed to more overtly 'controlled' societies such as Islamic or traditional ones. If the legal matters lean towards lenience then the social matters must be more coercive. If law provides great liberty than the social contract and codes of conduct demand greater conformity. Law enforcement has prisons, social code enforcement has ostracization. In religious / traditional societies God and the social group become your 24/7 surveillance state, in liberal democratic societies the state itself is the surveillance state managing good/bad behaviour. Moral behaviour is outsourced from the self to the social group to the state. In a evolved society it would be primarily the self and ones own evolved consciousness and state of being that conducts itself more nobly. The above video is also very interesting and gives food for thought. I think a distinction can be made between culture and civilisation. We equate advanced civilisation with an advanced culture of goodness. Civilisation is about being good at developing tools and its achievements. Culture is about the user who uses those tools and the users state of awakening to God/Goodness. Civilisation is about competence and being good at the achievement of and refinement of tools. Culture is about consciousness/character, being good itself due to awakening and the refinement of the self. Culture either purifies or perverts the power that civilisational brings. Civilisation is horizontal evolution, culture is a vertical evolution that inculcates God/Goodness. What good are the tools if the users of those tools have shaky hands.

- Less economic opportunity and education for women which means many to most get married younger which gives them many more fertile years to give birth. In developed countries women pursue education and a career which postpones family formation ie average age of marriage is over 28 so they have much fewer years to have kids versus women marrying at 18-20 and having kids every 2 years so they have 5-7 by their mid 30's. - Big families are seen as a sign of status, further justified by religion as its God ordained and virtuous to bring more life into the world. - Agricultural labor for the family as kids would start working alongside the family to support them -High child mortality or lower age of mortality meant they would also have more kids as the expectation was some wouldn't make it. That has drastically changed but the culture of such expectations lingers on. -Life is lived in the short term due to a survivalist mentality , meaning no foresight into future planning or family planning -Lack of access to sex education or contraception This is changing fast as urbanisation grows and more women get into education and the workforce. Within developing countries their is a stark difference in fertility rate between the urbanites and rural people. Urbanisation also increases the cost of having many kids as urban centres have higher property prices etc

Ideological indoctrination doesn't just apply to Hamas but to Israeli's themselves - even citizens of the West are subjected to propaganda by their own elites. In fact, the more sophisticated a society (developed) the more sophisticated the tools at their disposal to propagandise the populace. We just have to be aware of the fact that both sides have bad actors propagandising for their own interests. Just because something or someone doesn't cause a dynamic to be set in motion (Israel) doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to it going on. This is the fallacy of the conspiratorial minded who think everything is caused by the few, and it’s opposite extreme thinking everything is random and blind to the fews contribution to affects that effects the masses.

Israel makes the living conditions of Gaza un-livable. Yet people have the nerve and blindeness to claim Israel has a much better living standard in comparison and implying that Palestinians would be better off there.

@BlueOak Great take. As in spiral dynamics, stage of development are just that - a development. Not an imposition from others who have developed to that stage. Although, spiral stages are themselves in a hierarchy of their own so its natural to view a stage red society as inferior, but a mistake nonetheless. Other cultures shouldn't be interfered in by imposing cultural ideas from their own cultural stage. That robs them of their growth process, and what is imposed will try to be disposed of in rebellion. Lower stage societies view the struggles the West is going through and deduce that they are better than them, which entrenches further to their own stage. Maybe once the West comes out the other side of its current growth process and looks to a lot more solid they can then contemplate its merits and be incentivised to develop towards it. These two videos show the psychology and perspective of how more traditional conservative societies view themselves as superior - in this case particularly from an Islamic lens. What multiculturalism has done it seems is clashed different perspectives, values and stages of growth towards each other in a pressure cooker. Each questioning the others validity, assumptions and way of life which brings about the current confusion, cognitive dissonance and identity crisis. Out of this friction evolution could bring us to our supreme identity which integrates them all together, but thats a lengthy and tumultuous process. Quotes on multiculturalism from Ken Wilber ''Multiculturalism is a noble, logocentric, and rational endeavor that simply misidentifies its own stance and claims to be not rational because some of the things it tolerates are not rational. But its own tolerance is rational through and through, and rightly so. Rationality is the only structure that will tolerate structures other than itself.'' ''The "multicultural movement," which claims a universal tolerance of all cultures freed from the "logocentric, rational-centric, Eurocentric" dominance and hegemony, is a step in the right direction, with all good intentions, but ends up being self-contradictory and finally hypocritical. It may claim to be "not rationalcentric," but in fact cultural tolerance is secured only by rationality as universal pluralism, by a capacity to mentally put yourself into the other person's shoes and then decide to honor or at least tolerate that viewpoint even if you don't agree with it. You, operating from the pluralism of rational worldspace, might decide to tolerate the ideas of a mythic-believer; the problem is, they will not tolerate you – and, in fact, historically they would burn your tolerant tail at the stake in order to save your soul (whether your saviors be Christian, Marxist, Muslim,or Shinto).''

The natural power imbalance man has over woman is not earned by him or his will, nature and evolution earned it. Virtue isn't found in power that has been given by nature but their use of that power by their own will. The existence of power asymmetry isn't immoral or oppressive but it becomes so in how mans spirit makes it so. The extreme versions of the feminist movement reflexively overcompensate in political power for what they lack in physical power against men. Physical power is a natural state of biology whilst political power is a nurtured state of affairs. Men didn't intend on this power asymmetry for its a natural occurrence and shouldn't be vilified as a gender for what nature has given, but they should be held accountable in their misuse of that power. A lot of the structure of traditional societies are made on the framework of these power imbalances, a framework nature gave. Its not that mens position as providers or protectors have a inherent divine value to them making them superior to women as much as it is a natural state that has functional value and places each gender in their most efficient roles for them to survive as a species.

True, ww3 is an over exaggeration but more like a worldly war that will have worldly implications that ripple out. If Iran get involved and oils prices inflate pushing energy markets skyward, that’s more inflation and all the economic chaos that ensues. Or Palestinians fleeing into Egypt and destabilising Egypt exacerbating the migration crises in Europe.

I read somewhere that Hamas are underground and that the IDF are well aware of that. Thus, bombing buildings isn’t effective in eliminating them and only killing innocents - yet they still go ahead. Palestinians were told to leave but then the only way out was bombed also. They are backed into the corner, what else can they do. This is only traumatising and radicalising the next wave of fighters to come in a vicious cycle as Leo has mentioned. Marginalisation leads to radicalisation. In a ground invasion of Gaza the IDF will struggle. Urban warfare is messy and advantages the home turf fighters over the invaders. The highest casualties and bloodiest fights happened in Bakhmut, Marioupol for example and likewise the US never succeeded in Afghanistan also - fighting a people who are motivated and have nothing left to lose. Bibi can’t be seen to be weak as his main image has been Mr.Strong and especially not after being humiliated by the breach of their secure border by Hamas who are much less weaker. The trouble is, their will be many Palestinian casualties that increase the pressure from other nations to condemn Israel further isolating it, and urge Hezbollah to get involved meaning their in for a two front war. That potentiates Iran, Syria possibly Russia and Turkey. Then Israel’s allies the US and NATO come in essentially becoming WW3. It seems Hamas / Palestinians and Muslims are being labeled collectively as evil hate filled people by some in this thread whilst being blind to the atrocities of Western power or the state of Israel - vary your sources and don’t be duped by propaganda.

Its true that structures that are too rigid can bring about rebellion, but it's also true that structures that are too loose or even the lack of structure can bring about chaos. Those that reflexively go against all structure and wish to deconstruct the structures that failed them, make the mistake of Godifying freedom. And freedom for people who can't handle it are instead destroyed by it. Freedom requires the responsibility of the individual to structure himself rather than borrow the structural guard rails external to him. Those lacking the disciple of structure and equating freedom with licentiousness undo the glory they think freedom could have brought them. As the saying goes - discipline is freedom. We can't escape structure, even if we get rid of mental structure we are still beholden to a biological structure that if given in to and lived by alone will lead us to hedonistically destroy ourselves. It's easy to say religions are false and fictional, and this is true partially - but from a higher understanding we can approach them to see their value also. Fiction is an ordered art form that triumphs chaos, and that makes the order of a truth that is too chaotic for the logical mind. We could say everything is a fiction or 'maya', but that doesn't mean it has no functional value. The key is in not ascribing a divine value (Life and Love itself) to things that have functional value (Lifestyles/ways of life and lust). The function of lust for example is to pro-create, the value of love is to be one with creation itself.

@Breakingthewall Two kinds of fools, those who take religion literally and those who see no value in it. Pure religion acknowledges the shared essence of people at the level of depth, organised religion is a system to organise the differences of people at the surface. Pure religion eludes to life and the transcendental, organised religion eludes to a way of life and the trivial - people usually conflate the two. Culture and how to organise society isn't religious in the truest sense, its more structural than spiritual. Sometimes, structure can provide guard rails to the spiritual, other times it can hinder it. Organised religion done well would be seen for what it is - a tool for psycho spiritual evolution, a map to God realisation but not the territory of God itself. The map isn't the absolute, but just a path to the absolute. Essence seduces, establishment created around that essence enforces and corrupts the very essence they intend to transmit through their established structures and traditions.

Unless of course they aren't integrated and instead become ghettoised and entrenched even further in their belief systems as they echo chamber themselves into tribes. In their home country they have a sense of belonging, and with the internet can maybe dabble in alternative views and values, but in the West, they feel foreign, and can possibly double down instead on their heritage as to avoid the cognitive dissonance caused by a clash of values. In fact, some behave far more regressively conservatively than the people in their own heritage countries who behave more progressively in an attempt to emulate western values.

Interesting take on this.

Wahhabism is a particular strand of Islam that isn't effective in human flourishing, correct - neither are particular strands of any philosophy, religion or lifestyle. The strand of liberal progressivism that now occupies the West hasn't been effective either. An excerpt below remarking on the state of the West as it stands: ''Westerners are more mentally ill than they've ever been before and there exists a dearth of rationality in public discourse. Everything's hyper emotionalised and exaggerated, reactive + bereft of stoicism. Westerners are, quite simply, going nuts, because the natural order has been disrupted, and because the disruption of that order has taken the steady political and communal functioning of their families away from them, and the stability that provides. Combine that with Godlessness, and you have mass misery. There is no purpose, nor sense of connection to anything - just an endless hedonic treadmill of capital pursuit - an obsession with money. That's all that remains to fill the gaping void left by social breakdown. And so a high trust culture becomes a low trust culture, and the height of civilization becomes the global laughing stock. Loneliness is greater than ever despite connectivity being greater than ever - a dark and poetic irony. People are miserable, but they think is normal. And our governments try to export this to you. They try to break you like us, to destroy you in the way they destroyed their own people. And if your government tries to preserve your culture and defy their social edicts, they subject you to regime change to impose their ways. But the main regime that needs changing is the one that goes around trying to change everyone else's. The regime that broke its own people, then exports its dysfunction globally and labels it progress, when not doing as they say leads to punishment and lack of foreign investment. As a westerner, I would like to think the west is a force for good in the world - but I struggle to see it. I am not treasonous or self-loathing, I love our heritage, but I am observant. And the culture we are exporting is poisonous. Where we once civilized we simply now corrupt. The most ardent anti-westerners will of course deny we ever civilized anything at all. That the western man was always evil, never did any good for the world, and deserves the current doom befalling him - I don't believe that, but I appreciate why they might hold this sentiment. ''

Demeaning an entire religious group of 2 billion people because some of them incompetently perform their responsibilities and abuse their position to cause undue harm is foolish and short-sighted. Most muslim men are not monsters looking to cause harm and it's ignorantly offensive and unjust to characterise them as such. In Islam and in their patriarchal structure the conduct of wives, sisters and daughters is regulated by fathers, brothers, uncles and husbands - incidences of mistreatment from a man towards the women in his family or community is dealt with by other men. Men do not just exist to control, but to guide and protect. It's not as if every man she knows is conspiring to make her life hell. Such a notion is a ridiculous caricature of patriarchy.

No civilisation is good or bad in its entirety. But we can't leave out the golden age of Islam and their preservation of and writings of the greeks which some say sparked the 'Western' enlightenment and others say contributed to it. You are categorising almost 2 billion people as hateful and sterile people with no conscience or morals. ''Westerners are more mentally ill than they've ever been before and there exists a dearth of rationality in public discourse. Everything's hyper emotionalised and exaggerated, reactive + bereft of stoicism. Westerners are, quite simply, going nuts, because the natural order has been disrupted, and because the disruption of that order has taken the steady political and communal functioning of their families away from them, and the stability that provides. Combine that with Godlessness, and you have mass misery. There is no purpose, nor sense of connection to anything - just an endless hedonic treadmill of capital pursuit - an obsession with money. That's all that remains to fill the gaping void left by social breakdown. And so a high trust culture becomes a low trust culture, and the height of civilization becomes the global laughing stock. Loneliness is greater than ever despite connectivity being greater than ever - a dark and poetic irony. People are miserable, but they think is normal. And our governments try to export this to you. They try to break you like us, to destroy you in the way they destroyed their own people. And if your government tries to preserve your culture and defy their social edicts, they subject you to regime change to impose their ways. But the main regime that needs changing is the one that goes around trying to change everyone else's. The regime that broke its own people, then exports its dysfunction globally and labels it progress, when not doing as they say leads to punishment and lack of foreign investment. As a westerner, I would like to think the west is a force for good in the world - but I struggle to see it. I am not treasonous or self-loathing, I love our heritage, but I am observant. And the culture we are exporting is poisonous. Where we once civilized we simply now corrupt. The most ardent anti-westerners will of course deny we ever civilized anything at all. That the western man was always evil, never did any good for the world, and deserves the current doom befalling him - I don't believe that, but I appreciate why they might hold this sentiment. ''

The problem with religion isn’t that it attempts to reveal the absolute, but that it believes its interpretation of it is absolute. People will misrepresent and use religion to justify what reason can't. The problem with ideology and identity is that they can become rigid in their limitedness and fight against the unlimited outside of themselves. The problem with industry is that it unpersons the people who fuel it as 'consumers' and turns members of society into numbers and cogs in the machinations of industry whose apex value is profit. What we are seeing is an intersection of the shadow elements of religion, ideology, identity and industry.

Rollo couldn't answer what a high value man is, yet made a list of how to become one in the fastest way possible (which included getting a vasectomy to not get baby trapped and knock you off your grind to building an empire of millions). What is a high value man? A high value man is valuable in his totality, not just in one domain. He is a convergence of values. In terms of dating this would equate to fulfilling what women find valuable, and women, like men are multi dimensional (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual). The body has needs (survival and reproduction), psychology has wants (fulfilment and connection) ,and the spirit has a longing to realise its source (enlightenment). A man would satisfy these values by being healthy and strong (physical), intelligent and creative (mental), loving and playful (spiritual). The masculine principle is strength / a projecting energy of the sun, where as woman's is softness / a receptive energy of the moon. The above are just manifestations of strength. Would love your guys thoughts?

Great responses. Funny he couldn't define what a high value man is, as its more metaphysical. A high value man is one who has higher values of morality, not just high in values of the lower world of material, in arrested development. A high value man entails a convergence of values towards the apex of values, that integrates the lower ones - he becomes a sort of meta man. A man can be high in certain values, yet lack higher values - he is just high value in lower values, not high value per se. Material values are quantitative, moral values are qualitative, and a high value man is one of quality, not just a quantity of things.

''At first you thought Elon was backing out of the deal to buy Twitter, but he got the people who didn't want him controlling it begging him to to buy it anyway. Now you think Elon's jumped the shark by hiring this new WEF, pro vax, BLM supporting raging leftist as CEO. Man's playing 4D Chess and installing an ideological enemy as a puppet head. It's a prophylactic move. Think about it. Much harder for the US government or the left to delegitimise Twitter when it's public facing top executive is some radical leftist woman who spouts all the acceptable mainstream talking points. As long as she's just a hamstrung symbolic figurehead he damage controls behind the scenes - which I believe is his intention - all is well. So it's not over, and we're not done. Big man Elon is just playing games you don't understand. You don't get to be a billionaire without being shrewd - remember this lesson: if a genius does something that looks stupid to you, it's probably 4D chess. '' illimitable man

Reality is biologically / physically conservative yet mentally / spiritually liberal. The level of form / material has limits, is finite, conserved by form. The level of the formless / spiritual is limitless, infinite, liberal. Right is masculine,yang. Left is feminine,yin. To deny objective physical reality for the subjective metaphysical reality is where the far left get things wrong. They choose the fluid formless essence of God over the external form of God. Trying to impose the spiritual fluid realm onto the physical realm of fixity is the issue. Lost in translation of realms. Though the soul is boundless, we are bound in flesh. Though spirituality has subjectivity, we are still subject to the physical, for we are incarnate. The duality - awareness of it, articulation of it, understanding of it, and living with it is the art that we need.

From Illimitable man blog on the red pill and its inception '' First and foremost, the red pill is about giving males direction in order that they may fulfill their innate potential, in a culture which gives the male gender little to no guidance on actualising their sense of innate and biologically driven masculinity, where society has ignored male needs The Red Pill takes centre stage, a reaction to a societal problem, it attempts to give men of all ages the tools they need to introspect (take a look at themselves) and address their shortcomings in order to overcome them. No rites of passage, a common prevalence of absent fathers and a feminised gynocentric culture has essentially robbed fathers of agency over their children, with a lack of fatherly input into the raising of children in modern western feminist societies men are becoming increasingly lost. These are the same feminist controlled societies which shame masculine norms and values left, right and centre and resultantly has left a lot of teenage boys, young men, fathers and divorced men feeling disillusioned because society simply just does not care about their existence, their growth or their needs. They feel invisible because society focuses purely on the needs of the feminine and ignores masculinity outside of a negative context. When broken homes and single parent families are the norm there’s a lot of children out there growing up without the direction they need to succeed in life. Young girls are hurt by the feminist destruction of the family unit too, however The Red Pill’s main focal point is the male perspective of the fallout that institutionalised radical feminism has created and what we, young boys, young men and older men can do in the paradigm our ancestors left us by successfully adapting to it. ''

Chris Wiliamson isn't 'red pill' per se but discusses dating dynamics and is writing a book called Mating Crisis. Very balanced guy. The below is from Illimitable man blog. ''To fully live all the aspects of red pill philosophy in your life, you’d have to be incredibly immoral. Immoral to a degree that the vast majority of people are incapable of becoming without severely damaging themselves. Be that their mental health, physical health (drug usage) or both. To be amoral is to be psychopathic, because amorality is neutrality, it is factual, it is absent human emotion. Human action and intent is not amoral, only strategy/knowledge itself is. Do you see the disconnect there? If humans are emotional and amorality focuses on the realm devoid of emotion, then amorality is quite simply not a realm you operate in. The world is not a fair place. Sometimes unvirtuous behaviour is a question of simple survival, but this needs no glorification. If it’s necessary, and you’re not simply indulging yourself, so be it. There’s a difference between stealing to eat, and stealing because “well, who’s gonna stop me?” Men who get the game, but choose not to steal other people’s girls or scam people out of money in manipulative sales pitches aren’t blue pillers; they simply have stronger moral principles than you do. Maybe they can afford to have those principles and live well, and you can’t. Maybe they enjoy being altruistic more than they enjoy being sadistic, and for you phenomenon is inverted; it is what it is. Red pill philosophy is here to show you how the game works, not to tell you how to live your life. We give advice when asked, sure, but you live the way that suits you best; you own your choices. The red pill philosophy is amoral in the sense that it says “it is what it is.”: Hypergamy? It is what it is. Branch swinging to the next best thing? It is what it is. Alpha fucks, beta bucks? It is what it is. Women have innate value whilst men don’t? It is what it is. You can’t change these things, you can build a culture designed to subvert these things, but they’re not going anywhere. The reason the modern west is falling apart socially is because we don’t subjugate these things like we used to. Peel back all the bullshit, and you see women, as well as a lot of men who utilise red pill philosophy, are immoral creatures. I don’t intend that to be a value judgement, but without getting into some nuanced philosophical/metaphysical argument and redefining what good and bad are (people always try to whore up my time with this nonsense,) we all know what good and bad is innately. I’m not going to debate you on technicalities to help you justify the virtue of what is otherwise deemed morally reprehensible.''