You always provide so much to think about. (As caveat to below comments, I'm just waking up this morning and feeling a bit groggy.)
I wondered reading this, if you had asked your youtube viewer to read your book, take notes, suggest where she would do things differently, write them down, and get back to you, if that would have opened up another possibility? She'd likely have discovered that her convictions about the feminine being 'obliterated' by the masculine was undeveloped in terms of what to do about it. And that you had put more time and thought into it.
"My only dogma: I am no better than anyone else. People are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame." Good dogma. :-)
Recognizing the equal underlying value of life - the same for all humans - doesn't seem like dogma to me - it's more like a recognition of reality. Though I appreciate its use here as the personal application of an (impersonal) underlying truth and how that helps advance methodical thinking. (I tend to associate dogma with external religious authorities so I wouldn't necessarily use the term myself.)
I notice a growing resistance in me to intellectual minutia. Naturally I'm curious about that. New phase in my life? New laziness that's crept in? (I don't think so honestly.) Something else?
I intuit (best word I have) that as we move forward humanity will re-access a way of being in the world that comes with a direct-connect in terms of what we 'know' and that will put us collectively on a different playing field. New bandwidth you could say. So I think a lot of what we struggle with on the current field we inherited, becomes moot.
Not that thinking through won't be needed, but that it won't be elevated above this more immediate access. So a tool we pick up as needed, to smooth out and add detail. Something like that.
What's been fragmented in us - and the world - is reintegrating and allowing for deeper remembrance about how this all works. A collective sorting the mess out becomes less about striving and more about aligning to the frequencies behind it all. (If this is true, no idea how long it takes. But I think we're in the process right now)
Meantime it's good to be as clear as we can be about where our values lie, especially given psyops world. You're so good at that - honing in on those parts of us we've left ambiguous.
Quick example on the new playing field analogy (not sure I'm making much sense) the parsing out of our aspects as physical, emotional, mental and spiritual beings and how we address them (even when noting their interconnectedness) becomes less emphasized because they work together more fluidly as one thing. So maybe I wouldn't have a spiritual practice (striving to include that part) it would just be fully part of my sense of a self. No efforting involved. My experience simply includes it as a knowing - same for other aspects.
I imagine it's how we're actually designed and we are returning to that more cohesive state as beings of love, embodied here.
Genuinely funny that Malone uses an 'asshole' rule to ban people. (Under that rule, he should have banned himself years ago.)
Apologies if I rambled. Need another cuppa. Thanks, Tereza.
Kathleen! You tempted me into second coffee (monday is the new sunday for those of us without jobs). And having saved my response for further mulling, I get to address you and Nef together in our light triad ;-)
I'm glad you're keeping me fair to the commenter. It's a rare thing to find a woman interested in AND knowledgable about economics, and wanting a new system designed by and for women. In her original YT comment wanting a direct contact, I directed her to Substack where we have a community that's having long conversations. That seemed like less of an imposition than asking her to read my book, and I'm glad she did.
Others have used old episodes as a way of having more exclusive conversations, rather than posting on the active thread. As a YTber, I figured that she watches more than reads and five related episodes would be an easy access to my ideas. It was her immediate response that "I already have all the knowledge and I'm ready to act" that made me laugh. Really? I'd never say that. I'd be happy to have the "our banks or no banks" discussion in my threads, and have before. But she wanted to take the discussion into a small group she controlled. No thanks.
On dogma, we tend to use it generically for anything we disagree with that OTHER people refuse to question. So it doesn't get into the content and the ideas. It's really just an insult. But I think it's only the unexamined dogma--beliefs you refuse to raise to question--that are dangerous. By owning my dogma, I'm entitled to ask others to own theirs. It's not an insult, just an examination of beliefs.
The equal value of human life isn't actually what I'm saying. That's often used for why we need to take responsibility for everyone else (not how you're using it, I know). By using 'no better' rather than 'no more valuable than', I'm talking about moral equality. Other people are as capable of taking responsibility for themselves and each other. I don't need to.
I would NEVER call you lazy but I think I do for you what my dance teacher does for me. We all tend to favor our strongest muscle groups. If we're strong, we especially like using them, it feels good. But once in awhile, someone comes along who cajoles and bullies us into doing side planks.
Your intuition is a strong muscle for you. I love that about you! You express it so beautifully and bring it out in me, with such a complete resonance. The analysis, figuring out which of those fine internal muscles do what, isn't as rewarding. It's pretty tedious--I hate side planks. But they're muscles that atrophy if not used.
In our other discussion, with some of the kindest and most perceptive women I know, the vast majority believes in the existence of evil, going by its secular name of ponerology or psychopathy. The Bible isn't really about believing in God, it's about believing in evil. And those who reject the idea of God still internalize the belief in evil, and therefore their own moral superiority. Raising that dogma to question, as I did in response to Claire below, is part of breaking the Re-Legion psyops, I think.
And I'm happy you're giving me the opportunity to use an analogy I thought of this morning. I think we are already on our journey, steadily returning to that more cohesive state, talking as we're walking together. When we come to new realizations, time pleats beneath our feet. We cover centuries of ground in a single step. Your beautiful post talked about feeling impatient to get to that next place. Me too.
Re "I already have all the knowledge and I'm ready to act..." I laughed at that line when I read it too. (And hey if I ever say anything remotely in that neighborhood please give me a good - however distant - slap would you?)
So agree, everything should be 'up' for questioning.
On going with our strongest muscles - sure, I've done a lot of that. Never been good at numbers and never cared to get good at numbers. I definitely take your point however that's not what I was referring to.
I used to love jumping into the minutia - whether it was art history or religious studies or philosophy - in other words subjects I was strong in - that's changed.
There's no juice there, no drive. Appreciation still, but excitement for comparing texts or finding similar themes between, say, Emerson and Nietzsche (did a paper on that) that's dried up. (At least now, and IDK maybe this is a needed detour of sorts and that becomes interesting again later.)
Meanwhile, stillness in Nature, for instance, has moved from something nice so let me carve out time to do that, to being far more compelling, interesting and definitely more satisfying in my whole being.
Nature is flowing with information (if that's the right word) that comes in differently. A deeper kind of listening is involved (doesn't require ears) which is absolutely fascinating. It's like the biological set up between earth and human bodies - for communication - which has always been there, but we weren't accessing - were disconnected from this basic hook-up (via the slave-system technology/ frequencies) is increasingly accessible again.
It's like returning to the most basic thing but it's all new. Or something like that.
Re:
"I think we are already on our journey, steadily returning to that more cohesive state, talking as we're walking together. When we come to new realizations, time pleats beneath our feet. We cover centuries of ground in a single step."
Oooh, you do you, Kathleen, and while you're at it, do me too ;-) I love the idea of bringing walks in nature into my life.
I think you've become a gestalt gal, perceiving the big picture, rather than lining up similar shaped puzzle pieces and methodically trying them in. I see what you mean now, and I'm happy for that.
"My experience simply includes it as a "knowing" - same for other aspects." Kathleen, that's a primary aspect of "Being." If Being can be considered an action word to describe what consciousness is doing in the physical world, then "Knowledge can be it's proper noun.
About the term: "Dogma," this has been one of those terms to describe the intellectual behavior of "Following" in a Re-Legion. All Roman Sentries used to follow the lead Centurion of their Legion. Thus the programing for the mind became "Belief," and was placed as an opposite to Inner Inquiry. Later in Hole-ly Roman Catholic colonized Europe, those who continued to practice the "Old Ways" which included Self Inner Inquiry to find Truth, were hunted down and labeled as "Heretics."
Heretic Etymology: ---- Middle English: from Old French heretique, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek hairetikos ‘able to choose’ (in ecclesiastical Greek, ‘heretical’), from haireomai ‘choose’. So, if someone can "Choose" for themselves, that's a direct confrontation to the Potentates who "Ruled by Fear" in those days.
You wrote: "I intuit (best word I have) that as we move forward humanity will re-access a way of being in the world that comes with a direct-connect in terms of what we 'know' and that will put us collectively on a different playing field. New bandwidth you could say. So I think a lot of what we struggle with on the current field we inherited, becomes moot."
Yes, you are spot on! There is an underlying inner transformation that is happening spiritually, especially to the Sense Mind; it's complicated to explain it but your word "Intuit" after Intuition is very accurate. This is a natural ability to See things in wholes without dividing them. Intellect always breaks things down into parts, in order to analyze experienced reality. This will continue to be ever more apparent as Inner Self becomes ever more awake within each person.
Thanks Nefahotap, for so clearly expanding on my intuitive sense.
And never knew the etymology of heretical - perfect.
"This is a natural ability to See things in wholes without dividing them. Intellect always breaks things down into parts, in order to analyze experienced reality. This will continue to be ever more apparent as Inner Self becomes ever more awake within each person."
Thank for that - so fully agree here. Appreciate the comment very much.
I save your posts to read later, because I know I will have to stop and think about them. I've worked in mostly female and mostly male environments and I would say they definitely think differently. What I noticed in the mostly male environments was the ease with which males could turn into raging lunatics and even throw things (chairs) and no one batted an eye. I remember thinking if I had done that I would have been labeled the B word. Definitely double standards.
What an honor, Heather, that you give me that quality of your attention. It inspires me to be especially careful with my words and make sure I mean what I say. And I appreciate your first hand experience in the different tolerance of actions from men vs. women. That means a lot, that I'm not just imagining it.
nice essay and, as usual, lots to digest. i could comment on much and will keep it (relatively) short as i'm writing my next essay with its deadline speeding towards me. (it continues from my last essay and starts with your comment to it.)
anyway, as to listener's 'where have all the women gone' comment, your inclusion that the men have also disappeared was right on point. the social structures of the last long while, the last few hundred years at least, has been a steady infantilisation of the human, male and female, and so that we have neither 'men' or 'women' significantly present. (including 'toxin's and unhealthy food practices in the foods and medicines to reduce testosterone in both sexes!) (and as i mentioned before, the original 'fairy' tales, such little read riding hood, were brutal and children were treated as miniature adults looking to experience life in its totality and not to be particularly molly-coddled into false ideas about the totality of life as a nice experience filled with chantilly cream clouds, white knights and swooning and compliant damsels in distress. was that 'great'? maybe not. although much better, i suspect, than the current batch of 'for your own good' ideologies that are exposing children to graphic sex and the hypocritical need for sexual dysphoria and mutilation.)
as to the invisibility of 'women'. i think jasun horsley makes a cogent argument in his latest book 'Big Mother: The Technological Body of Evil https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/135688883-big-mother that the invisibility of the 's-mothering' is because it has become ubiquitous, like the water to fish, and so invisible. few see 'take the jab to save your grandmother' as a rather effective and pernicious form of the devouring 'i'm doing this for your own good' mothering.
as to your point to one of the significant differences between men and women. and now i'll be highly inappropriate. back before 'for-your-own-good' cancel culture was still the somewhat less fanged 'political correctness' preliminary-woke movement i would point to a popular ad at the time that showed a small collection of male friends 'jumping' on the one who had worn an inappropriate shirt (i think it was) that was so 'uncool' that they threw him out of the van. only to welcome him back an hour later and all laugh and jest on their way to a bar, i think. everyone was laughing and no hard feelings were expressed. i would say that that re-integration of the disenfranchised man is one distinguishing characteristic between man and woman — perhaps only to child-like adults of both sexes(?) — because that ad with all women would not be made because it wouldn't be believed by either sex.
that men-centric ad would be banned today because it was all men, with no caricatured trans and mostly white! at the time i boldly suggested that that kind of 'bad' behaviour is far far less likely with women, for whom such harsh play was often for keeps and one-way. at the time in a nice synchronicity, when i followed the the writing of susie orbach who wrote the interesting and important book 'fat is a feminist issue', https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/468872.Fat_Is_a_Feminist_Issue to her her co-authored book called "Between Women: Love, Envy and Competition in Women's Friendships" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3066282-between-women with Luise Eichenbaum. the title obscures the deeper psychological question, which is why it is that female structures organised to compete with/in/against the patriarchy do not survive — because of internal discord, not because of the so-called patriarchy beating them down. an interesting read. mind it is from so long ago now i'm curious to see how well the arguments would hold up.
and that was indeed my experience in my life as it progressed that began with having been born into a family with 3 sisters and an absent father, no brothers. when i was in my 30s i worked as a technician that had within my purview a woman-dominated purchasing office. in those three years i had women disclose some pretty shocking woman abusing woman stories. later i worked for many years as an engineer in a male dominated engineering department. i had more than one of the women tell me that they had deliberately rejected working in woman dominated offices because they were 'absolutely horrible' — yes, quotation. i'm not saying that that *has to be* or that it is truly ubiquitous, just that in three disparate aspects of my life i've seen it embodied.
i think your ultimate point about that is, 'where are the adults?', ie autonomous beings who have the fortitude to step forward boldly into the unknown, to be wrong, share their wrongness, argue deeply and dispassionately in a mutually agreed effort with others to optimise the tangible expression of compassion by actions that ameliorate suffering and division.
i recently read a richard feynman quote from the '80s(!) that describes our time of false-polite discourse in a general way, although it refers specifically to 'science-tm' (scientilsm). (i included it in my last essay). "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts… The experts who are leading you may be wrong… I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television — words, books, and so on — are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science." and, of course, much beyond science now, that disagreement has been highjacked to be neutered playground niceness to others (s-motherly) as if disagreement is a hurtful crime to be vaccinated out of human experience. hmmmm.
I was thinking of you, Guy, when I read the Breggins' recent article on Kinsey: https://gingerbreggin.substack.com/p/alfred-kinsey-redefining-agony-as. It confirmed what you were saying in a very poignant and heartbreaking way. Very clearly an agenda. I didn't know if you read them but I was sure you'd be interested in this.
I will look forward (she says with trepidation ;-) to your next article with my comments. I do value our long-form dialogue.
The playlist on 'Where Are the Women?' is mine, but also my sense that we've lost true masculinity with it. When I started it, I was looking to highlight women who were speaking on geo-political, philosophical, economic or socio-spiritual issues from a perspective as mothers. But it ended up only highlighting the lack thereof. I'm not sure I found one.
When I was in HR, we had a stereotype of the secretary-turned-supervisor, more vicious than any man, especially to women. "I gave up my family and personal life to serve this company, I don't care if your baby's sick!" Women executives were notorious for out-machoing the men in how many workers they could lay off without batting a mascara'd eye.
I would say that these are patriarchs in skirts, women competing in a man's world. It's certainly not a sign that we live in a mother's world, or a world that mothers would design. Just because our love is being used against us, like in the 'take the jab for grandma' ruse, doesn't mean the answer is to not love. Grandmas didn't ask for that, I remember reading several who made that point. It was some WEF thinktank who came up with that and tested it on marketing groups. Whether they were male or female, those manipulators were acting to have power over others.
You, your sisters and Jasun all had mothers who abused their power over you in horrific ways. When you see manipulative power being used in horrific ways socially, you define it as ubiquitous s-mothering. I would bet dollars-to-donuts (funny phrase that, eh?) that those schemes were not cooked up by mothers.
I had to wrack my brain for where I'd heard the name Susie Orbach before. Although I haven't found the exact reference, I think it was on ContraPoints talking about feminists tearing each other down. Competition for superiority and power over others is what I define as toxic masculinity. Manipulation through weakness and sacrifice I think is the female corollary. Both destructive, both things that can be done by either sex, just more predominant by one.
oh! as i was dancing on my break from writing this thought came up. you astutely wrote: "You, your sisters and Jasun all had mothers who abused their power over you in horrific ways. When you see manipulative power being used in horrific ways socially, you define it as ubiquitous s-mothering."
the question that came up is: is the nearly so-self obvious unquestionable ubiquity of malevolent patriarchy a measure of the success society has had in traumatising both sexes? and that leads to the question: would people having been raised in balanced homes have a more balanced view and see both the malevolent andro-archal and gyne-archal power structures as 'comfortably' co-existing?
(i'm not sure that your argument about our seeing malevolent matriarchy ubiquitously as being *only* a result of the emasculating efeminating energies of a devouring mater. that i will digest to see what comes up.)
and i don't think you need have too much (any?) trepidation in my essay's inclusion of a small part of your comment. it allowed a perfect idea de-tour feed into my discussion.
I was collecting clothes off the line during the reflection break, which doesn't sound as fun as dancing, much as I love my clothesline (and have written an ode to it.)
I don't know if I have all the details of it, so forgive me if I get some wrong. From what I gather, 'Terry' who occupied the place of your mother was someone who used her own sexuality and manipulation along with the sexuality of her children in order to gain status and security from men. Is that right? Right or wrong, she didn't feel that being a mother alone gave her either status or security.
From this, you conclude that the problem is too much status is being given to mothering and the feminine. We are being 'over-mothered,' mothered to death, s-mothered.
I don't think I was ever mothered either, fwiw. I think we're an unmothered generation in an unmothered culture. My mother was more passively absent where yours was all too dominant. But I can't name a single aspect of society in which mothers as mothers have a role--not schools, not health, not psychology. Certainly not governance or religion or economics.
"From this, you conclude that the problem is too much status is being given to mothering and the feminine. We are being 'over-mothered,' mothered to death, s-mothered."
nope. not at all. what i'm was suggesting is that the long extant hurtful practices against motherhood have created a huge 'mother' shadow within the society — men and women — and the society is expressing that shadow as destructive caring and security. the success of the convid guilt 'if you care' is an example of that. only one.
i think that the absence of mother as a *balanced expression* is oddly balanced by the complete absence of father as *balanced expression*. the obvious success in a so-called 'toxic' patriarchal system is effectively enabled by an equally 'toxic' matriarchy. very much like the ability of unbalanced men and women to stay with mutually destructive relationships because their shadows are deriving benefit from the hurt.
to that i think jasun's argument is sharp: that the success of the transhumanist movement, to whatever extent it is successful, is largely due to the desire of the many to be safe and having found our natural 'mothers' to have been unsafe are looking to unnatural processes of safety.
"But I can't name a single aspect of society in which mothers as mothers have a role--not schools, not health, not psychology. Certainly not governance or religion or economics." this has asked me to really wonder and i don't have a clear idea of what to say about it except a preliminary question, which I think may become another essay in the future. I'm reminded of william blake's caution: 'one law for the lion and the ox is supression'. now i don't know what the answer is to the question i'm asking: is the base core nature of being a healthy mother a distinct activity that doesn't lend itself well to the social structures you have delineated? for example, the argument that the so-called masculine energies that go out and build and create are inappropriate within the family if unaccompanied by tempering appropriately for the unique circumstance of raising a child and loving a wife.
i haven't thought about this enough, and my current essay is still calling at me to finish it. i have added your thoughts into my 'ideas to explore' list that is growing faster than i'm able to keep up. i look forward to your argument to help clarify my own tentative thoughts about this.
thank you for the great comment, again, asking me to think over the course of more than a day. muchas gracias, otra vez. all the best with what is.
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, Guy, over the course of more than a day ;-)
You explained that well and cleared up my confusion. We agree, I think, that it's the absence of actual mothering that makes us so susceptible to the Big Mother of technology.
Within my economic system, all people have multiple ways of making a living equal to the cost of housing by making and building and creating goods and services within the community. Rather than looking at it as one family, where you take care of grandparents and raise kids in order to inherit the house, it expands it where all houses are earned by caring for the people and places that have been entrusted to us--in our chosen home, no matter where that is.
Without a doubt, men want to build. It seems the most elemental healthy drive of what I'm terming tonic masculinity. As William says, "Real men have skills." That's been taken away from men and made into a pricy hobby. And the easy companionship of working with other men building things and taking care of things they've built. That always serves the larger family by being constructive, literally. To me, that's being a father whether or not there are individual kids. It's not generally possible in today's economy.
exactly. yes. and that absence makes it easier for the looking for mothering-comfort to come from the non-human because the human sphere has failed in a way that is easily manipulated. i used to think this breaking off from the 'real' world was kind of an accident of misplaced philosophical delusion. now i'm inclined to think that most who are doing it don't know what they are doing, and they are being guided to their actions by people and energies that do know what they are doing. fascinating to see those changes happening in my awareness, with those observations held as at best tentative place-holders as more holes disclose what type and colour of rabbits are extant within.
the schismosis is in multiple layers within our psyches and with/between the actual tonic masculine-feminine and matriarchal and patriarchal interactions/expressions. one the interesting observations i had, over the years, was that it seemed to me that the french woman had somehow maintained much more of the feminine power than had gringo women. i think that the french woman lost much of the value of matriarchy, though, at the same time. an interesting apparent dichotomy that might be another tuxedoed rabbit. and the french intellectual men mostly got lost in ideas disconnected from life as we can see in their 'official' art, literature, psychology and philosophy. and that has become a bit more interesting to me now that i've been in in mexico for a couple of years. the women, i'm told, can be treated with a great deal of disrespect by the men — from their outsides. at the same time they in general, and this is my feeling and subject to correction, have a huge sense of power and importance as the matriarch. it shows in their movements and bearing, especially when they are with children from infancy up until juveniles. the contrast in energy and bearing is incredible. and, at the same time, the men are still much closer to the creation of things and walk with a energy about that too. is it utopia? lol! of course not. there is an aa meeting house not far from my place, for example. and yet... there is a level of calmness that comes in no small part from the unstated acceptance that there are energies of masculine and feminine that are not stereotypically required to be something that it isn't. there is a real freedom to be not present in gringo america. my energy healer, a women in her forties, and i talk about this as we are working to remove the twisted and hurt and hurting 'feminine' energies of my mother, her mother and my ex out of the cells, dna and mind-unconscious. (mostly gone my body and her hands say — now ancestral and cultural 'blocks' as they have manifested in inflexibility and some discomfort in my shoulders and hands-wrists mostly.) it has been a fascinating process.
hola tereza. thank you for the link to the breggins. i dip into them from time-to-time, although not all that often. so many great people here! i'll take a look at this article.
(an old betting phrase, dollars-to-donuts — of course, for pharma's alliance with that junk food producers' jab incentive, that became "donuts-to-dollars".)
'if not cooked up by mothers' then you're inferring that they were cooked up by fathers. and that could well be a form of false dichotomous choice. what about a tertium quid: a set of stockholm syndrome survivors of the elohim, comprised of both genders? lol! if cliff's assessment of the roots of judaism as being developed as a means of surviving the (brutalising) alien overlords, aka elohim, is correct, that might be the third paradigm. lol! the possibility of discovery is endless and wait, did you see it, yet another anxious tuxedoed rabbit lost in time. and were the celts there to help people recover from that brutalisation? hmmmm. so many questions.
thank you for the detailed look into my argument and providing a good counter argument. great ideas to digest.
I learned to feel while saving all suffering animals I encountered. Or trying to…
I taught myself to ride a unicycle really really well. That opened a vast realm of doors.
I learned by accident that I could connect energetically with an audience even though I had to be within quick reach of a bathroom before every single performance.
I was that college student who tried to have a one-on-one conversations with every professor, much to his/her eventual chagrin. I did my best to engage other students but they were almost all checked out zombies.
I dropped out of pre-med after three years and went to Clown College. Unicycling and performance skills got me hired and I lived on the dingy roach-infested circus train for three months until I realized just how not funny elephant trainers whacking elephants on their knees with a bullstick is. And how not funny caged Tigers are.
I resigned. I moved out of the circus train, and rode my motorcycle for thousands of miles. This was a very good thing to do.
I studied and performed classical theater for over a decade until I realized that very few audiences were worthy of my sacrifices.
Intermittently, along the way I took post graduate level classes in Despair. These were initiations into greater capacity for compassion both for myself and others.
I worked as a job coach for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities for 15 years. Covid insanity shut that door hard.
I spent two years and well over 2000 hours studying the multitude of psychological, sociological, economic, scientific etc. aspects of the global psychological and physical assault. I became disgusted with humanity.
At the bottom of that shit pile I was required to let go. Required to understand that no amount of research and logical presentation could change the mind of a single person captured by the fear narrative. Nothing left to do but love them as best I could anyway.
This is an ongoing process. At best I will master this unconditional love incompletely. So I’m just another human doing the best I can, finding other humans doing the best they can.
Thank you, Cormorant, for that candid and heartfelt history. From circus unicyclist to Che Guevara motorcycle journey to classical theatrix to despair initiation rites to rituals of normality coach to now. What would you name that story, if it were a book?
I love your definition of unconditional love as letting go, and seeing yourself and others as doing the best they can. It fits with my sense of it too. It's not an active thing, like trying to change their minds would be. It's more of a trust fall.
It's nice having that more complete outline of you, and how the Cormorant came to be.
I watched (listened to) this at 4am last night after having drunk coffee in the afternoon, something I do maybe 2-3 a year these daze. But remembered just now that I wanted to comment. ✨
Ha, I'm glad I could keep you company in those wee hours. When I'd take regular coffee instead of decaf after dinner, a friend used to say that was a sign of a clear conscience. Now I can't do either ...
I really appreciate this piece. However, I have to say I don't believe all people are inherently good. I firmly believe that there is such a thing as psychopathy. I don't think they can help it, I think they are born that way, but they are not suitable to mix with empaths because of their complete lack of conscience. It is actually physical. Their brains are underdeveloped in some areas.
We absolutely need a society where they cannot gain the upper hand over others. They are why heirarchies don't work. I think educating children, and indeed all of society, on how to spot them is essential.
Hello Claire. What you're saying is an important step in owning your dogma. A belief is something you choose in advance of experience, and then find evidence to support. It's the same for any belief. Mine in the inherent goodness of people is similarly a belief that I choose, something I'm not willing to raise to question. It's good to know what those are and important for any discussion to disclose them.
If I look at the implications of your dogma on my four paradigm shifts, it changes things to the need for judgment and hierarchy. We need governments of 'better people' making the rules and enforcing them, otherwise those psychopaths will be in charge. We can't allow them to raise their own children, someone needs to protect those children against them.
And then there are the spiritual implications. Since they were born this way, either there is no God (purpose) or God is cruel and capricious. The psychopaths are victims of their own minds, that were created defective. We either need to put them in prisons where we assign people to guard them--or maybe robots since people could be corrupted by them--or kill them out of mercy.
And if some people are born morally inferior, it's only logical that some are born morally superior, just like the Bible says. So those people should be in charge of everyone else. It's more than a slippery slope, it's like that 20' mudslide my son-in-law couldn't traverse in the last episode. Who gets to decide who gets across?
On the other hand, if you take away the ability for ANYONE to have power over anyone else, you don't have to judge other people. They no longer have the ability to do harm. That seems much simpler to me. I appreciate you giving me the chance to make this argument, it's one that almost everyone but me believes, so thanks for sticking your neck out! ;-)
Thanks for responding Tereza. I do agree with a lot of what you say and it is a conundrum. I think I touched on the need for no heirarchies as a way of thwarting them in their quest for control. And I do accept that they can't help being the way they are. The fact that they exist really does make you question a lot of things and I agree I don't have the right to make decisions for them. I just owe it to myself and my family to make sure they can spot these toxic, incurable people and know to walk away from them without a backward glance. To give them no time or energy. As you can tell, I speak from experience.
Excellent points, Claire. I'm so glad you responded, I was speaking on the philosophical level and didn't want you to think it was personal. I completely agree that boundaries are essential! There's a woman, I'm forgetting her name, who speaks on forgiveness as seeing that other people are doing the best they can. She states that, when women in abusive relationships recognized this, they were more likely to leave. They recognized that this person will never change. It wasn't a choice, they were stuck responding the way they did as long as the other person allowed it. Not allowing it is key, and that's what I focus on in my economic system.
i'm with you on this too, tereza. i wrestled with this for a long while, flip-flopping as time progressed. with recent awareness and processes, i no longer think psychopathy is something we are born with. it is a structured creation begun deliberately, imo, to create and expand schismosis and with that the facilitation of obedience to authority in the various ways we've seen over time a few of which came to light with the convid.
although that doesn't address the problem(?) of the non-humans being born into the mix, those who look human but are not!
I'll be looking at that last sentence in the next episode, responding some to Jasun's interview of Rurik that you sent me to. I wish I'd taken more notes, though, it was fascinating. I may need to listen again: https://childrenofjob.substack.com/p/jobcast-18-a-trajectory-of-elite.
one of my friend deep researchers is absolutely convinced of the non-human human in our mix, and sends me from time-to-time evidence of it. at this time all i can say is ... well, it could well be. i am not able to dismiss it without that dismissal being an act of faith to the old paradigm. and so... yikes, yet another giant tuxedoed rabbit to follow where it leads. (and of course cliff high is certain of non-human existence, citing the cone-heads within the false-jew ashkenazi like the rothschild's. hmmmm.)
So, Guy, do you think 'psychopaths' are actually non humans? Interesting perspective. Are they physically born to other non humans (because they ARE born to people who appear human). How do you explain that their parents don't appear to have the same 'mind condition'? Do you think that non humans are more spirit than physical, and just inhabit human bodies?
All interesting ideas ....
At this stage in the game, nothing would surprise me.
hola claire. sorry for the slow reply. what do i *think*. at this point i honestly don't know what i think. however, with my muscle testing 'ps-rap' (psyche-somatic resonance awareness) tells me that no human psychopaths are born — they are made.
that same process, when asked, says that non-humans are present and hiding in our population, and that the rockefellers are the way cliff high describes them.
my bil and sister are absolutely convinced of the existence of entities because of direct experience with them to a degree i've not experienced. now, looking around, there is absolutely no logical refuse to suggest that they don't or can't exist. and i've experienced enough and with my muscle testing process am convinced of their existence.
i have no idea what to do with that information! perhaps i've entered into high's hyper-novelty 'state' and allow *all* possibilities to sit comfortably on this huge and seemingly infinitely growing mass of 'i don't know anything except that my degree of ignorance is expanding factorially.'
so, psychopathy may have a characteristic in common with the convid injections: different ingredients, different levels of toxicity, and different qualities of manufacture!
which takes us to what i've coined 'appropriate eccentric action' for each and every moment and encounter. our minds will not be able to handle this, it is way way to small. time to really exercise and practice full 100% trust fall into the intuitive-bodily truth of the body in this moment: it is the only part of our existence that is actually truly in this moment - mind certainly isn't - and it knows how to response appropriately when unimpaired by fear and hope.
so. ... we are in interesting time! all the best with what is! (whatever it is and however that is is changing. )
I am with you here Tereza, taking away their ability to do harm is THE most import way to Nullify their ENTIRE system they have constructed for centuries. A big KEY is realization within first, then whatever happens in the material world reflects the Liberty of the Inner Self.
Another aspect of taking up the prescient position on the field is to carefully study exactly who the psychopaths are that we must stand against. That may not involve much more than simply being able to see what's coming, then simply stepping aside, while their big boulder comes rolling down the hill past us, missing everyone. ;-)
I came to comment on the Tree of Judgment section. Take a look at this comment thread on Gregg Reese's Stack. Alternate views get Demonized. Gate Keepers (of info / Controlled Ops) Always result to ATTACKING with insults, not the ideas.
That thread reminds me why I'm glad I'm not famous--something I was just thinking. In addition to attracting the insults, it doesn't allow the continuity to develop the ideas together.
Reese is protecting his market, though he dipped into using slurs; I was surprised.
I've been sidetracked by life stuff, but Back to reading your book. I must finish it soon. It is extremely dense with info, and makes me realized how much financial shenanigans I missed last 25/30 years. End of Chapter 7, Page 90 really sums it all up. But I need to do the entire work justice and read it when I can really focus through it all. Thank you for writing it.
As a caveat, DPL is a bit rough around the edges. I think many peeps are frustrated with the level/layers of deception and want others to wake up and see the lies, like now. My take.
I outlined the video Sat morning as a somewhat reactionary rant, and recorded it that evening, not sure if I really liked it. Then yesterday, on a rainy Sunday, I savored the process of writing it, trying to clean up my points and logic. As I started incorporating (taking into my body of thought) your images, it became softer and funnier. And in the end, it felt like something kind of magnificent, the way you can only describe something that doesn't entirely come from you.
Along with Decoy, I have a crazy artist friend who also sent me an email to figure out your secrets. Reading the prompt you posted here, it really is poetry in motion. Visual motion.
Now you've got me curious about where we disagreed. Do you not put slabs of butter on your bread like Kathleen and I? There's such a vast lake of goodwill we're walking on, I'm torn between not wanting to risk it and wanting to get our first disagreement over with!
I look forward to the next roll out but I still have several earmarked for my next episode. They were such a bizarre juxtaposition when I first saw them, and then I learned something that put them together in ancient teachings. Since I believe we're writing history backwards, I'm certain you brought that ancient knowledge into being.
Thank you again, my multi-talented, mellifluous friend!
This is hilarious. I WOKE UP thinking, maybe I'm wrong about Russell Brand.
The minute I plunked down $50 to support him on Locals, after the YT ouster, I stopped wanting to listen to him. But then, I have a superstition about that. As a kid, when I used to dust the pianos in exchange for use of the practice rooms, I practiced diligently. The minute my parents bought a piano they couldn't afford, I stopped wanting to play. Getting a gym membership is the kiss of death.
So I've also stopped listening to Greenwald, Taibbi and Corbett, and will probably let those expire. But I stopped listening to Russell maybe two years ago, when I started doing Substack and not being dependent on his YT to try to poach an audience.
Here are the little things I don't have time for: "You won't f*king believe this!" titles. Really? 2-hr daily livecasts, dragging out everything he has to say. COMMERCIALS. Am I going to pay for membership only to hear his huckster pitch for sponsors?
But on the deeper level, is he still bound by that 33 tattoo on his wrist? Everyone he interviews lately is another witting or unwitting psyops agent, imo--Tucker, etc. Maybe he's just falling for it, being part of the same celebrity cult. Or maybe it goes further. If he was still part of the Illuminati agenda, I can't imagine that he'd divorce Katy Perry. They were the King and Queen.
90% of my listening was to his books and Luminary podcast, both the interviews and guided meditations, which I thought were brilliant at the beginning. Very slow and deep. But even those started getting distracted, like there was somewhere else he needed to be. And the long-form conversations are gone.
Most of what I loved is that he agreed with me in two key areas when no one else did: the need for small scale self-governance and the belief that all people are good. When he was humbled and fallen from Hollywood-grace, I think these were genuine. Maybe he was like that boyfriend who gets you from one phase of your life to another. I wouldn't be doing what I am now without him, his audience whose poached members are still with me, and even the personal encouragement to put my book on Amazon. But he's not who I can learn the most from right now.
Thanks for such a great 'first argument'! I think it bodes well. Will you go steady with me? ps and thanks for those snakes! I'll edit one in, pronto.
Your wish is Amy's command! As the interlocutor of the AI genie, her 'stack goes into great detail on how she words her prompts. And I think it's a form of visual poetry she's created. Fortunately for us all, this genie gives unlimited wishes! https://bttrain.substack.com/.
Mine are all taken from her last three compilations, which I've not yet fully mined (not in the unearthing sense but the taking personal possession sense ;-)
I love this, ANWW! Deconstructing is an excellent word and concept. In my book How to Dismantle an Empire, I think of it as removing the mantle or robe of authority from the system. De-constructing is a big part of that, what we can all do with the stories. We can't change the systems but we can all remove their authority over our minds and take apart the stories that have tricked us into re-cognizing their authority.
It's so refreshing to have someone call out that flimsy cover that women are represented in the Bible. It's my theory that every time a woman is named, she represents a territory. Like slaves, individual women are beneath mention. I have a draft of an episode called Harlots & Concubines on some of those stories.
And yes! The origin story of innocence. I think it's a Kate Bush song that has that line, and it brings tears to my eyes every time--we were all born innocent. And if we're born that way, what could change it? Our decisions since birth have all been from circumstance, if we start with the equal capacity to choose good. Why would we blame another for that rather than work to give everyone better choices?
I'm going to really enjoy your comments on the next episode, that deconstructs the Bible. "We are god, we are avatars of the universal spirit." Beautifully said. I think that greed is just a form of fear, fear that we're not enough to be loved on our own. Fear, guilt and blame are the unholy (unwhole) trinity. Thank you for your comment!
A friend described himself as "kind but not nice" and I've adopted that. Your statements about origin stories of innocence and being avatars of God are very kind and generous perceptions of others. Thinking that you 'could' love better and have more compassion is a contradiction to the origins of innocence story. You are exactly who you were born to be, the exact person the world needs in it. Compassion is overrated, imo. Suffering with other people doesn't make them suffer less, it just adds more suffering to the world. Your job is not to affix blame or helplessness on other people, and think you need to either judge them or fix them. And that goes for judging yourself too!
100% with you; "Seek not Outside for what you already have Within." Christians really don't like this message. Sometimes the process of "Deconstructing" the Re Legion, lets you Re Member yourself back to wholeness. This is important.
You always provide so much to think about. (As caveat to below comments, I'm just waking up this morning and feeling a bit groggy.)
I wondered reading this, if you had asked your youtube viewer to read your book, take notes, suggest where she would do things differently, write them down, and get back to you, if that would have opened up another possibility? She'd likely have discovered that her convictions about the feminine being 'obliterated' by the masculine was undeveloped in terms of what to do about it. And that you had put more time and thought into it.
"My only dogma: I am no better than anyone else. People are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame." Good dogma. :-)
Recognizing the equal underlying value of life - the same for all humans - doesn't seem like dogma to me - it's more like a recognition of reality. Though I appreciate its use here as the personal application of an (impersonal) underlying truth and how that helps advance methodical thinking. (I tend to associate dogma with external religious authorities so I wouldn't necessarily use the term myself.)
I notice a growing resistance in me to intellectual minutia. Naturally I'm curious about that. New phase in my life? New laziness that's crept in? (I don't think so honestly.) Something else?
I intuit (best word I have) that as we move forward humanity will re-access a way of being in the world that comes with a direct-connect in terms of what we 'know' and that will put us collectively on a different playing field. New bandwidth you could say. So I think a lot of what we struggle with on the current field we inherited, becomes moot.
Not that thinking through won't be needed, but that it won't be elevated above this more immediate access. So a tool we pick up as needed, to smooth out and add detail. Something like that.
What's been fragmented in us - and the world - is reintegrating and allowing for deeper remembrance about how this all works. A collective sorting the mess out becomes less about striving and more about aligning to the frequencies behind it all. (If this is true, no idea how long it takes. But I think we're in the process right now)
Meantime it's good to be as clear as we can be about where our values lie, especially given psyops world. You're so good at that - honing in on those parts of us we've left ambiguous.
Quick example on the new playing field analogy (not sure I'm making much sense) the parsing out of our aspects as physical, emotional, mental and spiritual beings and how we address them (even when noting their interconnectedness) becomes less emphasized because they work together more fluidly as one thing. So maybe I wouldn't have a spiritual practice (striving to include that part) it would just be fully part of my sense of a self. No efforting involved. My experience simply includes it as a knowing - same for other aspects.
I imagine it's how we're actually designed and we are returning to that more cohesive state as beings of love, embodied here.
Genuinely funny that Malone uses an 'asshole' rule to ban people. (Under that rule, he should have banned himself years ago.)
Apologies if I rambled. Need another cuppa. Thanks, Tereza.
Kathleen! You tempted me into second coffee (monday is the new sunday for those of us without jobs). And having saved my response for further mulling, I get to address you and Nef together in our light triad ;-)
I'm glad you're keeping me fair to the commenter. It's a rare thing to find a woman interested in AND knowledgable about economics, and wanting a new system designed by and for women. In her original YT comment wanting a direct contact, I directed her to Substack where we have a community that's having long conversations. That seemed like less of an imposition than asking her to read my book, and I'm glad she did.
Others have used old episodes as a way of having more exclusive conversations, rather than posting on the active thread. As a YTber, I figured that she watches more than reads and five related episodes would be an easy access to my ideas. It was her immediate response that "I already have all the knowledge and I'm ready to act" that made me laugh. Really? I'd never say that. I'd be happy to have the "our banks or no banks" discussion in my threads, and have before. But she wanted to take the discussion into a small group she controlled. No thanks.
On dogma, we tend to use it generically for anything we disagree with that OTHER people refuse to question. So it doesn't get into the content and the ideas. It's really just an insult. But I think it's only the unexamined dogma--beliefs you refuse to raise to question--that are dangerous. By owning my dogma, I'm entitled to ask others to own theirs. It's not an insult, just an examination of beliefs.
The equal value of human life isn't actually what I'm saying. That's often used for why we need to take responsibility for everyone else (not how you're using it, I know). By using 'no better' rather than 'no more valuable than', I'm talking about moral equality. Other people are as capable of taking responsibility for themselves and each other. I don't need to.
I would NEVER call you lazy but I think I do for you what my dance teacher does for me. We all tend to favor our strongest muscle groups. If we're strong, we especially like using them, it feels good. But once in awhile, someone comes along who cajoles and bullies us into doing side planks.
Your intuition is a strong muscle for you. I love that about you! You express it so beautifully and bring it out in me, with such a complete resonance. The analysis, figuring out which of those fine internal muscles do what, isn't as rewarding. It's pretty tedious--I hate side planks. But they're muscles that atrophy if not used.
In our other discussion, with some of the kindest and most perceptive women I know, the vast majority believes in the existence of evil, going by its secular name of ponerology or psychopathy. The Bible isn't really about believing in God, it's about believing in evil. And those who reject the idea of God still internalize the belief in evil, and therefore their own moral superiority. Raising that dogma to question, as I did in response to Claire below, is part of breaking the Re-Legion psyops, I think.
And I'm happy you're giving me the opportunity to use an analogy I thought of this morning. I think we are already on our journey, steadily returning to that more cohesive state, talking as we're walking together. When we come to new realizations, time pleats beneath our feet. We cover centuries of ground in a single step. Your beautiful post talked about feeling impatient to get to that next place. Me too.
Re "I already have all the knowledge and I'm ready to act..." I laughed at that line when I read it too. (And hey if I ever say anything remotely in that neighborhood please give me a good - however distant - slap would you?)
So agree, everything should be 'up' for questioning.
On going with our strongest muscles - sure, I've done a lot of that. Never been good at numbers and never cared to get good at numbers. I definitely take your point however that's not what I was referring to.
I used to love jumping into the minutia - whether it was art history or religious studies or philosophy - in other words subjects I was strong in - that's changed.
There's no juice there, no drive. Appreciation still, but excitement for comparing texts or finding similar themes between, say, Emerson and Nietzsche (did a paper on that) that's dried up. (At least now, and IDK maybe this is a needed detour of sorts and that becomes interesting again later.)
Meanwhile, stillness in Nature, for instance, has moved from something nice so let me carve out time to do that, to being far more compelling, interesting and definitely more satisfying in my whole being.
Nature is flowing with information (if that's the right word) that comes in differently. A deeper kind of listening is involved (doesn't require ears) which is absolutely fascinating. It's like the biological set up between earth and human bodies - for communication - which has always been there, but we weren't accessing - were disconnected from this basic hook-up (via the slave-system technology/ frequencies) is increasingly accessible again.
It's like returning to the most basic thing but it's all new. Or something like that.
Re:
"I think we are already on our journey, steadily returning to that more cohesive state, talking as we're walking together. When we come to new realizations, time pleats beneath our feet. We cover centuries of ground in a single step."
Beautifully said, completely agree.
Oooh, you do you, Kathleen, and while you're at it, do me too ;-) I love the idea of bringing walks in nature into my life.
I think you've become a gestalt gal, perceiving the big picture, rather than lining up similar shaped puzzle pieces and methodically trying them in. I see what you mean now, and I'm happy for that.
Your awesome observation:
"My experience simply includes it as a "knowing" - same for other aspects." Kathleen, that's a primary aspect of "Being." If Being can be considered an action word to describe what consciousness is doing in the physical world, then "Knowledge can be it's proper noun.
About the term: "Dogma," this has been one of those terms to describe the intellectual behavior of "Following" in a Re-Legion. All Roman Sentries used to follow the lead Centurion of their Legion. Thus the programing for the mind became "Belief," and was placed as an opposite to Inner Inquiry. Later in Hole-ly Roman Catholic colonized Europe, those who continued to practice the "Old Ways" which included Self Inner Inquiry to find Truth, were hunted down and labeled as "Heretics."
Heretic Etymology: ---- Middle English: from Old French heretique, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek hairetikos ‘able to choose’ (in ecclesiastical Greek, ‘heretical’), from haireomai ‘choose’. So, if someone can "Choose" for themselves, that's a direct confrontation to the Potentates who "Ruled by Fear" in those days.
You wrote: "I intuit (best word I have) that as we move forward humanity will re-access a way of being in the world that comes with a direct-connect in terms of what we 'know' and that will put us collectively on a different playing field. New bandwidth you could say. So I think a lot of what we struggle with on the current field we inherited, becomes moot."
Yes, you are spot on! There is an underlying inner transformation that is happening spiritually, especially to the Sense Mind; it's complicated to explain it but your word "Intuit" after Intuition is very accurate. This is a natural ability to See things in wholes without dividing them. Intellect always breaks things down into parts, in order to analyze experienced reality. This will continue to be ever more apparent as Inner Self becomes ever more awake within each person.
Love that you're including the definition of heretic! And orthodox, same as orthodonture, is forcing into a straight line.
One of these episodes I need to feature my friend John Mabry's sermon series, "Heretics, Mystics & Misfits."
Sounds like fun, I look forward to it. ;-)
Thanks Nefahotap, for so clearly expanding on my intuitive sense.
And never knew the etymology of heretical - perfect.
"This is a natural ability to See things in wholes without dividing them. Intellect always breaks things down into parts, in order to analyze experienced reality. This will continue to be ever more apparent as Inner Self becomes ever more awake within each person."
Thank for that - so fully agree here. Appreciate the comment very much.
Mmmmm!
Tereza, you are a deft dropper of large cognitive rocks into the collective well. Then your readers join in...
What to call the subsequent dynamic?
SubfractalFrothyCollectiveCogitation?
SapioOrgasmicShudders?
Whatever...
🤣
Much love, respect, and appreciation.
I love your ability to sexualize cognition, Cormorant. And given my last episode on you, I'm REALLY resisting making a joke about analysis ;-)
Oh please, don’t resist 😘
Well thank you Tereza for un-spelling these words
• Yodel-oh-ee-dee
• Diddly-odel-oh-ee-dee-yodel-oh-dee
And teaching me to yodel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LybSS4amIS0
Haha, I'd say they don't make men like that anymore but clearly they do in Japan!
I save your posts to read later, because I know I will have to stop and think about them. I've worked in mostly female and mostly male environments and I would say they definitely think differently. What I noticed in the mostly male environments was the ease with which males could turn into raging lunatics and even throw things (chairs) and no one batted an eye. I remember thinking if I had done that I would have been labeled the B word. Definitely double standards.
What an honor, Heather, that you give me that quality of your attention. It inspires me to be especially careful with my words and make sure I mean what I say. And I appreciate your first hand experience in the different tolerance of actions from men vs. women. That means a lot, that I'm not just imagining it.
I wrote my dissertation on double standards! However, at that time I had no conception of where the actual double standards reside.
hola, tereza.
nice essay and, as usual, lots to digest. i could comment on much and will keep it (relatively) short as i'm writing my next essay with its deadline speeding towards me. (it continues from my last essay and starts with your comment to it.)
anyway, as to listener's 'where have all the women gone' comment, your inclusion that the men have also disappeared was right on point. the social structures of the last long while, the last few hundred years at least, has been a steady infantilisation of the human, male and female, and so that we have neither 'men' or 'women' significantly present. (including 'toxin's and unhealthy food practices in the foods and medicines to reduce testosterone in both sexes!) (and as i mentioned before, the original 'fairy' tales, such little read riding hood, were brutal and children were treated as miniature adults looking to experience life in its totality and not to be particularly molly-coddled into false ideas about the totality of life as a nice experience filled with chantilly cream clouds, white knights and swooning and compliant damsels in distress. was that 'great'? maybe not. although much better, i suspect, than the current batch of 'for your own good' ideologies that are exposing children to graphic sex and the hypocritical need for sexual dysphoria and mutilation.)
as to the invisibility of 'women'. i think jasun horsley makes a cogent argument in his latest book 'Big Mother: The Technological Body of Evil https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/135688883-big-mother that the invisibility of the 's-mothering' is because it has become ubiquitous, like the water to fish, and so invisible. few see 'take the jab to save your grandmother' as a rather effective and pernicious form of the devouring 'i'm doing this for your own good' mothering.
as to your point to one of the significant differences between men and women. and now i'll be highly inappropriate. back before 'for-your-own-good' cancel culture was still the somewhat less fanged 'political correctness' preliminary-woke movement i would point to a popular ad at the time that showed a small collection of male friends 'jumping' on the one who had worn an inappropriate shirt (i think it was) that was so 'uncool' that they threw him out of the van. only to welcome him back an hour later and all laugh and jest on their way to a bar, i think. everyone was laughing and no hard feelings were expressed. i would say that that re-integration of the disenfranchised man is one distinguishing characteristic between man and woman — perhaps only to child-like adults of both sexes(?) — because that ad with all women would not be made because it wouldn't be believed by either sex.
that men-centric ad would be banned today because it was all men, with no caricatured trans and mostly white! at the time i boldly suggested that that kind of 'bad' behaviour is far far less likely with women, for whom such harsh play was often for keeps and one-way. at the time in a nice synchronicity, when i followed the the writing of susie orbach who wrote the interesting and important book 'fat is a feminist issue', https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/468872.Fat_Is_a_Feminist_Issue to her her co-authored book called "Between Women: Love, Envy and Competition in Women's Friendships" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3066282-between-women with Luise Eichenbaum. the title obscures the deeper psychological question, which is why it is that female structures organised to compete with/in/against the patriarchy do not survive — because of internal discord, not because of the so-called patriarchy beating them down. an interesting read. mind it is from so long ago now i'm curious to see how well the arguments would hold up.
and that was indeed my experience in my life as it progressed that began with having been born into a family with 3 sisters and an absent father, no brothers. when i was in my 30s i worked as a technician that had within my purview a woman-dominated purchasing office. in those three years i had women disclose some pretty shocking woman abusing woman stories. later i worked for many years as an engineer in a male dominated engineering department. i had more than one of the women tell me that they had deliberately rejected working in woman dominated offices because they were 'absolutely horrible' — yes, quotation. i'm not saying that that *has to be* or that it is truly ubiquitous, just that in three disparate aspects of my life i've seen it embodied.
i think your ultimate point about that is, 'where are the adults?', ie autonomous beings who have the fortitude to step forward boldly into the unknown, to be wrong, share their wrongness, argue deeply and dispassionately in a mutually agreed effort with others to optimise the tangible expression of compassion by actions that ameliorate suffering and division.
i recently read a richard feynman quote from the '80s(!) that describes our time of false-polite discourse in a general way, although it refers specifically to 'science-tm' (scientilsm). (i included it in my last essay). "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts… The experts who are leading you may be wrong… I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television — words, books, and so on — are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science." and, of course, much beyond science now, that disagreement has been highjacked to be neutered playground niceness to others (s-motherly) as if disagreement is a hurtful crime to be vaccinated out of human experience. hmmmm.
I was thinking of you, Guy, when I read the Breggins' recent article on Kinsey: https://gingerbreggin.substack.com/p/alfred-kinsey-redefining-agony-as. It confirmed what you were saying in a very poignant and heartbreaking way. Very clearly an agenda. I didn't know if you read them but I was sure you'd be interested in this.
I will look forward (she says with trepidation ;-) to your next article with my comments. I do value our long-form dialogue.
The playlist on 'Where Are the Women?' is mine, but also my sense that we've lost true masculinity with it. When I started it, I was looking to highlight women who were speaking on geo-political, philosophical, economic or socio-spiritual issues from a perspective as mothers. But it ended up only highlighting the lack thereof. I'm not sure I found one.
When I was in HR, we had a stereotype of the secretary-turned-supervisor, more vicious than any man, especially to women. "I gave up my family and personal life to serve this company, I don't care if your baby's sick!" Women executives were notorious for out-machoing the men in how many workers they could lay off without batting a mascara'd eye.
I would say that these are patriarchs in skirts, women competing in a man's world. It's certainly not a sign that we live in a mother's world, or a world that mothers would design. Just because our love is being used against us, like in the 'take the jab for grandma' ruse, doesn't mean the answer is to not love. Grandmas didn't ask for that, I remember reading several who made that point. It was some WEF thinktank who came up with that and tested it on marketing groups. Whether they were male or female, those manipulators were acting to have power over others.
You, your sisters and Jasun all had mothers who abused their power over you in horrific ways. When you see manipulative power being used in horrific ways socially, you define it as ubiquitous s-mothering. I would bet dollars-to-donuts (funny phrase that, eh?) that those schemes were not cooked up by mothers.
I had to wrack my brain for where I'd heard the name Susie Orbach before. Although I haven't found the exact reference, I think it was on ContraPoints talking about feminists tearing each other down. Competition for superiority and power over others is what I define as toxic masculinity. Manipulation through weakness and sacrifice I think is the female corollary. Both destructive, both things that can be done by either sex, just more predominant by one.
oh! as i was dancing on my break from writing this thought came up. you astutely wrote: "You, your sisters and Jasun all had mothers who abused their power over you in horrific ways. When you see manipulative power being used in horrific ways socially, you define it as ubiquitous s-mothering."
the question that came up is: is the nearly so-self obvious unquestionable ubiquity of malevolent patriarchy a measure of the success society has had in traumatising both sexes? and that leads to the question: would people having been raised in balanced homes have a more balanced view and see both the malevolent andro-archal and gyne-archal power structures as 'comfortably' co-existing?
(i'm not sure that your argument about our seeing malevolent matriarchy ubiquitously as being *only* a result of the emasculating efeminating energies of a devouring mater. that i will digest to see what comes up.)
and i don't think you need have too much (any?) trepidation in my essay's inclusion of a small part of your comment. it allowed a perfect idea de-tour feed into my discussion.
I was collecting clothes off the line during the reflection break, which doesn't sound as fun as dancing, much as I love my clothesline (and have written an ode to it.)
I don't know if I have all the details of it, so forgive me if I get some wrong. From what I gather, 'Terry' who occupied the place of your mother was someone who used her own sexuality and manipulation along with the sexuality of her children in order to gain status and security from men. Is that right? Right or wrong, she didn't feel that being a mother alone gave her either status or security.
From this, you conclude that the problem is too much status is being given to mothering and the feminine. We are being 'over-mothered,' mothered to death, s-mothered.
I don't think I was ever mothered either, fwiw. I think we're an unmothered generation in an unmothered culture. My mother was more passively absent where yours was all too dominant. But I can't name a single aspect of society in which mothers as mothers have a role--not schools, not health, not psychology. Certainly not governance or religion or economics.
hola, tereza.
"From this, you conclude that the problem is too much status is being given to mothering and the feminine. We are being 'over-mothered,' mothered to death, s-mothered."
nope. not at all. what i'm was suggesting is that the long extant hurtful practices against motherhood have created a huge 'mother' shadow within the society — men and women — and the society is expressing that shadow as destructive caring and security. the success of the convid guilt 'if you care' is an example of that. only one.
i think that the absence of mother as a *balanced expression* is oddly balanced by the complete absence of father as *balanced expression*. the obvious success in a so-called 'toxic' patriarchal system is effectively enabled by an equally 'toxic' matriarchy. very much like the ability of unbalanced men and women to stay with mutually destructive relationships because their shadows are deriving benefit from the hurt.
to that i think jasun's argument is sharp: that the success of the transhumanist movement, to whatever extent it is successful, is largely due to the desire of the many to be safe and having found our natural 'mothers' to have been unsafe are looking to unnatural processes of safety.
"But I can't name a single aspect of society in which mothers as mothers have a role--not schools, not health, not psychology. Certainly not governance or religion or economics." this has asked me to really wonder and i don't have a clear idea of what to say about it except a preliminary question, which I think may become another essay in the future. I'm reminded of william blake's caution: 'one law for the lion and the ox is supression'. now i don't know what the answer is to the question i'm asking: is the base core nature of being a healthy mother a distinct activity that doesn't lend itself well to the social structures you have delineated? for example, the argument that the so-called masculine energies that go out and build and create are inappropriate within the family if unaccompanied by tempering appropriately for the unique circumstance of raising a child and loving a wife.
i haven't thought about this enough, and my current essay is still calling at me to finish it. i have added your thoughts into my 'ideas to explore' list that is growing faster than i'm able to keep up. i look forward to your argument to help clarify my own tentative thoughts about this.
thank you for the great comment, again, asking me to think over the course of more than a day. muchas gracias, otra vez. all the best with what is.
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, Guy, over the course of more than a day ;-)
You explained that well and cleared up my confusion. We agree, I think, that it's the absence of actual mothering that makes us so susceptible to the Big Mother of technology.
Within my economic system, all people have multiple ways of making a living equal to the cost of housing by making and building and creating goods and services within the community. Rather than looking at it as one family, where you take care of grandparents and raise kids in order to inherit the house, it expands it where all houses are earned by caring for the people and places that have been entrusted to us--in our chosen home, no matter where that is.
Without a doubt, men want to build. It seems the most elemental healthy drive of what I'm terming tonic masculinity. As William says, "Real men have skills." That's been taken away from men and made into a pricy hobby. And the easy companionship of working with other men building things and taking care of things they've built. That always serves the larger family by being constructive, literally. To me, that's being a father whether or not there are individual kids. It's not generally possible in today's economy.
exactly. yes. and that absence makes it easier for the looking for mothering-comfort to come from the non-human because the human sphere has failed in a way that is easily manipulated. i used to think this breaking off from the 'real' world was kind of an accident of misplaced philosophical delusion. now i'm inclined to think that most who are doing it don't know what they are doing, and they are being guided to their actions by people and energies that do know what they are doing. fascinating to see those changes happening in my awareness, with those observations held as at best tentative place-holders as more holes disclose what type and colour of rabbits are extant within.
the schismosis is in multiple layers within our psyches and with/between the actual tonic masculine-feminine and matriarchal and patriarchal interactions/expressions. one the interesting observations i had, over the years, was that it seemed to me that the french woman had somehow maintained much more of the feminine power than had gringo women. i think that the french woman lost much of the value of matriarchy, though, at the same time. an interesting apparent dichotomy that might be another tuxedoed rabbit. and the french intellectual men mostly got lost in ideas disconnected from life as we can see in their 'official' art, literature, psychology and philosophy. and that has become a bit more interesting to me now that i've been in in mexico for a couple of years. the women, i'm told, can be treated with a great deal of disrespect by the men — from their outsides. at the same time they in general, and this is my feeling and subject to correction, have a huge sense of power and importance as the matriarch. it shows in their movements and bearing, especially when they are with children from infancy up until juveniles. the contrast in energy and bearing is incredible. and, at the same time, the men are still much closer to the creation of things and walk with a energy about that too. is it utopia? lol! of course not. there is an aa meeting house not far from my place, for example. and yet... there is a level of calmness that comes in no small part from the unstated acceptance that there are energies of masculine and feminine that are not stereotypically required to be something that it isn't. there is a real freedom to be not present in gringo america. my energy healer, a women in her forties, and i talk about this as we are working to remove the twisted and hurt and hurting 'feminine' energies of my mother, her mother and my ex out of the cells, dna and mind-unconscious. (mostly gone my body and her hands say — now ancestral and cultural 'blocks' as they have manifested in inflexibility and some discomfort in my shoulders and hands-wrists mostly.) it has been a fascinating process.
all the best with what is.
hola tereza. thank you for the link to the breggins. i dip into them from time-to-time, although not all that often. so many great people here! i'll take a look at this article.
(an old betting phrase, dollars-to-donuts — of course, for pharma's alliance with that junk food producers' jab incentive, that became "donuts-to-dollars".)
'if not cooked up by mothers' then you're inferring that they were cooked up by fathers. and that could well be a form of false dichotomous choice. what about a tertium quid: a set of stockholm syndrome survivors of the elohim, comprised of both genders? lol! if cliff's assessment of the roots of judaism as being developed as a means of surviving the (brutalising) alien overlords, aka elohim, is correct, that might be the third paradigm. lol! the possibility of discovery is endless and wait, did you see it, yet another anxious tuxedoed rabbit lost in time. and were the celts there to help people recover from that brutalisation? hmmmm. so many questions.
thank you for the detailed look into my argument and providing a good counter argument. great ideas to digest.
I learned to feel while saving all suffering animals I encountered. Or trying to…
I taught myself to ride a unicycle really really well. That opened a vast realm of doors.
I learned by accident that I could connect energetically with an audience even though I had to be within quick reach of a bathroom before every single performance.
I was that college student who tried to have a one-on-one conversations with every professor, much to his/her eventual chagrin. I did my best to engage other students but they were almost all checked out zombies.
I dropped out of pre-med after three years and went to Clown College. Unicycling and performance skills got me hired and I lived on the dingy roach-infested circus train for three months until I realized just how not funny elephant trainers whacking elephants on their knees with a bullstick is. And how not funny caged Tigers are.
I resigned. I moved out of the circus train, and rode my motorcycle for thousands of miles. This was a very good thing to do.
I studied and performed classical theater for over a decade until I realized that very few audiences were worthy of my sacrifices.
Intermittently, along the way I took post graduate level classes in Despair. These were initiations into greater capacity for compassion both for myself and others.
I worked as a job coach for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities for 15 years. Covid insanity shut that door hard.
I spent two years and well over 2000 hours studying the multitude of psychological, sociological, economic, scientific etc. aspects of the global psychological and physical assault. I became disgusted with humanity.
At the bottom of that shit pile I was required to let go. Required to understand that no amount of research and logical presentation could change the mind of a single person captured by the fear narrative. Nothing left to do but love them as best I could anyway.
This is an ongoing process. At best I will master this unconditional love incompletely. So I’m just another human doing the best I can, finding other humans doing the best they can.
Thank you, Cormorant, for that candid and heartfelt history. From circus unicyclist to Che Guevara motorcycle journey to classical theatrix to despair initiation rites to rituals of normality coach to now. What would you name that story, if it were a book?
I love your definition of unconditional love as letting go, and seeing yourself and others as doing the best they can. It fits with my sense of it too. It's not an active thing, like trying to change their minds would be. It's more of a trust fall.
It's nice having that more complete outline of you, and how the Cormorant came to be.
this would be the title of one chapter:
“For Somebody Who Don’t Accomplish Much,
You Sure Get a Lot Done”
Smart cookie, I love what you say wrt dogma.
I watched (listened to) this at 4am last night after having drunk coffee in the afternoon, something I do maybe 2-3 a year these daze. But remembered just now that I wanted to comment. ✨
Ha, I'm glad I could keep you company in those wee hours. When I'd take regular coffee instead of decaf after dinner, a friend used to say that was a sign of a clear conscience. Now I can't do either ...
I quit 3 years ago. But it’s cool to indulge every now and then. ✨☕️
I really appreciate this piece. However, I have to say I don't believe all people are inherently good. I firmly believe that there is such a thing as psychopathy. I don't think they can help it, I think they are born that way, but they are not suitable to mix with empaths because of their complete lack of conscience. It is actually physical. Their brains are underdeveloped in some areas.
We absolutely need a society where they cannot gain the upper hand over others. They are why heirarchies don't work. I think educating children, and indeed all of society, on how to spot them is essential.
Hello Claire. What you're saying is an important step in owning your dogma. A belief is something you choose in advance of experience, and then find evidence to support. It's the same for any belief. Mine in the inherent goodness of people is similarly a belief that I choose, something I'm not willing to raise to question. It's good to know what those are and important for any discussion to disclose them.
If I look at the implications of your dogma on my four paradigm shifts, it changes things to the need for judgment and hierarchy. We need governments of 'better people' making the rules and enforcing them, otherwise those psychopaths will be in charge. We can't allow them to raise their own children, someone needs to protect those children against them.
And then there are the spiritual implications. Since they were born this way, either there is no God (purpose) or God is cruel and capricious. The psychopaths are victims of their own minds, that were created defective. We either need to put them in prisons where we assign people to guard them--or maybe robots since people could be corrupted by them--or kill them out of mercy.
And if some people are born morally inferior, it's only logical that some are born morally superior, just like the Bible says. So those people should be in charge of everyone else. It's more than a slippery slope, it's like that 20' mudslide my son-in-law couldn't traverse in the last episode. Who gets to decide who gets across?
On the other hand, if you take away the ability for ANYONE to have power over anyone else, you don't have to judge other people. They no longer have the ability to do harm. That seems much simpler to me. I appreciate you giving me the chance to make this argument, it's one that almost everyone but me believes, so thanks for sticking your neck out! ;-)
Thanks for responding Tereza. I do agree with a lot of what you say and it is a conundrum. I think I touched on the need for no heirarchies as a way of thwarting them in their quest for control. And I do accept that they can't help being the way they are. The fact that they exist really does make you question a lot of things and I agree I don't have the right to make decisions for them. I just owe it to myself and my family to make sure they can spot these toxic, incurable people and know to walk away from them without a backward glance. To give them no time or energy. As you can tell, I speak from experience.
Excellent points, Claire. I'm so glad you responded, I was speaking on the philosophical level and didn't want you to think it was personal. I completely agree that boundaries are essential! There's a woman, I'm forgetting her name, who speaks on forgiveness as seeing that other people are doing the best they can. She states that, when women in abusive relationships recognized this, they were more likely to leave. They recognized that this person will never change. It wasn't a choice, they were stuck responding the way they did as long as the other person allowed it. Not allowing it is key, and that's what I focus on in my economic system.
Thanks for the response!
i'm with you on this too, tereza. i wrestled with this for a long while, flip-flopping as time progressed. with recent awareness and processes, i no longer think psychopathy is something we are born with. it is a structured creation begun deliberately, imo, to create and expand schismosis and with that the facilitation of obedience to authority in the various ways we've seen over time a few of which came to light with the convid.
although that doesn't address the problem(?) of the non-humans being born into the mix, those who look human but are not!
I'll be looking at that last sentence in the next episode, responding some to Jasun's interview of Rurik that you sent me to. I wish I'd taken more notes, though, it was fascinating. I may need to listen again: https://childrenofjob.substack.com/p/jobcast-18-a-trajectory-of-elite.
one of my friend deep researchers is absolutely convinced of the non-human human in our mix, and sends me from time-to-time evidence of it. at this time all i can say is ... well, it could well be. i am not able to dismiss it without that dismissal being an act of faith to the old paradigm. and so... yikes, yet another giant tuxedoed rabbit to follow where it leads. (and of course cliff high is certain of non-human existence, citing the cone-heads within the false-jew ashkenazi like the rothschild's. hmmmm.)
So, Guy, do you think 'psychopaths' are actually non humans? Interesting perspective. Are they physically born to other non humans (because they ARE born to people who appear human). How do you explain that their parents don't appear to have the same 'mind condition'? Do you think that non humans are more spirit than physical, and just inhabit human bodies?
All interesting ideas ....
At this stage in the game, nothing would surprise me.
hola claire. sorry for the slow reply. what do i *think*. at this point i honestly don't know what i think. however, with my muscle testing 'ps-rap' (psyche-somatic resonance awareness) tells me that no human psychopaths are born — they are made.
that same process, when asked, says that non-humans are present and hiding in our population, and that the rockefellers are the way cliff high describes them.
my bil and sister are absolutely convinced of the existence of entities because of direct experience with them to a degree i've not experienced. now, looking around, there is absolutely no logical refuse to suggest that they don't or can't exist. and i've experienced enough and with my muscle testing process am convinced of their existence.
i have no idea what to do with that information! perhaps i've entered into high's hyper-novelty 'state' and allow *all* possibilities to sit comfortably on this huge and seemingly infinitely growing mass of 'i don't know anything except that my degree of ignorance is expanding factorially.'
so, psychopathy may have a characteristic in common with the convid injections: different ingredients, different levels of toxicity, and different qualities of manufacture!
which takes us to what i've coined 'appropriate eccentric action' for each and every moment and encounter. our minds will not be able to handle this, it is way way to small. time to really exercise and practice full 100% trust fall into the intuitive-bodily truth of the body in this moment: it is the only part of our existence that is actually truly in this moment - mind certainly isn't - and it knows how to response appropriately when unimpaired by fear and hope.
so. ... we are in interesting time! all the best with what is! (whatever it is and however that is is changing. )
I am with you here Tereza, taking away their ability to do harm is THE most import way to Nullify their ENTIRE system they have constructed for centuries. A big KEY is realization within first, then whatever happens in the material world reflects the Liberty of the Inner Self.
Another aspect of taking up the prescient position on the field is to carefully study exactly who the psychopaths are that we must stand against. That may not involve much more than simply being able to see what's coming, then simply stepping aside, while their big boulder comes rolling down the hill past us, missing everyone. ;-)
I came to comment on the Tree of Judgment section. Take a look at this comment thread on Gregg Reese's Stack. Alternate views get Demonized. Gate Keepers (of info / Controlled Ops) Always result to ATTACKING with insults, not the ideas.
https://gregreese.substack.com/p/parasites-and-the-virus-deception (all comments)
https://substack.com/@protonmagic/note/c-51334247 (short version)
That thread reminds me why I'm glad I'm not famous--something I was just thinking. In addition to attracting the insults, it doesn't allow the continuity to develop the ideas together.
Reese is protecting his market, though he dipped into using slurs; I was surprised.
I've been sidetracked by life stuff, but Back to reading your book. I must finish it soon. It is extremely dense with info, and makes me realized how much financial shenanigans I missed last 25/30 years. End of Chapter 7, Page 90 really sums it all up. But I need to do the entire work justice and read it when I can really focus through it all. Thank you for writing it.
As a caveat, DPL is a bit rough around the edges. I think many peeps are frustrated with the level/layers of deception and want others to wake up and see the lies, like now. My take.
I outlined the video Sat morning as a somewhat reactionary rant, and recorded it that evening, not sure if I really liked it. Then yesterday, on a rainy Sunday, I savored the process of writing it, trying to clean up my points and logic. As I started incorporating (taking into my body of thought) your images, it became softer and funnier. And in the end, it felt like something kind of magnificent, the way you can only describe something that doesn't entirely come from you.
Along with Decoy, I have a crazy artist friend who also sent me an email to figure out your secrets. Reading the prompt you posted here, it really is poetry in motion. Visual motion.
Now you've got me curious about where we disagreed. Do you not put slabs of butter on your bread like Kathleen and I? There's such a vast lake of goodwill we're walking on, I'm torn between not wanting to risk it and wanting to get our first disagreement over with!
I look forward to the next roll out but I still have several earmarked for my next episode. They were such a bizarre juxtaposition when I first saw them, and then I learned something that put them together in ancient teachings. Since I believe we're writing history backwards, I'm certain you brought that ancient knowledge into being.
Thank you again, my multi-talented, mellifluous friend!
This is hilarious. I WOKE UP thinking, maybe I'm wrong about Russell Brand.
The minute I plunked down $50 to support him on Locals, after the YT ouster, I stopped wanting to listen to him. But then, I have a superstition about that. As a kid, when I used to dust the pianos in exchange for use of the practice rooms, I practiced diligently. The minute my parents bought a piano they couldn't afford, I stopped wanting to play. Getting a gym membership is the kiss of death.
So I've also stopped listening to Greenwald, Taibbi and Corbett, and will probably let those expire. But I stopped listening to Russell maybe two years ago, when I started doing Substack and not being dependent on his YT to try to poach an audience.
Here are the little things I don't have time for: "You won't f*king believe this!" titles. Really? 2-hr daily livecasts, dragging out everything he has to say. COMMERCIALS. Am I going to pay for membership only to hear his huckster pitch for sponsors?
But on the deeper level, is he still bound by that 33 tattoo on his wrist? Everyone he interviews lately is another witting or unwitting psyops agent, imo--Tucker, etc. Maybe he's just falling for it, being part of the same celebrity cult. Or maybe it goes further. If he was still part of the Illuminati agenda, I can't imagine that he'd divorce Katy Perry. They were the King and Queen.
90% of my listening was to his books and Luminary podcast, both the interviews and guided meditations, which I thought were brilliant at the beginning. Very slow and deep. But even those started getting distracted, like there was somewhere else he needed to be. And the long-form conversations are gone.
Most of what I loved is that he agreed with me in two key areas when no one else did: the need for small scale self-governance and the belief that all people are good. When he was humbled and fallen from Hollywood-grace, I think these were genuine. Maybe he was like that boyfriend who gets you from one phase of your life to another. I wouldn't be doing what I am now without him, his audience whose poached members are still with me, and even the personal encouragement to put my book on Amazon. But he's not who I can learn the most from right now.
Thanks for such a great 'first argument'! I think it bodes well. Will you go steady with me? ps and thanks for those snakes! I'll edit one in, pronto.
*chortling over that last scenario ;-)
Your wish is Amy's command! As the interlocutor of the AI genie, her 'stack goes into great detail on how she words her prompts. And I think it's a form of visual poetry she's created. Fortunately for us all, this genie gives unlimited wishes! https://bttrain.substack.com/.
Mine are all taken from her last three compilations, which I've not yet fully mined (not in the unearthing sense but the taking personal possession sense ;-)
I love this, ANWW! Deconstructing is an excellent word and concept. In my book How to Dismantle an Empire, I think of it as removing the mantle or robe of authority from the system. De-constructing is a big part of that, what we can all do with the stories. We can't change the systems but we can all remove their authority over our minds and take apart the stories that have tricked us into re-cognizing their authority.
It's so refreshing to have someone call out that flimsy cover that women are represented in the Bible. It's my theory that every time a woman is named, she represents a territory. Like slaves, individual women are beneath mention. I have a draft of an episode called Harlots & Concubines on some of those stories.
And yes! The origin story of innocence. I think it's a Kate Bush song that has that line, and it brings tears to my eyes every time--we were all born innocent. And if we're born that way, what could change it? Our decisions since birth have all been from circumstance, if we start with the equal capacity to choose good. Why would we blame another for that rather than work to give everyone better choices?
I'm going to really enjoy your comments on the next episode, that deconstructs the Bible. "We are god, we are avatars of the universal spirit." Beautifully said. I think that greed is just a form of fear, fear that we're not enough to be loved on our own. Fear, guilt and blame are the unholy (unwhole) trinity. Thank you for your comment!
A friend described himself as "kind but not nice" and I've adopted that. Your statements about origin stories of innocence and being avatars of God are very kind and generous perceptions of others. Thinking that you 'could' love better and have more compassion is a contradiction to the origins of innocence story. You are exactly who you were born to be, the exact person the world needs in it. Compassion is overrated, imo. Suffering with other people doesn't make them suffer less, it just adds more suffering to the world. Your job is not to affix blame or helplessness on other people, and think you need to either judge them or fix them. And that goes for judging yourself too!
100% with you; "Seek not Outside for what you already have Within." Christians really don't like this message. Sometimes the process of "Deconstructing" the Re Legion, lets you Re Member yourself back to wholeness. This is important.