Why the hate for wisdom?

[randomoaf]

I'm just curious ... if social justice was accomplishing what they claim to be doing (all groups being treated fairly, equally and with dignity) would you be for it?

Edit: wecome back by the way

Thanks! Of course I would. I'd be all up in it. In fact I already am. I always look out for disenfranchised groups and speak out for them. The thing is, I don't need the media or celebrities to tell me which groups or which people to speak out for. I just see it and speak. For example here is a comment I sent to Donald Trump:
https://imgur.com/a/SOgs5ap

[Louisabell]

I'm just curious ... if social justice was accomplishing what they claim to be doing (all groups being treated fairly, equally and with dignity) would you be for it?

Edit: wecome back by the way

Thanks! Of course I would. I'd be all up in it. In fact I already am. I always look out for disenfranchised groups and speak out for them. The thing is, I don't need the media or celebrities to tell me which groups or which people to speak out for. I just see it and speak. For example here is a comment I sent to Donald Trump:  
https://imgur.com/a/SOgs5ap

Well then maybe we all want the same things, we all want goodness in the world, we would like for all people to be free, safe and happy. We got the basics down.

We just don't all agree how to get there, and that's OK. We're all still figuring it out.

[unity100]

I'm not only addressing you, I'm replying to general energies in the thread which I disagree with, which your post was supporting, and the most recent.

It's cool we have a different interpretation. I find it interesting that you seem to think you have a better vantage point of what unity means than Ra does. This is probably part of why we disagree.

We're all free to distort the material however we please. I think empathy is a primary component of polarizing in third density via Ra's transmission of the Law of One. It is my estimation that most of these posts that are "anti-SJW" lack empathy because they do not understand that what makes someone an "SJW" is empathy. You're so worried about the person who carelessly hit someone that it's easy to forget about the person who is suffering, the person with the broken leg. They have every right to be angry. The first step to healing that anger is understanding that anger. When we tell people that they need to stop being victims, what it feels like is that we don't understand their anger, or that they don't have the right to be angry. Insisting to someone that "all is well" when they literally cannot walk because the physical mechanism that they use to walk is broken, it seems to me to be missing the point.

Ra very clearly discourages people to "rise above" their catalyst with a cold detachment. This is what I feel people perpetuate.

18.5 ▶ Questioner: Thank you. I have a question here from Jim that I will read verbatim: “Much of the mystic tradition of seeking on Earth holds that belief that the individual self must be erased or obliterated and the material world ignored for an entity to reach ‘nirvana,’ as it’s called, or enlightenment. What is the proper role of the individual self and its worldly activities in aiding an entity to grow more into the Law of One?”

Ra: I am Ra. The proper role of the entity is in this density to experience all things desired, to then analyze, understand, and accept these experiences, distilling from them the love/light within them. Nothing shall be overcome. That which is not needed falls away.

The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.

The reason it is unwise to overcome is that overcoming is an unbalanced action creating difficulties in balancing in the time/space continuum. Overcoming thus creates the further environment for holding onto that which apparently has been overcome.

All things are acceptable in the proper time for each entity, and in experiencing, in understanding, in accepting, in then sharing with other-selves, the appropriate description shall be moving away from distortions of one kind to distortions of another which may be more consonant with the Law of One.

It is, shall we say, a shortcut to simply ignore or overcome any desire. It must instead be understood and accepted. This takes patience and experience which can be analyzed with care, with compassion for self and for other-self.

What a quote. Totally invalidates obscurantist advocacy...

[isis]

replying to show this post in it's entirety - in case you modify it

and to show the hate you have within you

to me, Jade, others here -  (and past members who have left b4 because of you)

anagogy,

She's right, trust me. I happen to know that 44 people have left this forum solely bc of you. ;)

[Jade]

While I did enjoy hearing what the talking cat had to say for 8 minutes, I feel like I must repeat that the reason why NPC triggers those you call NPCs (leftists) is because dehumanization leads to violence. We can go in circles about this but I'm not going to stop saying it until trans people, muslims, black people, women, activists, and anyone else feels safe every time they leave their house. Until we stop hearing about churches and schools and dance clubs and planned parenthoods being shot up by angry folks, I'm going to continue to speak against the type of language that is used to prime people to commit and condone these types of violent acts.

I watched the whole video and did not find a single call to unity in the message. It was purely us vs. them. What's the point of this "meme" other than separation?

Also I find it super ironic that someone uses a video to tell other people that they only repeat the same stuff that other people say. A video proudly full of memes... with an avatar of a talking cat...

[AnthroHeart]

While I did enjoy hearing what the talking cat had to say for 8 minutes, I feel like I must repeat that the reason why NPC triggers those you call NPCs (leftists) is because dehumanization leads to violence. We can go in circles about this but I'm not going to stop saying it until trans people, muslims, black people, women, activists, and anyone else feels safe every time they leave their house. Until we stop hearing about churches and schools and dance clubs and planned parenthoods being shot up by angry folks, I'm going to continue to speak against the type of language that is used to prime people to commit and condone these types of violent acts.

I watched the whole video and did not find a single call to unity in the message. It was purely us vs. them. What's the point of this "meme" other than separation?

Also I find it super ironic that someone uses a video to tell other people that they only repeat the same stuff that other people say. A video proudly full of memes... with an avatar of a talking cat...

I agree with you Jade. I didn't watch the video though. But I am of the opinion that what is being spread here in this thread possibly could have been said with a bit more tact and love.
Sure, it's one's freedom to seek wisdom. I find myself going between wisdom and love. But I do my best not to say or do something that will hurt another person or group. Sadly, this has caused
me to be walked over in my real life.

I have found bring4th to be very supportive towards me. I have only rarely been attacked directly, and that was due to me wallowing in immaturity and ruining a potentially serious thread with my whining.
But would something like that deserve being called an NPC? Personally I don't find offense to that. But again I don't game and I barely know what it means. Like nonplayable character. That's all I really know, so
it probably wouldn't have bothered me.

But must we incite people to violence. I think not. It seems whether we like it or not, it will always be a part of late third density. I don't blame people, because there is so much catalyst people are freaking out.

I don't know who Jordan Peterson is who has been mentioned. I just know of Peterson from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

[Bring4th_Austin]

While I did enjoy hearing what the talking cat had to say for 8 minutes, I feel like I must repeat that the reason why NPC triggers those you call NPCs (leftists) is because dehumanization leads to violence. We can go in circles about this but I'm not going to stop saying it until trans people, muslims, black people, women, activists, and anyone else feels safe every time they leave their house. Until we stop hearing about churches and schools and dance clubs and planned parenthoods being shot up by angry folks, I'm going to continue to speak against the type of language that is used to prime people to commit and condone these types of violent acts.

I watched the whole video and did not find a single call to unity in the message. It was purely us vs. them. What's the point of this "meme" other than separation?

Also I find it super ironic that someone uses a video to tell other people that they only repeat the same stuff that other people say. A video proudly full of memes... with an avatar of a talking cat...

The dehuminzation being the most harmful aspect of the meme, the self-evident irony is maybe the most baffling aspect. The entire concept of the "meme" is predicated on unoriginality and mimicking behavior, especially in the modern internet format. They are like a transplant for thought, and the entire idea is that they can be shared ad nauseam without the necessity for critical thought or nuanced perspective. The "NPC meme" is like this entire idea collapsing in on itself. A thoughtless meme saying that people who disagree with the meme are thoughtless? I'm surprised it hasn't caused a black hole of irony yet.

There's a similar irony in Jordan Peterson's disciples. He talks a lot about "ideological possession," but when he describes what exactly that is, the people who first come to my mind are his own followers. I understand that so much of our spiritual growth as individuals is going through a process of projection, shadow work, and subsequent self-realization, but I'm just struck at how stark these projections can be in a crowd that likes to fancy themselves as free thinkers.

[Minyatur]

But must we incite people to violence. I think not. It seems whether we like it or not, it will always be a part of late third density. I don't blame people, because there is so much catalyst people are freaking out.

I haven't seen anyone incite to violence.

I think you got a point that sadly violence oughts to be understood as part of human nature. It has always been part of human history and trancends how we separate people into groups. To feel fully safe in the street, you'd need to have no one that contains violent energies.

[AnthroHeart]

But must we incite people to violence. I think not. It seems whether we like it or not, it will always be a part of late third density. I don't blame people, because there is so much catalyst people are freaking out.

I haven't seen anyone incite to violence.

Sorry, I meant that since Jade said that calling people NPCs incites violence, I was pointing to people calling others NPCs as inciting violence. Sort of indirectly.

[Louisabell]

It is a little funny seeing the NPC meme here on a spiritual forum, for if you do perceive the motivations of huge swaths of people as so perplexing to you that you see them as automatons, then aren't you pretty much saying that you are so blocked from personal bias that your capacity to understand and communicate with others (which includes clear listening) is severely limited?

Essentially can you bridge the divide between your own personal intepretations and preferences and experience yourself as a different entity on the opposing aisle of the political debate? The creator can take on an infinite array of forms, how close are you in that kind of flexibility?

A lot of the political debate I see isn't really about very divergent things, but disagreements on certain balances. Do we need more protections in order to have more freedom, or should we insist on more freedom for our protection? Regardless of our own personal biases, a balance will be found via the countless interactions between all people in the society, a balance will be found in spite of what the little ruler in your head has commanded for us all today.

Having said that, I think assigning motive to others without serious consideration is unwise. My understanding of the NPC meme is that it is coming from a place of frustration from a group of people who believe that their biggest challenge when going up against mainstream culture is the way people are indoctrinated into it and the resulting herd mentality. There are bits of truth to this social dynamic that I think we can all relate to. And yes, it is frustrating when you are surrounded by people who you believe to be doing irrational things just because they see other people doing it.

I'm sure some people who use the NPC meme do want to dehumanize their political opponents and may even think things would be better if they wiped out all NPCs, but I also think the majority of people using the NPC meme are doing so as a jovial way to invite others to "start thinking for themselves and start playing the game with them as a real unique player". Like a friendly, "come on man, don't be that guy". Most people tend to be good, and we shouldn't let the sociopathic extremists ruin everything, on all sides of the argument.

But at the end of the day, the NPC meme is #NotAnArgument, and in my opinion not really applicable to a forum of people joined together by the LOO. Do you really believe people here can't think for themselves and get too caught up in herd mentality? If so, then can you explain why? Such things can be useful lessons.

[isis]

That video was for anagogy. I thought he would get a kick out of it, mainly bc of the cat. I didn't make it and I don't agree with everything in it. I don't think anyone that buys what the mainstream media is selling is a NPC, just like I don't think anyone believing everything they read on 8ch.net/qresearch (or wherever) is a NPC. We're all just people searching for the truth, I think.

[Minyatur]

But must we incite people to violence. I think not. It seems whether we like it or not, it will always be a part of late third density. I don't blame people, because there is so much catalyst people are freaking out.

I haven't seen anyone incite to violence.

Sorry, I meant that since Jade said that calling people NPCs incites violence, I was pointing to people calling others NPCs as inciting violence. Sort of indirectly.

Well I would think people that thrive in memes aren't very much the violent people, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Having said that, I think assigning motive to others without serious consideration is unwise. My understanding of the NPC meme is that it is coming from a place of frustration from a group of people who believe that their biggest challenge when going up against mainstream culture is the way people are indoctrinated into it and the resulting herd mentality. There are bits of truth to this social dynamic that I think we can all relate to. And yes, it is frustrating when you are surrounded by people who you believe to be doing irrational things just because they see other people doing it.

I'm sure some people who use the NPC meme do want to dehumanize their political opponents and may even think things would be better if they wiped out all NPCs, but I also think the majority of people using the NPC meme are doing so as a jovial way to invite others to "start thinking for themselves and start playing the game with them as a real unique player". Like a friendly, "come on man, don't be that guy". Most people tend to be good, and we shouldn't let the sociopathic extremists ruin everything, on all sides of the argument.

I agree that I think it's unwise to assign motive to others. I even sense in my own reaction to the NPC meme a sort of "dehumanization" of the people who use the meme. I think that a big hurdle in navigating the current sociopolitical waters is that trauma of oppressed groups is rising up in our collective consciousness and with trauma comes natural and understandably high emotions. Those high emotions tend to breed highly emotional responses, especially when they're directed at people. Upon which there is a volley of back and forth escalating emotion. This feedback loop perpetuates ideological lines of division. I think we should all be sensitive to root of whatever emotions we are witnessing in others, even when it seems like those emotions are aggressively directed towards us. Not only do I think that's the loving thing to do, but probably the most effective way of breaking the ideological barriers and actually furthering various progressive causes.

Though I will say I didn't interpret Jade to be assigning motive to users of the NPC meme, only point out its effect. I generally think you're right about the use of the NPC meme, but whether intentional or unintentional it still has the effect of dehumanization, which creates a more palatable atmosphere for violence (whether physical or otherwise).

[Infinite]

We can go in circles about this but I'm not going to stop saying it until trans people, muslims, black people, women, activists, and anyone else feels safe every time they leave their house. Until we stop hearing about churches and schools and dance clubs and planned parenthoods being shot up by angry folks, I'm going to continue to speak against the type of language that is used to prime people to commit and condone these types of violent acts.

Perfect. That's my vision about politics and spirituality. We don't need practice activism. But, it's our responsibility don't unconsciously strengthen the mechanisms of the matrix.

"If you don't believe in the right of humiliate and attack people different from you, you don't believe in the implicit divinity of mankind. You don't believe in the sovereignty of the fascist/nazi individual over his victims". Adjusted.

Free speech is just a fallacy used by negative groups to disseminate their negative philosophy freely. I seek STO path, but I'll not ignore their try to infect the society. It's necessary balance this situation, If Gandhi had respected the free will of the britishers, the India would still be a colony.

[Minyatur]

"If you don't believe in the right of humiliate and attack people different from you, you don't believe in the implicit divinity of mankind. You don't believe in the sovereignty of the fascist/nazi individual over his victims". Adjusted.

Free speech is just a fallacy used by negative groups to disseminate their negative philosophy freely. I seek STO path, but I'll not ignore their try to infect the society. It's necessary balance this situation, If Gandhi had respected the free will of the britishers, the India  would still be a colony.

Technically speaking, STO is the path of acceptance and STS the path of control.

I agree these things don't make much sense from a view deeply imersed in space/time, but the dynamics of what happens and how it happens are more related to time/space. I think what is not obvious, is that fighting oppression with oppression accentuates it. This does not mean everyone has to let themselves be stepped upon, but as this is the density of self-realization a lot of it will relate more to self-evolution than what societal climate to force upon people. These things are rooted in fear, anger and mistrust, so they have little energy that can effect positive change. A lot of people are drawn to what is taboo and forbidden, which I think was one of anagogy's arguments, so these efforts can easily backfire. Violence already is illegal.

I'm not talking about not helping someone as they are oppressed, but that trying to impose something on society becomes an abstraction of the actual issue and may not actually solve it. The issue is more that a lot of people contain anger and violence that derives from being unwell with themselves, not necessarily what words they are allowed to speak and imposing limitations on free speech could very well accentuate racism and such. While dealing with day to day situations actually allows energy transfers through catalyst and opportunities for self-empowerment.

Another point is that once you begin to talk about the STO path as posited by the material, an aspect of it is recognizing the Creator, as this is part of the metaphysical framework of evolution throughout the Octave and not simply a matter of morality. If you slow down and do the exercises of recognizing the Creator in all parties and treat every side of events as truly One with the dynamics of One, you can more easily through the relativity gained find acceptance for this One found on every side and through this elevate your energy toward the heart. If we relate heart-ray energy to the STO path, I do not believe it is heart-ray energy that seeks to impede free speech. While the paths speak of service, the basis of each is your internal balance.

From a veiled perspective, the Logos' design is hard to understand in what was sought. Humans are a lot in nature's image and due to the veil they have not ascended much far above it.

Now I know that battle is still a thing in 4D, so in 3D it is also part of the natural order, but I see this forum's association to the Law of One as implying to at least allow a focus upon Unity. So I think battle has its place, but there is a reason those of Ra say that 4D positive engages in it due to the lack of wisdom to refrain and see a necessity of it. I think in understanding of the deeper mechanics, one's action would not have the effect one would expect from the space/time perception. There is always more than what is apparent and like I said at the beginning, there is a reason the STO path resolves around acceptance.

What if the actual most helpful thing one could do, in the positive sense, as an individual is to believe in the inhate potential of others to grow, because this releases a metaphysical tension that holds them in separation? Then would not releasing our fears and doubts rather than acting upon them truly be what the STO path is about? Lifting the burden of our lessons from upon others through acceptance?

[ada]

I think although B4 is a part of L/L Research that brought some confederation channelings, it does not necessarily mean that the forum represents TLOO, the confederation, or the natural order of the universe. The creator's of the forum and/or the moderators decided on a choice that they want to focus on STO/positive thinking, it's not right or wrong, it's just a choice, their choice, guest's who stay here are not ripped of freedom as it is their free will to stay or not. That does not necessarily mean that nobody will ever act on STS behavior, but it does mean that the group's decision to focus on STO will try and re balance an individual if it is their choice as well. So then STS behavior is not blocked entirely, but it isn't encouraged either. So in my opinion it does achieve harmony in it's own way, as there are many ways to go, neither is right or wrong, they all lead to the same path.

[ada]

And I think there is nothing wrong with memes, it is merely a tool, a language. But unfortunately that tool has been given too much praise and power. It lacks in emotion, in context, and when constantly used in communication with another it only creates more confusion and separation as a meme can mean and be applied to just about anything.

Moreover I think, instead of engaging in a mutual conversation with another you mirror them back to themselves with the meme image or video. Leaving them confused to converse with themselves and not with you. So yes, I imagine it could be quite triggering, frustrating, and painful. I'm not talking about politics or whatnot, I don't understand in that, I'm talking about conversations between individuals.

[unity100]

These are American conservative phenomena. 'Freedom', 'Free speech' coupled with 'individual'. Not to mention the concept of 'divine right'.

This combination does not exist elsewhere in the world. They dont even exist in England, where many Americans see their roots. Or in Germany. Or China. Japan. South America. Mediterranean. Eastern Europe. Nowhere.

This combination of concepts belongs to American conservative segments. It combines elements of religion with their personal ideology, then used as justification for various kinds of 'freedoms' in their positions toward the society.

But whichever such social position you examine, you see that it basically is a selfish position, justified by the above rare combination of religion and ideology. And its self-contradicting and self-harming too, ironically:

Healthcare - they dont want to pay for other people's healthcare, because 'freedom'. Its basically just selfishness because of not wanting to give something to others, to the society. But in the end they end up paying much more for themselves to private insurers which seek to profit at the expense of their sickness as a result, and also risk practical robbery and even death at the hands of their private insurers. All the stuff those insurers and healthcare companies do, of course, are in turn justified by the very same weird combination of ideology and religion.

Social programs -> The same -> "Individual responsibility". They dont want to pay for other, lazy people's social security. So they save a few hundred dollars per month, while risking going homeless, bankrupt, in the streets, for themselves or their extended family or friends

Taxes -> Its violence! Violates freedom! My freedom! -> Reduce taxes!. They save a few hundred dollars per month from the tax breaks. Massive megacorporations and their a few thousand majority shareholders save trillions. Now their society is practically bankrupt to fulfill any society-wide function. Society's coffers drain, and even infrastructure starts breaking apart, bringing all kinds of risks like dying in a collapsing bridge or not even being able to drive on a proper road, to these very people

https://www.businessinsider.es/asce-give...?r=US&IR=T

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/19/us/br...index.html

.............

What's even more in stark contrast:

Historically these social segments in US had no problem with others' freedom of speech or individual rights being repressed. Back in 1950s, it was ok to repress anyone who deviated from the good old religious, capitalist, conformist and dutiful philosophy that was defined as 'American'. Charlie Chaplin, for example, had to escape to UK to save himself. Many more were prosecuted, jailed or repressed.

Actually even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots

Wearing the wrong size of pants was something to get into jail for, in that good old US.

It was all ok when these were happening. It was even ok when the most peaceful movement which the US has ever seen, hippies, were being shot at at colleges.

But now they may risk losing being the main narrative, these conservative segments suddenly have an unending love for freedom of speech. And individual rights.

..........

Basically its self-centered inclination, and accompanying hypocritical position that is necessary to justify that selfishness. People who would not defend your right to criticize Iraq invasion merely 15 years earlier are now screaming about their freedom of speech... To dehumanize, vilify and spread hate against anyone who is not from their own group, precisely.

...........

Most surprisingly and ironically, that [i]is freedom[/b]! They are correct!

It is the freedom offered in 3d, for choosing a path.

Except...

The path chosen in that manner, is the negative one: Demeaning, vilifying and hating others, which is then in turn used as a justification to put oneself as the superior to those others, and to exploit them for one's own benefit: Like how Mexican immigrants are being shoved into prison labor camps and being made work for corporate profit.

In the later stages of this freedom of choice process towards negative path, the 'others' are sufficiently vilified to the point of being hated sufficiently and dehumanized sufficiently in order to justify crusades against them. Like the negative behavior formats and ensuing wars that are explained in Ra material.

So, most interestingly, these segments are right that it is a divine right, given to the individual as a freedom. It is the gift of choice.

But it doesnt lead to the place where they think it leads.

............

Actually even worse - the choice of negative path is the choice to suppress, repress and exploit. So in the end, those who choose that path swiftly find themselves being repressed and their freedoms taken away by their very societal construct - they have to fit a certain mold, they have to behave in a certain way, and they are obliged to do it even if they want it or not. They are not even outcast from the society because of incompatibility like could potentially happen in a positive society - in a negative society, they are made obey. Their very companions with whom they started on that road in that direction become their enforcers, and themselves end up as enforcers to other people. And all of them get exploited in a hierarchical pyramid for the benefit of the ones who sit at the top because those ones at the top are the 'most' 'free', 'religious', 'nationalist', 'pious', and whatever other adjective their religious ideology requires.

[Louisabell]

These are American conservative phenomena. 'Freedom', 'Free speech' coupled with 'individual'. Not to mention the concept of 'divine right'.

This combination does not exist elsewhere in the world. They dont even exist in England, where many Americans see their roots. Or in Germany. Or China. Japan. South America. Mediterranean. Eastern Europe. Nowhere.

This combination of concepts belongs to American conservative segments. It combines elements of religion with their personal ideology, then used as justification for various kinds of 'freedoms' in their positions toward the society.

Sure, except here is a popular leftist liberal (host on agressive progressives and huge supporter for Bernie Sanders) defending the value of free speech in America:



Defending Alex Jones no less! Because maybe he remembers that freedom of speech was first used against the theocracy, bringing in progressive values into the society some which started in America and spread out throughout the world

Why would you ever think people against zoot suits are for freedom of speech?!? In the 50's freedom of speech was a liberal value.

Also the majority of Americans want universal healthcare, they are obviously under corporate capture in their politics and media and I think it's a little unfair to bash their culture as though that is who they are.

[unity100]

Sure, except here is a popular leftist liberal (host on agressive progressives and huge supporter for Bernie Sanders) defending the value of free speech in America:

Except that doesnt change anything about the phenomenon detailed in the above post...

Moreover...

Defending Alex Jones no less! Because maybe he remembers that freedom of speech was first used against the theocracy

The same theocrats have used freedom of speech to organize and end the freedom of speech in many middle eastern countries starting from 1960s, first they advocated, then they organized, they dehumanized everyone else, and in the end they ended the freedom of speech of everyone than themselves.

What's more interestingly...

, bringing in progressive values into the society some which started in America and spread out throughout the world

...those islamists used funding from US to propagate radical islamist literature, and got coordination from CIA. They still do.

Historically the statement wouldnt be correct even without that anyway - freedom of speech, equality, equal political rights for everyone and secularism were things incubated in France and then spread to entire Europe by France. Which then spread around. Those very american founding fathers, were followers of French enlightenment philosophers - some, pen pals.

Why would you ever think people against zoot suits are for freedom of speech?!? In the 50's freedom of speech was a liberal value.

How is not being able to wear slightly larger pants to signify your slightly mixed latin ancestry is not a freedom of speech issue?

Is that even a question.

Yeah, freedom of speech was a liberal value in 1950s.

And it did not exist in 1950s.

Today, it exists, it still is a liberal value as you people define it, however it is used and drummed by conservatives to justify fundamentalist extreme right nationalist/supremacist and religious agenda.

That is, if there has been any actual conservative left...

Also the majority of Americans want universal healthcare, they are obviously under corporate capture in their politics and media and I think it's a little unfair to bash their culture as though that is who they are.

Despite it changed a lot in comparison to 5 years ago thanks to the battles which Sanders and his movement fought, you would find a large segment of US which is totally against any form of socialism.

[unity100]

Before i go to bed, lets take a second to illustrate freedom of speech vs hate speech in simple examples.

Free speech:

"Mexican immigrants should immigrate through legal channels and do their best to integrate into US society while also maintaining their cultural traits"

Hate speech:

"These mexicans are leeches! They come here and freeload! Their culture is incompatible with ours! (whose?) We should teach them a lesson! They deserve what's coming to them!"

.....

As you can see, in the first half of the narrative the 'others' have been separated and dehumanized, in the second part there is practically overt 'justified hostility' and calls to outright negative and aggressive behavior.

[Louisabell]

Unity100, I think you are confusing people who exercise their own freedom of speech with people who believe in freedom of speech as a universal principle (i.e. everyone's freedom of speech).

Yes nazis shout that they have a right to their marches because "free speech", but are they proponents of freedom of speech for all? Considering some of them don't even believe in the right to life for all, it's obvious they aren't for it. In this way they are hypocrites, enjoying freedoms that they would not give to others, making their ideology one that will eventually self-implode, as it has in the past.

Yes misogynists use their freedom of speech to say women should never have gotten the vote, but is what they're saying pro freedom of speech? Of course not when they want to take away women's right to freedom of speech through the political process.

Blaming the principle of 'universal freedom of speech' for the actions of these groups is like blaming Jesus for the crusades. Especially when the idealogies of nazis and misogynists are antithetical to universal principles/values for the benefit of all.

[Infinite]

I don't see problems in the free speech, except when it's used to justify the violation of people honor. For that reason, free speech must be limited as the individual freedom is condititioned by laws. Here in my country Nazi speech is forbidden. I don't see any problem with that.

but as this is the density of self-realization a lot of it will relate more to self-evolution than what societal climate to force upon people.

As I said on another thread, the spiritual seeker have a choice: seek spiritual evolution isolated of the society problems or engage himself on a kind of social justice. I think both legitimate.

What if the actual most helpful thing one could do, in the positive sense, as an individual is to believe in the inhate potential of others to grow, because this releases a metaphysical tension that holds them in separation?

but that trying to impose something on society becomes an abstraction of the actual issue and may not actually solve it.

The society is formed by a group consensus. If the negative philosophy is disseminate, will eventually become cultural and rooted on the the society values. That's the problem. It's like weed. If not ripped out, the society itself become more negatively polarized.

If we relate heart-ray energy to the STO path, I do not believe it is heart-ray energy that seeks to impede free speech.

The STO entity is an integrated entity. Thus, the love is balanced with wisdom. Although some polarity be lost, frictions are common in polarized universes:

At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies.

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

(25.6)

35.8 ▶ Questioner: Well in that case I would like to know the motivation for this use of Abraham Lincoln’s body at that time?

Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last full query of this session as we find the instrument quite low in vital energies.

The one known as Abraham had an extreme difficulty in many ways and, due to physical, mental, and spiritual pain, was weary of life but without the orientation to self-destruction. In your time, 1853, this entity was contacted in sleep by a fourth-density being. This being was concerned with the battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness which have been waged in fourth density for many of your years.

This entity accepted the honor/duty of completing the one known as Abraham’s karmic patterns and the one known as Abraham discovered that this entity would attempt those things which the one known as Abraham desired to do but felt it could not. Thus the exchange was made.

The entity, Abraham, was taken to a plane of suspension until the cessation of its physical vehicle much as though we of Ra would arrange with this instrument to remain in the vehicle, come out of the trance state, and function as this instrument, leaving this instrument’s mind and spirit complex in its suspended state.

The planetary energies at this time were at what seemed to this entity to be at a critical point, for that which you know as freedom had gained in acceptance as a possibility among many peoples. This entity saw the work done by those beginning the democratic concept of freedom, as you call it, in danger of being abridged or abrogated by the rising belief and use of the principle of the enslavement of entities. This is a negative concept of a fairly serious nature in your density. This entity, therefore, went forward into what it saw as the battle for the light, for healing of a rupture in the concept of freedom.

This entity did not gain or lose karma by these activities due to its detachment from any outcome. Its attitude throughout was one of service to others, more especially to the downtrodden or enslaved. The polarity of the individual was somewhat, but not severely, lessened by the cumulative feelings and thought-forms which were created due to large numbers of entities leaving the physical plane due to trauma of battle.

(35.7)

****************************************

To reflexion:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

******************************

I respect the opinions of everyone here. But, for me the ideologies of far right are obviously material being disseminated by Orion group. I have a friend who has worked fighting and deactivating bases of STS ETs in lower astral plane. Second him, STS ET's (as greys) are behind far right groups. They use astral implants (astral technology) to control the leaders of the groups and so all the members and the itself egregore become influential and stuck in that kind of thinking.

[unity100]

Unity100, I think you are confusing people who exercise their own freedom of speech with people who believe in freedom of speech as a universal principle (i.e. everyone's freedom of speech).

Yes nazis shout that they have a right to their marches because "free speech", but are they proponents of freedom of speech for all? Considering some of them don't even believe in the right to life for all, it's obvious they aren't for it. In this way they are hypocrites, enjoying freedoms that they would not give to others, making their ideology one that will eventually self-implode, as it has in the past.

I make that distinction.

However, the problem is that, even in cases where free speech as such is protected due to universal principles, allowing the negative movements to spread and organize, it ends up with ending of free speech.

It has ended like that in every country which faced this situation in middle east. Nazis themselves came to power through elections, and they gained their initial following via free speech...

This is a matter of practicality since its a contradiction:

Will you allow the movements which will eventually end free speech to gain power through free speech. Will you limit their free speech.

Its a paradox.

[Louisabell]

I make that distinction.

However, the problem is that, even in cases where free speech as such is protected due to universal principles, allowing the negative movements to spread and organize, it ends up with ending of free speech.

It has ended like that in every country which faced this situation in middle east. Nazis themselves came to power through elections, and they gained their initial following via free speech...

This is a matter of practicality since its a contradiction:

Will you allow the movements which will eventually end free speech to gain power through free speech. Will you limit their free speech.

Its a paradox.

First off I want to point out that freedom of speech does not entail harrasment, incitement of violence, conspiracy to commit crimes and threats of violence, so if a political party engages in that speech, it is not protected! They are committing a crime.

As for ideological speech (not the above) ...

I could also ask you, will you become authoritarian to stop the authoritarians? Also a paradox.

Lots of royal families, theocracies and military coups in the middle east - don't think those forms of power are big on the whole universal freedom of speech thing.

Listening to the person in the room holding the gun is not "freedom of speech". You won't see them coming, and there will be little you can do to stop them, but your fear of them will evidently make you give up your ideals. Looks to me like they've already won.

But since most people here are agreeing with your arguments, I will end my contributions here. Let's just hope what is politically correct and patriotic is what is morally right, and that it stays that way indefinitely in the future.

I also hope all your confidence in the majority's ability to decide what speech is allowed and which isn't is well founded. Maybe we could do interactive tv voting during the commercial times of the superbowl, we'd probably get much higher voter turnout.. "press 1 for mis-gendered pronouns, press 2 for calling military service personnel invaders..." Or did you actually believe you would be the one to decide?

I guess in the absence of universal principles, we always have hope to fall back on.

[4Dsunrise]

This topic came up in the Facebook group and someone suggested wise love and loving wisdom.

[Louisabell]

This topic came up in the Facebook group and someone suggested wise love and loving wisdom.

I asked my friend who's not into the LOO. He said love without wisdom is still better than wisdom without love, because things would still be good if everyone had unwise love, while things could turn pretty bad if people were wise but without love.

I thought that was pretty insightful from someone who's not familiar with the Ra material or spirituality in general, and it might elucidate why love comes first on the STO path.

[David_1]

   Biblical writings in 1 Corinthians include, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. . .  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
   I notice that wisdom is not mentioned in the spiritual gifts listed here.  Probably it is because wisdom is something that comes at a later time.  Love is mentioned as the greatest.

[AnthroHeart]

   Biblical writings in 1 Corinthians include, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. . .  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
   I notice that wisdom is not mentioned in the spiritual gifts listed here.  Probably it is because wisdom is something that comes at a later time.  Love is mentioned as the greatest.

In the Bible, the Lord was pleased when Solomon had asked for Wisdom, not Love.



1 Kings 3

The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” 15Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.

[David_1]

Good point about Solomon, IGW.
Solomon was a king and wanted to be a wise one.  Let us hope he also had love.