Emerald

@kieranperez Awesome!

Oops! I misunderstood what the link was for. I'll check it out later at some point.

Thank you for the link. I am really interested in the topic of sustainability.

Not only this... the field deaths are so high BECAUSE raising animals for slaughter is so prevalent. We could cut down on over 1/2 of grain agriculture (7/10 of the top crops in America are grains) if we didn't grow it for animals to eat so that we can eat them. Also, cows, pigs, and chickens aren't really being fed the right diets with all that grain. So even if there were remaining cows, pigs, and chickens due to not slaughtering, they would be fed their natural diets because there's no impetus to grow livestock cheaply and quickly like grains do.

Exactly. I agree with you about the unfortunate nature of field deaths. So, why continue advocating for the slaughter of animals (even more than usual if everyone did the diet you're doing), when the majority of field crops are growth to feed those animals for slaughter? If you want to cut back on agriculture (and that's your genuine agenda... which it isn't. You don't care about that AT ALL) then you should be Vegan too and/or advocating for Veganism. But you aren't. You're just using field deaths as a way to discredit Veganism so that you can push your own dietary agenda... despite the fact that the 'field deaths' argument runs counter to your dietary agenda. There are 300 million people in America. There are 160 million cows and pigs raised for slaughter in America. There are also like a billion chickens that are raised for slaughter in America. And they all consume copious amounts of grain... far more than the 300 million people consume. Most U.S. agriculture is done for the purpose of feeding animals who will be slaughtered for meat and raised for milk and eggs. So, even if human beings replaced their animal product consumption with plant consumption, there would still be significantly fewer crops needed if Veganism were simply the way of things... thus cutting down on field deaths as well.

He doesn't care about that. His mind is made up already, and his heart is closed to this issue. He prioritizes (supposed) optimization of his own health over all animal lives and well-being... and he does so consciously because he thinks that's a good thing, unlike most people who do so unconsciously just because it's a folkway and the reality is uncomfortable to face. And it doesn't matter if you show him that his original argument that "Veganism is a scam" because of field deaths actually works in favor of Veganism... he's going to keep on believing it and trying to find things that already confirm or seem to confirm his pre-existing ideology around an all-meat diet. Just look at our exchange earlier on in the thread. So, he's not the type of the type of person you can even get through to. He's all closed up around his ideology. But it doesn't matter anyway in this regard. Animal welfare is a long-range goal. It won't be solved completely in our lifetime. It will require a growing number of Vegans, Vegetarians, etc. to create a demand for cheaply produced lab-grown meat. And as soon as that becomes cheaper to produce than raising an actual animal for slaughter, you'll start actually seeing huge progress made on this issue. And animal product consumers who genuinely care about animals will also stop needing to repress the unpleasant emotions that come along with engaging in an everyday activity for them that's harms the animals that they actually do care about. This double think creates a lot of repression and unconsciousness. Until then, it will be just 1% to 5% of the population who create the demand for that technology to be produced in the first place.

Hi all! Does anyone here with experience and success with driving traffic to a site, have any suggestions for building backlinks? I have been dabbling in it a bit recently, by finding blogs with that relate to my channel's niche and commenting on them. Then I fill out the Name/URL option, so that when people click on my name it links to my channel. That said, I've seen a lot of other methods in my research, and I'm not sure which are the best ones to focus on and which ones won't yield that much or are just unadvisable. So, if there is anyone who has recommendations, I would definitely appreciate it. @Leo Gura I don't know if you'd want to share your method for creating backlinks or point me to some reputable resources since our niche is similar. But if you did, that would be awesome.

All the more reason to go Vegan and take a small chip out of the Grain Cartels' profits.

That's true. I normally title my videos to pop up at the top of search results but not really use clickbait to entice people to click. And I do okay with this. Perhaps I should start doing more of this attention grabbing titling since I already have quite a few subs, and try to get the ones I already have to watch my videos more as I release them. I have 16k subs and I normally get between 1500 and 2500 views after the video is a month or so out from its release, with about 60% of the views coming from my subscribers. But I was more-so inquiring with Leo about backlinks because he was talking about them in his first video he ever released. He was talking about them in relation to his old business and how successful it became because of backlinks. So I just figured that's what he did to get so many views on his videos with Actualized.org as well... in fact I'm pretty sure it is.

Having an ethic of hard work is a double edged sword when it comes to the enlightenment seeking process. Ideally, you'd have enough work ethic and tenacity to actually do the inner work. But you'd also have enough ability to let go of work ethic and tenacity once they become a hinderance. I think that most enlightened people know this, and see the fact that having a strong work ethic can actually work against the ability to experience ego transcendence.

If we have an excess of grain, then the solution is for farmers to stop planting as much grain... which they would already do if it weren't profitable for them to plant more due to the high demand for cheap animal food. It doesn't make sense to say that we should raise more animals to eat that grain to be slaughtered. The reason why we're planting so much grain is not an accident. It's because grain is in high demand for feeding humans, the animals we eat, and sometimes for fuel and other things like that. So, I don't really think that this particular issue is very complicated like you said. It seems quite simple. Unless of course, there's some angle that I'm not considering. It seems like cutting down on breeding animals for slaughter would also cut down on the need for so much grain to be produced and harvested, thus eliminating a large portion of field deaths as well as the deaths that come from the slaughter of animals in the factory farming industry. I really don't see a downside to Veganism here. Now, off course, society is not ready yet to give up animal agriculture because lab-grown meat (dairy and eggs as well) is not widespread yet. But Vegans, Vegetarians, Reducitarains, Pescatarians, Flexatarians, and others that are cutting back meat and dairy consumption are creating a growing demand for such innovations and taking small chips out of the profits of the meat and dairy industry.

That might be true if most agriculture wasn't done for sole the purpose of feeding the animals we eat... 7.3 billion animals is a lot of mouths to feed, especially when 160 million of them are cows and pigs. That's half the U.S. population, but cows and pigs eat WAY more crops than we could ever dream of eating. Not to mention the chickens and other farm animals that are slaughtered that are also fed crops. So, either way you slice it, Veganism cuts down significantly on the suffering of animals... not only because of not slaughtering them... but because we could cut back on agriculture that might harm animals in the process.

There's a whole niche of writers whom many are either now passed or very old, who focus specifically on Jungian psychology and the rise of the Divine Feminine. Most of them were involved in 2nd wave Feminism and became successful in "the man's world", but then found that there was something still off. And they came to realize that it was not just women who had been oppressed for many millennia, but the Feminine Principle itself and the Divine Feminine had been repressed from collective consciousness. My favorite is Jean Raffa. I also like Maureen Murdoch, Jean Shinoda Bolen, June Singer, Robert Johnson, John Sanford, and Monica Wikman. I've also heard that Marion Woodman's work is wonderful as well as Merlin Stone... I've only read snippets from their work though.

I'm glad it was helpful. It can be difficult to find the way out of the whole SJW maze. It's really a place of becoming aware of issues and surface level solutions. But it can be difficult to look deeper at the forces that create those issues in the first place, because most of society firmly believes in the Materialist paradigm. So, the average person is likely to see focus toward feminine/masculine energies as being Woo Woo nonsense that has very little to do with social problems and only functions as a red herring to distract from the problems of society. Unfortunately, this is where the solutions can be found which are quite counter-intuitive and often bear little resemblance to the problem... just like a germ bears very little resemblance to an illness.

Unfortunately, Fascism and pedophilia will always be a threat in some way because humans will always be humans. The darkness will always be there somewhat. So, no matter what, there would always be some degree of pedophillia, rape, murder, corruption, etc. So too, there will always be the potential of society being manipulated by Fascists. This is why it would be unwise to muddy the water by disconnecting Fascism from its historical roots by referring to it as something totally different... it is not different and it never will be. The results of Fascism are ALWAYS predictable. So, this potential is still there. And society is very confused right now, so it is ripe for manipulations by Fascists. This is why we don't need ANY more nuance because we're already drowning in enough nuance that we've lost sight of some really obvious and simple things. In fact, the game plan they're using to try to gain more of a foothold in society is to make Fascism seem more normal by divorcing it from its history and creating confusion around what their intentions are. So, a Neo-Nazi or White Nationalist might say something like, "Why are you calling me a Nazi? Clearly the Nazi party disbanded in the 1940s. Instead I'm a Race Realist and Identitarian who believes that white people should have their own ethnostate/homeland... as should all peoples. And this should be achieved through relocation and PEACEFUL removal." So, any obfuscating or muddying of the waters simply makes it much easier for those in those extremist groups to have influence on ordinary people that would otherwise never consider being on the same side as Neo-Nazis and KKK members. Now, it is evident to me that human society is developing rapidly in terms of consciousness. This means that the ails of the world in the future will probably be less pronounced and rare, at a certain point in human development. But the destructive drive will always be there. And the potential for darkness will always be there. There are no utopias. So, it's best not to always reach for "top-shelf" spiritual truths when discussing matters of a practical nature. Sometimes, it is wisest to use the most basic of practical truths. And wisdom comes when you can tell which paradigm is appropriate to use in a given situation.

Let's try your idea and replace "Nazism" with "Pedophilia" and see if you still think it's a good idea. 'I believe the label should be dropped as you progress up the spiral. Like you could say Pedophilia on the lower levels is about sexually abusing children. And then as you move up, it's about sexual exchange for two people... and then you could theorise that on higher levels it's about sexual exchange for two people and for all people equally. But at some point you to have to drop the term Pedophile because it bears no resemblance to what is actually going on in the way it is manifested in reality.' Personally, I think this is the PERFECT way to make Fascism distance itself from the horrors of humanity's past. So, it can be rebranded as something totally different that seems more permissible. So, the label "Nazi" stays, because it makes it clear to everyone that it's a bad thing that should be avoided. Nice try though.

Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that it won't. He's the type of person that can worm their way out of anything. Plus, even if Trump were impeached, he would still have a lot of influence over the masses. There would be many people who would interpret his impeachment as a sign of the corrupt government kicking him out of office because of politically correct Leftists and marginalized groups having so much influence in the political sphere. So, it would potentially even encourage more polarization. And more people would become more sympathetic to the extremes of the right wing. So, this would be a difficult thing to navigate if he did wind up being impeached. It's not like the problems would go away. Pandora's box has already been opened, and none of that ugly stuff is going back in the box. It can't be swept underneath the rug. The only way out of this problem is through it. And that entails collective awareness really examining the contents of what comes out of that box and understanding more about the core emotions that are not being addressed that Trump and his rhetoric are meeting for people (albeit in a really harmful way).

This is true. But it is also probably not backed up by you actually abiding in a state of consciousness where this functions as more than just an empty belief. It's one thing to say these things and a totally different thing to abide in the state where this is the way of things. It is easy to default to 'top-shelf' spiritual insights (turned beliefs) and use the truth to lie to one's self and bypass a situation... or perhaps to secretly feel a little superior to those who aren't so 'detached' and 'wise' as you are. But if it were something that effected you negatively or that you were averse to, there would be no talk about "floating clouds" and "blades of grass" used to justify it. What if there was a candidate who was elected that was making efforts to undermine the first amendment... I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be all "corruption is in every human being" about it. You'd want to speak out against them and stop it, would you not? It's only because Trump's rhetoric doesn't effect you negatively that you can be all "blades of grass" about it.

I didn't make the post, nor would I. I'm responding to the post, so it is relevant. It certainly relates to consciousness. It is also relevant because there is a lot of spiritual bypassing that goes on where there are many people trying to think their way to non-duality and decide that matters of a practical nature are to be bypassed based on insights that they've come to adopt as a belief. So, I disagree firmly with the idea that matters of a practical nature are unrelated to consciousness work. The fact of the matter is that this political situation we're in is a huge tell about the collective Shadow of humanity, and there are a lot of things to be learned from the situation that we are all facing. And if we hope to re-integrate our personal Shadows and our collective Shadow, we need to start looking at all the ins and outs of this political situation and the effects that it's having on ourselves and society at large. But I think that most would rather bypass the situation because it's uncomfortable and because "it's irrelevant to consciousness work." But this is just a repression by another name.

That's just not a wise decision to make. I am normally one to go with the flow of things as long as no one gets hurt. And truly, I'm not demonizing Trump and saying that he deserves to suffer or is inherently evil or anything like that. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. He is corrupt. He is having a negative effect on society and making it less healthy. These things are true. And the truth should be stated and restated. So, when I see something harmful that will effect many people, I find it is wise to stand against it. And so I do. I will not spiritually bypass a potentially negative situations by saying, "There is no self" "All is one" and all those non-dual higher truths. This does nothing to increase consciousness. It actually decreases consciousness because it bypasses the emotional reality of living in the dualistic world. I will not pretend to live at a level I'm not at yet, and to assume that those who are "enlightened" are politically disengaged and will just allow terrible things to come to fruition. I'm sure they would not. And even enlightened people like That Nich Hanh, did quite a lot of political activism. So, to think that spiritual seekers and enlightened folk are disengaged from social concerns in simply not true. Sometimes, higher truths like "All is one" and "There is no self" are the most helpful perspectives that can be provided. But other times, more practical truths are more appropriate like "If a lion is chasing you, run away." and "There is corruption happening in society, so try to fix it." It's a matter of being wise enough to choose which paradigm to function from, and not simply defaulting to those "top-shelf" spiritual truths and bypassing the phenomenal world. As it is said, "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water."

Trump's rhetoric has normalized a lot of anti-immigrant sentiments and racist sentiments especially. I have people that I've know my entire life VERY intimately who had no signs of racism, now be so casual with their racism that it's disturbing how a person could go through such a radical change simply because their candidate was elected. And the change happened directly after he won the election. With regard to one person in particular, I don't think she would be saying these things if he had lost. But Trump's rhetoric doesn't effect men as a group because he rhetoric isn't anti-male. Trump's rhetoric doesn't effect people born in America as a group because his rhetoric isn't anti-U.S. nationals. Trump's rhetoric doesn't effect heterosexual people as a whole group because his rhetoric isn't anti-heterosexual. Trump's rhetoric doesn't effect white people as a group because his rhetoric isn't anti-white. So, there may be men who are negatively effected by his rhetoric, but they aren't negatively effected because they're men. Or there may be white people who are negatively effected by his rhetoric, but they aren't negatively effected because they're white. I just don't understand how you can believe that particular groups of people may be effected differently based on what a politician does. There are plenty of examples in history books (and the news) of this happening. For example, cutting funding for breast cancer screenings for people who are too poor to afford them, would effect mostly women and poor people. While men and rich people would be largely unaffected by such a political move. So, the decisions a politician makes, including the type of rhetoric they use, has and ACTUAL effect on people's lives. And it effects different groups of people differently. And some groups have it worse than others.

I understand, AND Trump is a master manipulator. He ran as an anti-establishment candidate with a populist message about improving the status quo, bringing back jobs, improving the economy, and draining the swamp. So, people wanted to believe it so much that they easily ignored or explained away any of the problems. Trump is excellent at appealing to people and making them want to be on his side. His confidence, charisma, and APPEARANCE of "telling it like it is", establishes rapport with many people. It also helped that he was running against a very unpopular candidate who was no stranger to dabbling in corruption. So, it was easy for him to leverage public opinion in his favor, because he could always frame his opponent as the "status quo" (which is actually true) and market himself out as a catalyst for change. But what you'll find (and have found) is that it's all just been lies. He's marketed himself to every one of his voters. And there's a significant portion of his voters that are SOOO identified with him, that they take personal offense when he is criticized and jump to his defense. And it's all because they so deeply want to believe... and to admit that they've been tricked at this point in the game would be embarrassing because they are so heavily identified. He promised to bring back jobs, but outsourced 93,000 jobs in his first year alone... I think Obama's worst year was somewhere in the 80,000s if memory serves, and Obama was awful about it. He also promised to pull out of NAFTA, which he didn't do. That was one of the only platforms that I liked that he proposed. And even though the unemployment rate has decreased slightly, wages in general have decreased by quite a large margin. And then there's lie after lie after lie, to where people get lost and swept up and can't tell the difference between truth and lies anymore, because of he way his propaganda works. So, I actually sympathize in some ways with people who voted for Trump because I can see how someone would resonate with his campaign promises, especially when the other candidate had no substantial change to propose and just marketed herself as "potential first woman president" with no clear platform. That said, whenever someone says that the status quo has remained the same and that Trump and his politics doesn't effect everyday life for people, then I know that person is not yet aware of the way social patterns have changed or intensified since Trump took office.

If you're not effected by Trump, then you are lucky... not on some higher ground. There are people in this country who are deeply affected by his presidency. It puts me on edge because my husband is an immigrant. He is a permanent legal resident, but with all the anti-immigrant sentiments being stirred up, there are even policies floating around that would make it impossible to get full citizenship if he wanted to. So, if you say that Trump being president has no effect on your life, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have effects on other people's lives. It probably just means that you are probably a white heterosexual man who was born in America. But there is great value in re-stating what's true, when truth itself is under attack.

It's already happening. And it has nothing to do with censorship. In fact, it's quite the opposite. As our demons rise to the surface to be seen, the average open-minded person will recognize patterns that they did not before see. So, there is actually a huge expansion in consciousness relative to this whole Trump thing. Most don't really talk about it because of the push-back they'll get from Trump supporters. But most now realize how much of an issue these things are and much influence our political leaders have on the state of our society. And the world doesn't need everyone to be on board with this expansion of consciousness for that forward momentum to continue. We just need the biggest influencers to set the tone for heightened consciousness social patterns, laws, and beliefs. And those who don't make the jump in consciousness will have to navigate taboos around their lower consciousness beliefs which will discourage them from spreading them to others. Then, this generation will die and the younger generations will be indoctrinated into higher consciousness ways of thinking, and we'll lose lower consciousness beliefs to the sands of time just as it has happened in all of human history. But occasionally, when necessary, those taboo lower consciousness beliefs will rise to the surface and create extreme discomfort. Then, society will have to go through this cycle again, which is very distressing but certainly a catalyst for heightened awareness.

The posts I've been making on this thread don't follow that pattern too much. I think, with regard to this issue, speaking the truth bluntly with little nuance and no sugar coating is important... mostly because nuance is being weaponized to trick people more. So, I'm being very blunt without regard to where anyone is since it's a public post and these things need to be said. That said, generally speaking, it's best to meet someone where they are and to empathize with where they are. So, if I were trying to help a specific person and not just dig my heels in with regard to speaking what's true, I would certainly be more nuanced with my approach and focus less toward the solid truth of the matter and more toward what brings people to resonate with non-truth and how it involves a vulnerability that all human beings share.