Millions profess to know God or believe that there is a supreme creator, and yet, the surprising truth is that not many people truly know who or what God is. It may sound shocking to make such a statement, but it happens to be true; Satan, the god of this planet has deceived humanity to have a false view of God.
People do not know who or what God is
What God is NOT
The popular belief in the professed Christian world is that God is a trinity – composed of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being a trinity.
There are those who will quote several scriptures which seem to refer to the holy Spirit as being a third person because the Bible – using the personal pronoun, often refer to the Spirit as HE. For example, John 16:13 says, “… when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak …” Looking at this has convinced millions to believe Christ is speaking of another Being or third person. But what the millions have failed to understand that the personal pronoun “HE” should actually be correctly translated as “IT” and not “HE”. The translators who wanted to believe God is a trinity, used the word “HE” instead of “IT.” It should read: “When “IT” the spirit of truth is come …” This word is in the neuter gender and is not referring to either male or female; and should not be translated as “He.” If you go to Romans 8:16, you will read the correct usage - for here it says, “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit …”. The spirit of God is referred to as “ITSELF”. The holy spirit of God is a “IT” and not a He; it is not a third person.
A woman conceives a child through the father, and yet Jesus who was conceived by the holy Spirit, never called the holy Spirit his Father, Why?
Also consider this: The Bible says in Matthew 1:20 that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. If the holy spirit was a person, then it means the holy spirit would then be the father of Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus makes any reference to the holy Spirit as being his father; You never see Jesus praying to the Holy Spirit but to God as his Father; This fact alone is proof positive that the holy spirit is not a third person.
In Zechariah 4:6, God says, “… not by might, nor by power (meaning human might or power -as God does not rely on human power), but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” God says his power comes from his own spirit - meaning the spirit is the power of God; it the power that emanates from God himself.
In John 7:38,39 Jesus spoke of the Spirit as rivers of living waters; a person is not a river of water; also Acts 2:17 speaks of God pouring out his Spirit; if the holy Spirit was a person, how can a person be poured out or quenched – even a 1 Thess. 5:19 says?
Jesus spoke of the Spirit as living waters; a person is not living waters, but rather the power that emanate from God
But what about 1 John 5:7,8 which says, “For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word and the HOLY GHOST; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth) the spirit, and the water and the blood …” If you take careful note, the words placed in the parenthesis or bracket - beginning with “in heaven and ending with witness in the earth” was actually added by editors to the Latin Vulgate translation possibly in the Early Fourth century as it was never in the older Greek manuscripts; men added these words because they wanted to pass on their own belief that God is a trinity, but thankfully God has so inspired his word so that we can know this is false and was added to God’s inspired truth. You can read this passage in the New American Standard Bible, The English Bible and others to see that they left out this false or spurious scripture.
God is not a trinity; this is a false belief that people have been led to believe and a little diligent study on your part will open your mind to this stunning truth. The Bible command the true servant of God to not only prove all things, but also says we are to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Who or What God is
If you go to Genesis 1;1 you read these words: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. “The Hebrew word for God is Elohim and it signifies more than one person; it is in plural form but can be used in a singular sense to represent that which comprise more than one person; For example, the word can refer to a Church or family or group in the singular sense, but, at the same time, we know that a Church or family is made up of more than one person. Consider it this way: Suppose a person goes by the last name of brown as the family name; we know that the name Brown, in this case, is speaking of the Brown family – meaning one family named Brown, but having more than one person in the family. Similarly, Elohim is referring to God in the family sense; it is revealing that God is a family; Elohim means God is a family comprised NOT of three persons but only of two persons; it is comprised of the other person to whom God said; “… Let us make man in our image …” (Gen. 1:26).
When God said, “Let us,” God was not talking to himself but to the other God Being – who became Jesus Christ in the flesh; the one who created all things. If you go to John chapter 1:1 it speak of the beginning that was long before God created the heaven and the earth. Notice what it says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Consider carefully that the Word was also God and that this Word or God was also with God. “With” God - signifies that you are talking about two divine personages or persons. In other words, this Word or person who existed with God was the very same one who became Jesus Christ in the flesh. In speaking of this eternal relationship, Jesus said, “… O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
Notice Christ said before the world was; this is speaking of their eternal togetherness in eternity; you will also notice that no third person or holy spirit is mentioned as existing with God as a separate person or individual; it was only two personages mentioned. Do you see and believe that?
The truth is God is NOT a trinity, but God is a family of two supreme Beings who has eternally existed in harmony and peace together; there is one God existing as one family – meaning ONE God family, but are two separate individua person who make up the God family.

Before I got married to my wonderful husband we had gone months and months stressing each other out with trying to plan the perfect day. Neither of us particularly had the flair for planning large occasions and being both introverted we were really only planning the day to appease our families. We had spent months planning and I had the idea that I wanted to surprise him with a sentimental and personal gift. I wanted the gift to show my cheeky and slutty personality that would be for his eyes only. After speaking to one of my girlfriends she mentioned that I should consider a boudoir photoshoot, which she said she had done in the past for her husband. I completely fell in love with the idea and rushed to do my research and book it in. Within a couple of days I had found a photographer that wasn’t too far from my home and made a midday booking.
The photographers name was Christian and we emailed back and forth as we spoke about the finer details and what would be involved. I picked out a number of sexy outfits and pieces of lingerie and eagerly awaited the big day.
When the day finally came I drove to Christians studio which was a gorgeous ultra modern house located in an affluent area. I knocked on the door with my gym bag in hand and was wearing some very slutty makeup. My lips were pink and my black hair was straightened and fell down past my tits. Christian answered the door and I was stunned at how gorgeous he was. He was tall and wore a white shirt and suit pants. He had a full head of sandy hair and a really chiseled face. I got so nervous and was acting like a school girl.
He invited me in and we immediately started innocently flirting with each other. He was looking me up and down and there was definite chemistry. I couldn’t wait till he saw me in my first outfit.
I changed in a nearby room and wore a sexy black gstring that barely covered anything. I wore a matching black bra that had tassels that was insanely hot. As soon as I walked out Christian smirks and says “wow!” I said, “do you like it?” To which he nods his head. We begin shooting and I have no idea what to do but Christian guides me into all different positions. I felt like a total pornstar and was loving every bit. We continued to flirt and after a bit I got the courage to say, “you know this is kind of hot.” Christian smiled again and said “you’re very beautiful. Your husband is very lucky.”
The next pose I was in was a doggy style pose on a bed. Things were starting to heat up between us and I could see his bulge in his pants. I said, “this is my favorite position you know & by the way I know you’re hard under there.” He got so embarrassed but then got closer and was taking more closer shots. As he got closer he looked at me and kissed me on the fucking lips. At that point I totally freaked out and realized that I had crossed the line. I was being a total slut but his kiss made me instantly wet. I made up some dumb excuse and then left the house. A few weeks later he emailed me the photos.
Enjoy seeing what only my husband has ever seen before.

John 15: 9-17:

• God loved us first and loves us all. The key word here is "all." Do not let others say that only a select group or "elect" are loved by God. He loves all of us and offers us all the grace of salvation. It's up to you if you want to respond to it.

Jesus said to his disciples: “As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love"

• Jesus tells us how not to lose our salvation and the explicit call of obedience. We have to respond to that grace of salvation by being obedient to Christ. It is not a passive faith.

"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.
I have told you this so that my joy might be in you and your joy might be complete."

• What is Christ's explicit commandment, or what does he require of us? How do I become a good Christian?

"This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. "

• How do we strengthen our faith and relationship with Christ?

"You are my friends if you do what I command you.
I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing.
I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father. "

• Without God, we can do nothing. Without the grace of salvation offered by God, we cannot save ourselves. So let us constantly seek for the grace of God, seek to increase the virtues and the strength to persevere.

"It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.

• What does God want from me or expect from me?

"This I command you: love one another."

Here. And I’d like to start by noticing that Steve Sailer is obviously Delicious Taco’s dad. Having said this.
Good episode. Lots of engagement which I suppose is a net positive for all involved. Obviously a lot of the injury stems from a distortion. The episode’s content fantasized and in fantasy warped into something constituting a threat (no, an outright assault) to the listener’s person. One can simply listen to the episode and see that some (in fact the bulk) of the negative responses are from people reacting to some spectral absent-presence rather than to what is actually being said over the course of the 2 hour long episode. The voices and the discourse have instead been shaped into sonic receptacle containing the reflection of something wildly ugly. Injuriously ugly.
Past few days have been brutal. Found myself doom-viewing the main sub, should know better at this age. Feels like I’ve been transmogrified into an absurd and wretched thing. Must've transgressed against a gnome or something. Fascinating to think about.
I would like nothing more than to shame you.
Miami Summer is a killer. Urine is blood-orange. And my mother deserves better sons.
Why would A&D do this?
Witnessing the rankest comments. In bygone age I’d found them tolerable. Having imagined them delivered by high society homosexual. A damned dandy; chubby, sinister, and flamboyant. Capri on a stick limply held between index and middle fingers, twirling wrist ash’ing on expensive Persian rug. The blurry ghosts of his mother and the kid brother who drowned in the pond all those years ago glaring at him from far-off corner. Clearing throat he launches into sing-song slander head peeling back cackling at his own wickedness. Vile and venomous but charming. Instead what we get is 30+ year old mentally-ill men. Men whose Twitter activity has atrophied their cock and balls. Genitals withering away like the Worker's State, in its place a gasping cloaca, worry not I can clock em from miles away. The odious cloaca-havers are soon joined by ruined drug-addled children and the other women. They talk about A&D in disgusting ways. This is unfair and nasty. I confess to being angry. Sweating blood-specked kerosene. Let the scent fill up the empty air between us. My wrath singeing those overgrown nose hairs.
Of the two I think Anna is the one that inspires the harshest parasocial spite. So much so that I’d recommend she take some protective measures against evil eye and tongue. Maybe take baths with hyssop herb, rose water perfume, and holy water.
It’s as if Anna Khachiyan is a Giant Floating Vagina with teeth and a noticeable overbite. Viewed from another angle it transforms into a Madonna encircled by cherubim. Perhaps we are cruel to Anna in order to be kind to our mothers.
All very pre-Oedipal.
Had to step back and parse it out. Anna draws a comparison between herself and Sailer while also asking him a great question,
07:12-07:49
Anna: “I started reading it during the pandemic because it was the pandemic. I was pregnant and bored and I really relate to you as a person who everyone thinks is like evil and monstrous on the internet, but is actually like quite agreeable and mild mannered in real life. And I was going to ask you this question last, but I may as well just ask it now. How do you feel about your new found popularity? And especially, how do you feel about the fact that you have been effectively adopted by or identified with the hard right?”
The first part of the above extract, the sympathetic recognition, brings to mind a bit of 20th century Hermetic theory concerning harmful thought-forms. Our unconscious self-destructive impulses animating the fantasy-phantasm of the other. Inhabiting their shape. Gaining a degree of autonomy. This artificial entity is vampiric by default, provoking what the Czech magician Franz Bardon calls a "magical persecutory complex"... He goes into detail about such entities in Step VI of his seminal work, Initiation into Hermetics. Describing different types of artificial elementals and phantasms along with details on how to consciously go about creating and dissipating them. One of those artificial psychic entities, the one that concerns us, he calls the schemata. Bardon details two variants, one connected with paranoid persecutory fantasies and the other with erotic obsession. The first type comes about when someone who is “easily excitable, easily influenced or self-important” (Narcissist?) has a run in with another person who has, to put it mildly, a memorable visage and dark personality. The schemata is born from the phantasm modeled after this demonic-looking disagreeable person. The victim begins to attribute all kinds of minor inconveniences to the influence of the ugly person. Deludes themselves into thinking that the ugly/disagreeable person is a powerful black magician. Everything appears to reinforce their paranoid delusions. The schema grows in power feeding off the anxieties of their creatohost. The person might end up committing suicide. This was the persecutory schemas desire, having achieved its goal Bardon notes, “how great is the shock when such a spirit realizes on the mental plane that he has committed a very successful magical suicide. What a bitter disappointment! The demonic looking person, however, has no idea what happened; he was actually only the means to an end.”
God gave us eyes so that we might notice things.
The way I see it:
Being social animals the subject of our fantasy, of our fixations, is the fantasy of the other. What makes the human Human is not that we desire but rather that we desire the desire of the other. An excess desire. We fantasize about what the other is fantasizing and enjoying. Our fantasy of the fantasy of the other is the outlines a fundamental lack within our person, a negativity. Experienced as a splitting of consciousness. Intuiting this lack, becoming aware of it, and attempting to articulate it, we are self-consciousness. This negativity or void is in psychoanalytic terms, the unconscious. We likewise intuit that there had once been some original state. One without lack and contradiction. A state of fullness, without the division between self and object. A harmonious whole. A pure consciousness or as Freud refers to it in Civilization and its Discontents an oceanic feeling. The Original Desire, one that is authentically my own, which was not the desire of the other but which unites our desires in itself. This desire is the extinction of all desires.
The eye that perceives the lovely is at once the eye that perceives what I lack. Perceiving this lack, which explains my present condition, I covet. This is an evil eye. The lover’s gaze is of the same type as the infirm or pathic gaze. Reminded of Zizek’s formulation of one of Hegel’s insights, “Evil resides in the very gaze which perceives Evil all around itself" itself a variation of Meister Eckhart’s “the eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me.” The recognition of evil, the ability to see and judge evil, stems from our ability to recognize disparity. This disparity is already present within our own person, the split-consciousness. The feeling cognized, the awareness of our condition as beings separated from the whole. The clairvoyance of the tyrant and the philosopher.
Suppose that psychopathology is born from our inability to recognize an image as an image.
I intuit something more in this person, something they’re hiding. It can’t just be envy, no. It has to be because I can feel that this thing they’re hiding is sinister. It can’t just be that I feel animosity towards this person, no. It has to be because this person is evil and not just an isolated evil but rather a symptom of a much larger evil. An evil that is responsible for all the suffering in the World, for why my World isn’t the way it should be. It can’t just be attraction, no. It has to be that I intuit something more in this person, something hidden, that I must destroy in order to go on living.
If vile shit comes to mind (as vile things often do, especially when one is immersed in ambient algorithmically-summoned vileness, namely outrage and atrocity porn) they won't affirm it to themselves or try to justify or rationalize it or present it as a rational political stance. And they don’t abstract this particular form of vileness into the primary lens through which they view and interpret cultural phenomena. Unreflexive racial animosity is ugly and fetid. We’re capable of recognizing it, feeling it, as something pathological. We’re also capable of laughing at it. Laughing at ourselves. Look at what our ladies have to say about Stuart Seldowitz (the dude who went viral harassing a halal street vendor) in I’ll Be Missinger. “He sucks,” “he’s a loser,” “he’s obviously sick,” and that he gives the impression of someone who lives alone, will die alone, and will be found weeks or even months after the fact.
Perhaps Red Scare is special in how it manages to elicit absurd, wildly inappropriate responses from listeners. Vulgar and revelatory was it? Steve Sailer elicits a similar response and has become an expert in turning said absurd reactions to his advantage. Generally the cooler-head in any given exchange. While the other person shouts obscenities at a ghost, smashing fists against the post, looking crazy, like a proper hysteric. Sailer breaks the fourth-wall, making eye-contact with the would-be noticer, with a little shake of the head, a little chuckle, a little shrug… “you’re noticing right? See what I have to put up with? Imagine these people defining my legacy.” Still he seems to take it with the good humor of an uncle who will still call you on your birthday, despite your drunken outburst during holiday get-together he will admit to not having resisted the temptation to provoke you, it use to be fun, recall all the cool bands I introduced you too? We use to be best buds, “do you really think anything I’ve said merits this sort of response? Honestly?”
Has to be a cheap trick. A technique employed by an old trickster in decades long honing of craft. Maybe not. Maybe what we see is precisely what we get. Most of the very upsetting things being jokes sincerely intended to lighten the mood. Steve Sailer doesn’t care about the particular political orientation of his audience. He just cares that he has an audience. Grateful for the fans he has. Nonetheless happy that they’re not seething malcontent racists. Even if one disagrees with the methodology, the heuristic, the conclusions. That’s secondary, perhaps even tertiary to the recognition sought. His craftsmanship as a writer.
Why I loved his conflict with Will Stancil. Stancil inspired a lot of pondering for me. Putting things in place…
01:29:22-01:29:28
Anna: “You come for the race science and stay for the prose-styling and vivid story-telling.”
In trying to survive as a writer exiled from Mainstream Conservative media (ConInc) during the Bush Jr years. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong but the cancelation that actually impacted Steve Sailer, setting him down the path we find him in, was brought about not by blue-haired hall monitor millennial leftists but by his “fellow” Conservatives. I imagine that he just went with whoever was willing to take him adapting to the editorial standards and audience sensibilities of the publications willing to provide him succor. Not charity mind you but an ability to engage in his own little labor of love.
Read some Sailer. Might get into that later. But that’s the initial impression I got from Steve. Would be utterly mortified if memorialized as a Racialist Ideologue rather than as an entertaining and thought-provoking journalist. Think I also benefited from seeing how he’s actually received by people who are navigating through (or in certain cases, are mired in) the marginal “Hard Right”-spaces or the Rightwing Digital Ghetto. End up realizing that he isn’t hateful, that what you see is precisely what you get, that he privileges craft over ideology, that his reception and exile from Neocon dominated media outlets (remember these are the people gushing ecstatic over the US invasion of Iraq, manufacturing consent for our adventures in the Middle East) was exceedingly unfair but that he nonetheless managed to persevere. And that he really never goes beyond Norm McDonald in terms of his sardonic wit or The Boondocks animated series in terms of his criticisms. His normality is a great source of stability and comfort for his readers; “noticing” and speculating about these topics doesn’t necessarily lead to one becoming a seething racist.
Returning for a moment to Will Stancil, this was what he inspired:
As the last man standing I spend countless hours immersed in detailed fantasies about the coming apocalypse and my enemy's bliss. A dumb and wicked happiness proportional to my suffering. Easy to imagine other people happy. Hearts unbroken. Unburdened, hydrated, sexually satisfied, debt-free, lucky, successful in all business endeavors. Brute, jezebel, schemer, parasite, rival, betrayer... the whole lot of them thriving. Frolicking in my mind's eye. When the time comes I won't forget that they were happy while...others...suffered.
Find that trying to void your mind of all thought or sit perfectly still for 10 minutes. End up feeling like something requires much less energy from us than nothing. Causes coalescing. Conspiring, to what ends?
You see. The very same principle appears to be at work here. Same pathological base that undergirds genuine racial or ethnic animosity. Fantasizing about the other’s enjoyment and being unable to distinguish between the persecutory Phantasm and the actual human being whose shape it appropriates.
Had a friend recommend forgetting. Forgetting is a dialectical exercise, first you have to acknowledge the thing living rent free in your head and acknowledge its origins... then you have to take the steps to stop feeding it. Letting the thought-form dissolve. Let it be put to rest. Reminded of the practice Orthodox Christian contemplatives call Nepsis.
Other approaches as well, acknowledging the presence of anima veiled in shadow.
But listen…
The podcasts I consume, are a reflection of me as a person. Being what I associate and consume. What does it say about me in particular? Reveal about me? That they should have Steve Sailer on the pod. Settling down. Perhaps some responses could be understood in this light. That a Sailer episode reflects poorly on the listener. Constituting a great betrayal of the love and energy and time I have dedicated over the years to you.
I’m not a racist.
Show me your likes on Twitter and I’ll tell you who you are. The most punitive and brutal god. The idea of the AI nu-god being this, utilizing that standard, is horrifying. Show me your likes on Twitter and I’ll tell you who you are, everything you are, and whether or not you qualify to live.
Shamed, I quietly remove the upvote I gave to the hysterical person and the downvote I gave to him.
Hysteria like a yawn is an empathic contagion.
Back to Anna it’s not because she’s ugly and it sucks that she might nurse this delusion. I actually think Anna is really pretty. Rather I think it’s because she’s a mom. She registers as a maternal figure. That’s one of the reasons I think people respond to her the way they do. As stated earlier. We are cruel to Anna in order to forgive our moms.
[To be continued: Wherein I say horrible things that should never be said to the people I claim to love. Will also interrogate Sailor Socialism]

I don't really no where to start. I feel I've lost myself, consumed with anxiety and guilt and fear and regret and I fear, this new fear, that it's going to be the end of me if I don't start to get it out in some way, shape or form.
I guess I'll begin at the beginning...
​
I had a difficult childhood with fairly neglectful parents. A mother who openly expressed she never felt she really stepped into her mom shoes until she gave birth to my younger sister, who is three years younger than me. She is my only sibling. My mother told me when I was a kid that she "had to love me", but when my sister came around "she was finally a mother and over the moon", or simply "I always always wanted a girl". I'm not sure if this could be attributed to Post-partum depression, not that she ever researched that or was daignosed with it. That's probably just me trying to pardon my mother or something to the effect. She was 17 when she had me and I'm sure times were different then, my parents both were raised religious, father christian, mother mormon. Maybe their guilt. I ask myself why they brought me into this world if I wasn't wanted to begin with. Or, give me up for adoption to a set of guardians that would have loved me better. I know I was an accident and that's not what gets me down, I get that life be lifing and what happened happened. My difficulties stem from the feeling that my presence never gave my mother any sense of purpose, responsibility or love, or concern. She was emotionally unavailable to me virtually my entire life and I feel like that caused many issues later in my life and how I perceive myself and what I deserve. Coupled with the fact that my neglect met such extremes that I am frankly shocked that I was never picked up by child care services, maybe things were different in the 90's. I'm not sure, I was just a child then.
Much of my upbringing I didn't receive a lot of the things most people would consider essential. As a baby my crib was the sock drawer, then I grew large enough to have a closet, then slept on the floor of a walk-in closet, then I had a single bed from what I recall for maybe a year or maybe two years and I remember feeling metal springs poke me in the my ribs and I recall it being uncomfortable enough for me to move back to sleeping on the floor next to the ratty old used mattress my father found from who knows where. I remember feeling like I had to keep that secret, that the mattress they gave me was uncomfortable enough for me to sneak sleeping on the floor next to it. I think I was really afraid as coming across as ungrateful. My father came from a third world country, so the "gratefullness issue" was address frequently by my mom because "I don't have it even half as bad as what my father had to endure. And she was probably right. But it just silenced me ultimately, didn't put things into a mature context for me. I just learned that I can't complain about anything ever. Anyway, that trend didn't really change when I grew older. grade 9-10 I was sleeping on the living room couch so my sister could have privacy and a bedroom to exist in for herself - which I realize is important for an individual so I encouraged her to have the bedroom. Although I figured my parents expected me to do this for my sister regardless. I was okay with making sacrfices for those I love, it was instilled in me from a very very young age.
I do feel like my father took advantage of me in the form of labour as well, having to do custodial work with my father from 10pm to 3am, at two highschools I believe he was contracted, at that young age I honestly enjoyed just spending time with my father I think, working alongside him. When I was in grade 2 and 3 I had garbage bag duty for all the students bathrooms, and I remember loving snapping the bags open by rushing air into the bag and making it blow up like a baloon. I remember the scary unlit shadowy hallways that I couldn't perceive the ends of. No bodies to see, it felt eerie but exciting in a way - like it was a whole different world.
School was a different experience for me. It was very stressful, my parents had to move a few times a year because they would dodge rent or just generally be selfish with their dual income. They loved to party hard on the weekends. I remember wondering why my father did this to himself all the time. Hoping that we could spend quality time on a saturday, but he wouldnt get out of bed until just before dinner. I didn't really understand hangovers or alcoholism and how it meant our plans would get cancelled. I think I remember trying to wrap my head around willful self-poisoning for entertainment and how could that be more enjoyable then spending time with your son? I couldn't tell my mother why I was so sad about it. Why I didn't want to move again and again and again. Why I found it so difficult to make new friends everytime I had to switch schools. Why I couldn't just do one single full school year with one class of students. It was so hard and at the time, I didn't know anything different. It was so hard to make friends and I think it created this approach to making a "new family" of friends when I became a teenager and young adult.
​
I remember always wanting to be a "good kid". The "best kid" for my parents. I feel like my parents attached this moniker to me that made things harder for me to mature into a rounded adult later in life. My parents always flaunted me as this point of accomplishment, the accomplishment that I was "so extremely well behaved". I would strive to be super polite, and a good host, try to help out when my parents had their friends over, literally fill their cups when the opportunity presented themselves. I think I did this because I must have made the conclusion that if I was quiet, super polite, helpful and useful then I had value. That I could be loved. That I could earn this love from my parents through acts of service.
I remember feeling like my sister and I had extremely different experiences growing up. When my parents were at work I took care of her, cleaned and cooked. one time my sister told my mom to eff off when she was 5 and I was 8. My mind was blown. I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that she had the bravery and courage to defy my mother. Looking back, my sister was just mirroring the language she learned from my parents from whenever they fought. I remembering seriously worrying and getting scared that my father was going to belt her, or use the coat hanger, which was his preference with me. I feel like my mom was always checked out and I'm hurt that she allowed my father to take his rage out on me. That my mom could care less about me being beat, but never my sibling. It was very confusing and difficult for me to process. Not that I really processed it much as a kid. I honestly just wanted to be loved and be the best child possible. Honestly though, 'm seriously so glad that my sister was spared all of that complete non-sense. I don't wish that on anyone in the world. There were some punishments where he would walk in and tell me to pull my pants down without explanation. I have memories of tearing up and saying I didn't know why this was happening, asking what I did wrong and he would just remind me that if I resisted then I would get it worse and to hurry up and get ready. My father has since apologized. I think it is how he was raised. I didn't know what to say in response, but I told him I loved him and it's in the past. But I don't know if I was being honest when I said that. My mother would still gaslight me to this day if any of this became topic of discussion, not that I'm guessing. A year ago she told me that much of my pained memories were false and this never happened. My father on the other hand typically stays pensive and unchallenging.
It seems so damned crazy writing all of this out, it feels like a heartbreaking novel and not my life at all. But it was and is my life. I have difficulties opening up and expressing my feelings and advocating for myself when the moments are true and appropriate to do so. I know it's the healthier way to communicate, but I was literally taught to stay quiet and be useful. Fast forward 20-25 years and I'm going to be 35 and I feel like just ending it all. Every year my birthday passes and I'll get a text from my family happy birthday. But they know I'm in a difficult place, they know I miss them, they know I love them and forgive them, I try the high road whenever I can but I just don't see the point anymore. they won't celebrate my life and existence, but they'll throw family gatherings for each other, birthdays, christmas, fathers day and mothers day.
On that note, another mother's day has recently passed and my mother never invited me over, I texted my father three weeks in advance in hopes of securing a time to come over and celebrate my mothers life with my family as a family. I felt particularly stung this mother's day when they celebrated and didn't text or call to invite me over. I live in the same small town so it's easy to hop over. I literally live three blocks away.
Anyway, my mother was diagnosed with cancer over christmas this year and I have been worrying for my mother ever since and thinking about my life with her and the mortal coil and the finite mount of time I may have with her. I feel like there is a large empty part in my heart that wishes my mother and I could go grab a coffee together. She can show me her ipad app art that she has been really excited about for a couple years now. She loves showing off her digital art and I love seeing her joy and how proud she is about her art. I just don't know why she couldn't feel the same for me, her only son. Maybe I'm just a her dissapointment.
I dropped out of highschool and left the family home when I was 16. I just couldn't work for my dad during the night AND go to highschool AND socialize. Something had to give. Unfortunately it was highschool and my parents didn't really care about that at all. They were just... fine with it. they supported my sister through college and she was fortunately able to graduate with a veterinary degree of sorts. she still lives with them now as she pays off her student debt, but I left and travelled and worked on music for over a decade so I admit that I was entirely out of the family picture for some time. But as I get older, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of my parents I fear that that is precisely what's been creeping up in my life.
five years ago I met the absolute most wonderful human being and I am so lucky to have my partner in my life. She and I are engaged now and set to be married. I hoped that the news would overwhelm my parents with excitement and joy. Maybe a facebook post about their son, share some family pictures or something. But they did nothing at all. I think they showed off pictures of the trip to Mexico that week instead.
I just don't really understand how I'm this unworthy of their love and unfortunately now I'm realizing that illusion that I am unworthy has infected my relationship with my fiance. I love her so much but when I can't fix everything in her life I feel like I am the failure and the guilt overhelms me so much and the guilt is such a strong motivator for me, and it usually motivates me into becoming the biggest doormat in the world. I've never worked harder for a relationship or invested this much energy. I feel she deserves it. But I don't advocate for myself. So I build up resentment. Like I clean the house constantly and work and help bail out of her bad spending habits and cover her rent without question and this and that. To be clear, she doesn't take advantage of me and that's not how I feel about it. But I do let this annoyance build up inside of me because I don't know how to communicate my feelings in a healthy way. I'm scared I'll lose the person if I speak up, or I'll be gaslit. Again, that's not my partner that gaslights. That's just generally how I feel I'll be treated if I open up with people. It all goes back to my childhood. It's affected every friendship and work relationship I've had since.
When I was 20-ish, 15 years years ago I did the classic, "seek the relationship that most comfortably fits into the patterns you experienced with your parents". And so I trapped myself in a horrific and extremely damaging relationship with a girl I'll call K. She has undiagnosed bipolaBPD, she would never seek help but self-medicate. She ended up in the hospital maybe four times for self-harming and this where she was considered to have these diseases by a few doctors on different occasions. Anway, it turned into a relationship of abuse and it wasn't exactly new territory for me. I was ashamed in that 8 year relationship. I wanted out so bad, but she would threaten to unalive everytime I tried to get away. Of course, some weeks would go by and i would get my hair pulled out of my scalp, a knife waving in the air in front of my face, spat in the face, kicked, punched, bit, a pot of freshly boiled ramen soup thrown in my face and eyes. What's worse is that I seeked police intervention on multiple occasions. Every single time the police visited, they talked me out of pressing charges, asking me " well if she doesn't have any place to go, then do you have a place you can stay at, or the shelter?". twice they talked me out of a restraining order, that legal proceedings would take forever. Adn de-escalting me from wanting to take measures to ensure my safety because she may end up on the street as a result. To this day, I absolutely wish I advocated for myself here and pushed for a restraining order. I'm so mad at myself for not doing so.
Unfortunately, fast forward a couple years into that relationship and one evening everything would finally hit the fan. I told her to never touch me again and I absolutely meant it. she had just yanked out the largest chunk of my hair to date, to the point where my scalp was bleeding and I could even see epidermal matter still attached to the folicle ends that were in her clenched fingers. My head bled a bit and I pushed her off of me. Telling her that I needed to leave, that I was walking to my secure jam space just a 10 minute walk away. It had a leather couch in a cold concrete basement, but hey at least I would be safe for the night and I could play my drums and try and blow off this anxiety and fear in a way that was safe albeit very noisy.
She hated that I wanted to leave and convinced herself I would never return. To be fair, that was the energy I had. I never wanted to see her face again and have her name on my lips after that night. So her tactic was simple, to threaten me with calling the cops and tell them that I violently pushed her. I called her bluff and said "go ahead and I will just tell them everything you've done - yet again. All I am doing is going to the space to sleep, I said, maybe play drums." She called the cops and told them she was pushed into a wall, and she felt very unsafe. Which yes, I did push her off me when she attacked me. In the past, I tried various tactics, to run away didn't work, she just always chased me down. Or sometimes I would just sit there while she was violent against me and I just "dissapeared" kind of like how I would when my dad used his coat hanger. This time, I just pushed her off of me, I was done with the relationship at that point and we both knew it. Anyway, she called the police, they arrived and when questioned I told them that I pushed her off of me in self-defence. I was drinking that night and it didn't help my case as I was arrested without question that evening and I was charged on the spot without question with domestic assault. It devasted me. I asked the police how this could happen lawfully. That she is an abuser and there is a history of this multiple times. That I've requested a restraining order. They explained that in quebec the laws are a little different and in the case domestic cases, if there is a male aggressor against a female, then the male is automatically charged to the fullest extent. I was absolutelyu devasted by this. I can't tell you the amount of fear and anger I felt in that jail cell that night.
I feel so incredibly betrayed by the justice system, keep in mind, this is law that from what I understand is only in Quebec, I was there for music at the time with an old friend whom I am no longer in contact with. I don't think the rest of the country operates under law in this way. Now I appreciate that they are vigilant about woman abuse victims, but the law shouldn't be this absurdly biased. It just doesnt feel just and fair to me. Covert abusers shouldn't be able to take advantage of the justice system in this way, but it happens.
It was an awful experience, I was homeless for a couple months afterward, not allowed to retrieve my belongings, so I lost all of my life "crap" that I had built up, years of hardwork and investment. I mention this because I realize later in life that I have intense collecting behaviour. maybe as a self-soothing behaviour. But I love building up collections of my hobby stuff as I have many and I feel they keep me regulated and it's a form of therapy for me. In any case, I lost everything when I left that whole situation. It sucks, although ultimately it's clearly best that I got out of that dreadful circumstance. I flew across the country to my hometown and to be closer to my family and old friends from highschool. It's quite a small town mind you.
Unfortunately, my classic tendency to hide and not advocate for myself created an opportunity for my abusive ex. A year following those events, despite me assuring her that I had to block her because I flew away to start a new life provinces away. That I wished her the best. That I even promised I would never tell a soul what she did to me. Not to mention that unfortunately we live in a society where nobody really has an ounce of sympathy for a male abuse victim. I had every intention to keep that promise, but she couldn't trust me ultimately. I think her logic was maybe to just beat her ex to "the punch". Kill or be killed or something like that. I don't live my life like that so I don't really know what her plan was. But she made a bunch of posts on various social media platforms for all of our mutual friends, music friends, coworkers etc. that the relationship was over and she was free. That she got out of a cycle of abuse and she was ready to start a new chapter of her life. She never used my name, just that she was glad she got away from her toxic and abusive ex once and for all.
It was exactly like that night a year prior, she threatened me with this outcome she could design for me, and I called her on her bluff by saying I was still going to block her and I can't control what she does with her life or how she conducts herself, but that I was out and to never contact me ever again. She made me regret that decision.
The posts she made that day got so many likes and support from so many of our mutual friends, even musician mates that were closer to me than her, and it absolutely destroyed me, not just internally but socially. I no longer make music anymore and it hurts to go outside into the world because it feels like everybody sees me as this monster. And still I don't have a voice to inform anyone otherwise - except my family and my fiance. I have no friends anymore. They all left my life with the belief that I did all of these horrible and awful things.
I just don't trust people anymore as a result and it's just caused me to become extremely bitter and depressed. I ruminate on the past, maybe in attempts to fix the past so I can move on. So I could do better, so I don't have to punish myself for my mistakes in the past. But it just reopens every emotional wound I have and they never get a chance to heal. That was maybe 7 years ago now and I'm still replaying these events in my head every single morning for about 1 - 2 hrs. Then I go completely numb for the majority of the rest of the day, shallow breathing, and the mildest sadness that mascarades as fatigue and disinterest.
There are some days where I seriously fear for the future and I just feel like every cruel soul will inherit this earth and that's the future, they built this world of suffering and they deserve to inherit it. Their toxic flag staked so deep into the earth in reclamation. The future isn't holding any seats for people like us. I'm so heartbroken and defeated. I feel like white-wolfing my fiance because she deserves better than this traumatized person that hides from the world. I feel like giving her my collection of collections so she can sell it all off and pay off her 10k of credit debt, then with this act of kindness I can go out not feeling like a guilt-ridden defeated loser. And leave on a high note.
When I'm alone, I get trapped in these ruminating cycles and it's the angriest I ever get. It's reached the point where I feel like I am actually reliving all this past trauma every morning and I can't do it anymore. I just feel like I am so at the end of whatever this ride was.
I don't have any friends anymore and everyone but my fiance thinks I am a monster and it's just unbearable.
I just don't even know. I am even afraid that someone will read this post and suss through all of this and make the connection. Then I'll get another new email or random throwaway account with an insta message that says "I told you you would never be able to get over me. You can move on, but you will never be able to erase the past. Never truly. You know where to find me."
It's haunting and it's poisonous. I just feel haunted and poisoned and I don't know if there is a snake oil potent enough or antitode true enough to get me back to the generous, lighthearted, energetic kid I once was.
To whoever was willing to read through all of this, thank you for hearing me out. I don't know what advice I am even asking for here. I'm hoping just speaking this out into the world in some way can alleviate this misery. I don't know.

Caution: Long Post
The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is without doubt and still is to this day one of the most influential, powerful, and iconic figures in American history due to his steadfast and nonviolent commitment in the fight for Civil Rights, Equality, and Justice during Jim Crow Segregation in the United States. The highlight of his career as an activist came in 1963 in which he delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech in front of Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. in which he envisioned a nation in which his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. This resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be passed. Even after his assassination in 1968, his legacy inspired many similar Civil Rights Movements around the world.
Today, Martin Luther King, Jr. is hailed by both sides of the American political sphere as a beacon of hope on how to fight for justice and equality for all during turbulent times. But it's the Conservatives who constantly claim that they truly support him and follow his dream, especially in modern times and they've expressed it in a rather whitewashed and partisan fashion. The most obvious being their use of his "I Have a Dream" speech by quoting the one line that has often been cherry-picked and misinterpreted quite a lot in which they judge people not by skin but by their character. The main reason they do this is to give them the appearance that they are colorblind as their way of opposing racism. And in doing so, they consistently criticize Liberals of trying to divide the country into special interest groups and promote favoritism. As a result, they always claim that Dr. King is a Republican, let alone would've been one in this era given his views, along with the fact that he was a Christian. His niece, Alveda King even emphasized it herself.
Some of the ways that Conservatives try to supposedly live up to Dr. King's "colorblind" dream is by opposing supposed "Wokeness", Critical Race Theory, and the practice of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion everywhere. They also express it by opposing Affirmative Action and the use of racial quotas when it comes to applying for schools, universities, and jobs because they believe it causes Reverse Discrimination. In terms of nonviolence, Conservatives express their disapproval of the Black Lives Matter movement. On the basis of Christianity, Conservatives believe that Dr. King supported a fixed moral code as indicated in his Letters from Birmingham Jail since he led with love and not racial hatred by changing the lives of people and not the laws itself, along with the notion of self-sufficiency. Seeing all this, it seems like Conservatives are really desperate to prove how much America has progressed in this post-racial world in order to debunk accusations that it isn't a racist country and that's why they always prop up Dr. King by claiming that they follow his dream and will continue to do so. Well.....up until now.
During this year's Martin Luther King Day, a string of prominent Conservative activists and organizations suddenly turned on him. Starting off with Charlie Kirk of the youth Conservative movement Turning Point USA, who launched a blistering anti-MLK campaign in which he supposedly dispelled the alleged myths surrounding his popularity. He accused Dr. King of being a "bad person" and that his "sainthood will cause Black voters to realize it's being used against them to suppress the individual." He even went further by stating that "we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s" accusing it as "a way to get rid of the First Amendment". A while ago, the organization marketed the Conservative image of Dr. King when they sold $55 T-Shirts with his name as well as stickers of him with the words "Let Freedom Ring". Kirk was later joined by the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh who accused him of being a "communist". In fact, he railed against Dr. King a few years ago by accusing him of being a Womanizer, Adulterer, Plagiarizer, etc. Coming after Walsh was Human Events editor, conspiracy theorist, and fellow Turning Point USA alumna Jack Posobiec, who labeled Dr. King "a God of the Left" and stating that "the real legacy of the 1960s was enshrining Racial Discrimination and Race Consciousness into the Federal Bureaucracy." And finally, a popular Conservative Twitter account called "EndWokeness" called Dr. King "a Racial Marxist" because he "did not support a Colorblind Meritocracy" after it cited his quote on Wealth Distribution. What's even worse is that even non-White Conservatives hate him. Two examples include a commentator named Vince Everett Ellison and former football player and sports columnist, Jason Whitlock. The latest editions to the lineup of Black Guilt Conservatives, they railed against Dr. King and the passing of the Civil Rights by stating that they worsened the Black community by drifting them away from God into "Democratic Dependency". They even accused him of the same crimes as Walsh did.
With the sudden change in tone and emphasis from the Right against Dr. King, you have to ask yourself why they're doing this and what caused them to believe this way. And this is not an extremist fringe of the Right that some would expect to hear from. All of these are Mainstream Right-Wing Figures who have direct lineage to the GOP, including the current presidential nominee, Donald Trump. That's as Establishment you can get. Their remarks have been criticized by a lot of people from both sides and surprisingly by some Black Conservatives. One of them was Pastor Darrell Scott, a former faith advisor of Trump, who these days, is one of a few Black Conservatives who has been calling out other Black Conservatives for tearing down their own race in order to elevate their status among others, a very notorious habit of them. He criticized Kirk for inspiring a Hitler Youth. Another was Kimberly Klacik, who in 2020, gained viral for her campaign video stating that Black Lives don't matter to Democrats when she was running for Maryland's 7th Congressional District following the death of civil rights leader, Elijah Cummings, who was the incumbent. She criticized Kirk for his remarks stating that his rhetoric will prevent Blacks from voting Republican. Even with that said, there have been instances in which Conservatives themselves have questioned the Civil Rights Act and many of them have been pretty negative. If you check out other Conservative websites and especially here on Reddit, many of their criticisms echo the same sentiments as those Pundits stating that it was unconstitutional and that in infringed on the First Amendment, particularly the Notion of Freedom of Association.
That being said, there is some silver lining to this. Now, that they exposed themselves for what they really of think Dr. King, I think it's time for them to admit that they never really liked him in the first place, let alone understood who he really was and what he really stood for. In fact, they never really liked him at all. All they did was whitewash him and cherry-pick his ideas and speech for own Partisan Agenda. Dr. King constantly talked about the notion of Black Pride and campaigned about the need for Reparations. He also supported Affirmative Action stating in 1965 that "a Society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro. Dr. King realized that our society was created in a way that managed to disadvantage the many for the benefit the few, and that America's Racial Hierarchy was connected to its Class Hierarchy. He also had political beliefs that manifested through both Racial Reconciliation and Concrete Policy Changes that could help restructure and benefit a divided and unequal nation. This is the reason why he referred to himself as a Democratic Socialist as he wanted a "Radical Redistribution of Economic and Political Power". In fact, he argued that true Equality can only be achieved, not just through legal rights, but through an equal distribution of resources. This is evident when he said “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” This is the exact vision that Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders believed in. After all, he did participate in the March on Washington in 1963. In regards to Police Brutality, while Dr. King opposed violent protest, he did acknowledge that a riot is the language of the Unheard and that it came from a place of Desperation. In fact, in his "I Have a Dream" Speech, he stated that Blacks could "never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the Victim of the Unspeakable Horrors of Police Brutality." After all, he was hounded by the FBI, was called a Communist, broke the law in protest of race-based Segregation and Violence, was thrown in jail, advocated Protests and Sit-Ins, opposed White Rule of Society, and was assassinated for his Race and his views on Race. Regarding the quote about the Content of Character from said speech, Dr. King's daughter, Bernice King stated that using solely that quote diminishes the purpose of the entire speech because her father's dream and work included "eradicating Racism, not ignoring it."
If anything, this goes to show that is Dr. King were around today, he would be heavily criticized for being Woke, politically correct, a Communist, a Race Hustler, and a member of the Radical Left. And we all know that the Right hates those ideologies passionately. But here's the thing, he never considered himself a Democrat, let alone a Republican. He was an Independent as he felt that both parties are the same. And reducing his legacy to a single quote diminishes the gains that he fought for and believed in. This especially goes to a lot of Conservatives out there who claim to follow his lead using that quote because they interpret them in a way that benefits them today than how he meant them back then. For you to claim that he didn't care about Skin Color is like saying Susan B. Anthony didn't care about Gender. And to those Conservatives who now hate him, including Black, I hope you're OK with people getting treated unfairly, including your own. Who knew being seen as an Equal is a Negative in your eyes.

This is finally my time I got the final straw of my abuse soon to be ex spouse! Yes I want love I want the the real thing this time I want the blue that personality the one I hace yet to find in my life! I only thought I had the real deal but to find out he had been running around on me for over 20 years and I was devastated until I seen with my own eyes all the love letters he had written out here on Reddit ! I can except the pain he endured on me! I can except the pain from all the cheating but I cannot except the pain of all the rotten things he done to me in between !I can say for sure that love was not at the center of our life if you love someone you wouldn’t mistreat them or hurt or harm them in any way! But it started off not strong enough but I was not the kind of person he wanted in our sex life I was not easy nor would I bend on any of the things he needed! So that’s cool I can let him go now because for 30’years we pretended to love me ! But the truth is he can’t love me if he sleeps around with all these other women !so he’s off to the next one and I can say good bye and hope God blessed me with a fine husband that doesn’t think he has to have multiple women to satisfy him ! I kinda like being a Christian woman who stand for something I believe in like one man one woman! So I wish him well and I will be somewhere in between hurt and healing due to truly did love my husband but he hated me because I stood up for myself and he thinks he deserves respect I found that hard to do after all the things I can’t write about on here ! And maybe she can ‘. She is better at everything than I am anyways or do I was told!so he is where he needs to be! I will be better off that’s trying to please a man I could never please him any way! the only one who got back stabbed and done something that I may never recover so good luck thank you for destroying one person from the inside out! You killed the person I was and now I pray you get everything you deserve ! Longer than more than and forever ! Congratulations on a long life! In Jesus name thank you for the best short time I never got any live from you ! You chose to hurt me in the worst way possible ! But I’m glad I done my best especially on Mother’s Day I done my best by trying to put your alternator on your truck! Happy Mother’s Day to me! You’re the best !

I went on a walk earlier today and was having a conversation that turned to the facets of success that the Zen tradition has over, well, everyone else. Here's me putting some organization to aspects of the conversation that we touched upon.

1000 Years of Recorded Conversation

This number is not an exageration or hyperbole, but a reasonable approximation of the longevity of the Zen conversation.
The earliest records of Zen conversation aka. Dharma combat aka. koans aka public cases we have come from Dunhuang and involve an heir to Bodhidharma named "Yuan" which places them sometime around the middle of the 6th century. Here's an excerpt:

6th Century

Dharma Master Chih saw Dharma Master Yuan on the street of butchers.
Dharma Master Chih asked, "Do you see the butchers slaughtering the sheep?
Dharma master Yuan said, "My eyes are not blind. How could I not see them?"
Dharma master Chih said, "Master Yuan, you are saying you see it!"
Master Yuan said, "You are seeing it on top of seeing it!"

The thread of Zen conversation continues on in these records. Some of these texts come from the conversations that dedicated record-keepers transcribed or unnamed Preceptors copied down and were later compiled. These records of Zen conversation were themselves annotated and conversed with by Zen Masters in subsequent generations thereby producing monumental books of instruction and practical guidance like Wansong's Book of Serenity, Wumen's Gateless Checkpoint, or Linquan's Empty Valley Collection.
Following the desolation and plunder wrought on by the Mongol invasion, the restrictive religious policies imposed by the Buddhists, and the subsequent rise of milleniarian cults with their own quasi-theocratic social agenda, the Zen conversation starts to fade in China.
We have records in China extending to around 1400. The aptly named translation by Cleary entitled "Zen Under the Gun" is evidence of this. The following is an excerpt from a Zen Master that came from Korea to study under a Chinese Zen Master and would carry on the tradition of preaching the Zen dharma to Emperor's.

14th Century

In 1347, on the sixth day of the third month, the emperor of the Great Yuan invited T'aego to Fengen, serving the Imperial Benevolance Zen Temple. After salutations to his majesty, T'aego went up to the teaching hall, pointed to the main temple gate, and said:
"The Great Path has no gate: where do all of you people intend to enter it? Bah! The universal gate of perfect penetration is wide open."
At the buddha shrine T'aego said: "Two thousand years ago, I was you. Two thousand years later, you are me. It has almost leaked out."
Then he bowed three times.

Almost.

1000 Years of Agro-Academe Egalitarian Communes

Agro-Academe

The Zen records are famous for taking place almost entirely on large agricultural complexes where agricultural as well as scholarly work were the lifeblood of maintaing the communities self-sufficiency. While this aspect of the Zen tradition had gone almost entirely unremarked upon in the Zen records due to its sheer normalcy it very much stands in contrast to the economic and social systems of organization that have risen (and fallen) throughout the rest of the world such as Manorialism, Serfdom, Capitalism, and Communism.
The agricultural aspects of the Zen communes are evidenced in the countless cases that take place in the context of the community engaged in performing agricultural work and the academic aspects of the communes are evidenced both in the cases involving someone reading something, referencing something they read, asking about something they read, as well as the countless literary and historical references that Zen Masters weave into the books of instruction.
The academic-LITERATE aspect of Zen communities has been deliberately misrepresented by Dogenists that cannot handle writing at a high school level about anything Zen Masters said despite claiming affiliation. It's a really sore subject for them.

Egalitarian

Zen Masters: No sexism. No racism. No special authorities in funny hats.
Foyan:

If one says, “I understand, you do not,” this is not [Zen]. If one says, “You understand, I do not, “ This is not [Zen] either. In the Teachings it says, “This truth is universally equal, without high or low—this is called unexcelled enlightenment.” My perception is equal to yours, and your perception is equal to mine.

Unlike religious traditions such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam (to name a few...) there is no tradition in Zen of affirming a belief in the "spiritual inferiority" of women or asserting that they should conform themselves to any fixed role in social relations with men.
The dharma-interviews involving women Zen Masters are some of the most intense and edge-of-your-seat one's out there. The one's we have translated records of are:

• Iron Grinder Liu
  
• Miaozong
  
• Mrs. Pang
  
• [Unnamed old women]
  

The failure of women's Zen voices to be preserved in equal proportion to their male counterparts they were engaged with is almost entirely due to the larger social mileau of sexism and erasure of women in non-subserviant roles from the public records that an extremely patriarchial society like China pursued with zeal at the time.

Commune

Unlike the phony kind of "work" of repeating religious apologetics, playing dress-up, or saying a few words over corpses that Priests while charging money from the faithful day-in, day-out--everyone in the Zen communities labored alongside everyone else and Zen Masters made a point of it to not exempt themselves from that.
The famous "No work, no eat" comes from Baizhang. It's nothing revolutionary in the context of Zen, but it sets the world on fire for just about everybody else.

Baizhang, the Chinese Zen master, used to labor with his pupils even at the age of eighty, trimming the gardens, cleaning the grounds, and pruning the trees. The pupils felt sorry to see the old teacher working so hard, but they knew he would not listen to their advice to stop, so they hid away his tools.
That day the master did not eat. The next day he did not eat, nor the next. "He may be angry because we have hidden his tools," the pupils surmised. "We had better put them back."
The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the evening he instructed them: "No work, no food."

1000 Years of Stability

As an undercurrent to the Zen conversation are certain...lifestyle choices...that everyone has to observe before they can meaningfully participate. They're choices that everyone already recognizes are necessary in certain contexts and lifestyles that are overwhelmingly associated with healthy outcomes in those observing them consistently. The undercurrent to conversation in Zen is known as the "Lay" Precepts.
Lay Precepts:

1. No lying
   
2. No stealing
   
3. No murder
   
4. No abuse of sex.
   
5. No intoxicating.
   

Observing this stuff won't neccesarily make anyone rich, famous, sexy, or funny. But that isn't anything Zen promises anyone to begin with anyway.
In their tradition, observing these kept the conversation flowing for a thousand years.
Why would anyone come to /Zen just to avoid talking about Zen?

I have many things to say but let me start here... I don't hate you because of "Mommy issues" or because you are "Chosen and a mirror", I absolutely despise you because you are a lying, lazy, scamming, con artist. You are 40 years old without a single thing to show for those 40 years on this earth. You spend 23 hours a day, horizontal, pouting and fake crying at your phone screen to play on people's emotions to manipulate them out of their hard earned money under the guise of diamond art. You have made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of the backs of others but have not improved a single thing in YEARS. You act like a cheap whore on the internet, on a platform that supposedly, the children that you have already severely tarnished, to see you less than half dressed, gyrating your body all over for strangers all over the internet. You've traveled to and from for men off of the internet as well but haven't given it a second thought to get to your children. In fact, there's a clip of you responding to someone asking where you would love to go besides Gstrings and you literally said NOWHERE. You only wanted to go to him. Not your children. A man off the internet who made you out to be a fool for weeks. This whole "Chosen" thing is sickening. You couldn't be farther from a true representation of a Christian woman, living for God. Your visions amd prophecies are a complete joke and another manipulation tactic. You try to weaponize religion and what you are truly doing is dancing with the devil. I assure you that God hasn't asked you to lay in the bed and he will deliver life to you on a silver platter. Be for real. Faith without works is dead. You are NOT autistic. You are mental but some school counselor maybe mentioning ASD in a hallway conversation one day is not a diagnosis. It's SICK that you use this fake diagnosis and use all of the "disadvantages" for lack of better word of the disorder to spin your narrative but somehow you didn't get the many, amazing "advantages" of ASD like resilience, brilliance, determination, drive, etc.. those things don't allow you to be a lazy internet panhandler. Nor can you seemingly forget that you have it, and it disappear for days or weeks until you need it again or someone reminds you. Nobody believes that people "gift" you all the things you claim. Clothes, makeup, champagne, meals, etc... we know that is you blowing the money you manipulated off of others. You need to slow it down on the door dash. Not only is it a slap in the face to the people out here busting their ass to make ends meet while you are living a life of luxury while not moving a muscle but it's very unhealthy and sticking with you. Lastly, I want you to picture yourself in 10, 15, 20 years from now. You have ZERO true life relationships, absolutely nothing to your name. You won't be able to still panhandle, your years of horrible self care and wild lifestyle dragging you down physically, how will you survive? You've put nothing in to any type of retirement, one day you truly won't be able to work, nobody to care for you, just an elderly person with NOTHING. What will you do?? You have burned all bridges. Your family is amazing and you have completely shit on them. Still claiming a little boy who was a quarter of your size physically abused you and everyone in your family harmed you in some way which is such a stretch and in my mind, unforgivable. You will be lonely, broke, and absolutely no legacy to leave behind. Who will be able to stand up and speak about your life and memories or experiences or impacts you've made and left behind?? Nobody. Time is running out. You need to make DRASTIC changes immediately or it's only down hill from here. I know this was insanely long but I had to get it off of my chest after her entire morning of lies and garbage. I truly hope you have read this Tabitha and it helps you understand why you are so disliked by the Majority. Look around. If not for sleepy Amy Lou, you would literally have ZERO support any longer.

I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your email in response to my proposal, I would like you to understand that I’m a Man of social status therefore I will not involve myself in a transaction of this nature and magnitude if I haven’t done my assignment thoroughly. I have been working in the banking institution for a very long time and I do understand the modalities associated with banking ethics. In the banking sector, those that occupy key positions always enjoy some benefits which people outside the banking world cannot imagine. Under the oath of employment, information of this nature which I have made available to you are meant to remain within the shores of the banking institution. An opportunity such as this does not come all the time but when it does, it is with all pleasure that it is being embraced by whoever the opportunity is opened to, therefore one thing that is paramount in transactions like this is “TRUST and “TRANSPARENCY”
I would like to assure you that there will be no risk involved as my position in the bank guarantees this, thus, anything I say concerning the transaction in line with the laws/banking policies will be followed by the bank Executives. Before we can proceed further I will like you to understand that this transaction can be successful only if we work together and as such you are to adhere strictly to my instructions as all instructions that I will be giving to you subsequently will be in accordance/compliance with the laws/laid down rules to apply for the deceased's fund as the Next of Kin, In proceeding further, I want you to assure me that you will be honest during the transaction and as soon as the funds are transferred to you by the bank, we would share the money EQUALLY and PEACEFULLY either by meeting in person or through bank to bank transfers. My personal instinct directed me to contact you and I sincerely hope it was not a wrong thing to do.
I shall direct you on the process of having the funds released; we shall start by sending a formal application to my Bank for the release of the said fund as the Next of Kin to the deceased. I will send you the text i.e the format for which you are to construct the application. Thereafter the bank will request from you the relevant back up documents to your claim according to the demand of our probate law for transfer of funds. Once you have provided the Bank with the required documents, they would be under legal obligation to transfer the funds to a designated account which will be provided by you. Upon this laid-down structure, there will be no form of Risk or illegality in carrying out this proposal.
It is important we have a mutual understanding because I know we will surely enjoy the benefits of this in no distant time.Kindly find below my full contact details in case of necessity:

1. Name: Mr. Mark Edward Tucker.
2. Occupation: CEO and Group Chairman of HSBC Holdings plc
3. Date of Birth: 29 December 1957 (age 66)
4. Religion: Christian
5. Marital Status: Married

Sequel to the above content I really do hope you are someone I can trust to help achieve this. I will want you to immediately provide me with the following details.
SECTION II

1. Your Complete Names:
2. Your Address:
3. Present Occupation and position:
4. Marital Status:
5. Age:
6. Religion:

SECTION II
Please provide me with accurate answers to the following below:
Have you handled transactions of this tune before?
Have you had an international transaction(s) before?
Specifically, have you had any business transaction with an individual or company that resides in Italy?
As soon as I hear from you with the required data above as well as receiving your reassurance that I can put my trust in you most especially when the funds has been released to you by the bank thus enabling us share the money in the ratio(50/50)as agreed, I will send you the Text of Application for you to contact my bank for the release of the funds in the account of (Late Mr. Fabian Alexander) to your account as his Next of Kin.
Endeavor to have all the requirements in (SECTION I and II) above sent to me immediately as I will have to key them into the deceased's account file so that it will be an easy go through with the bank's executives with respect to verification when they receive your application.
I await your swift response.
Sincerely, Mr. Mark E Tucker. CEO & Group Chairman of the Executive Board Of HSBC Bank.

• Please consider the environment before printing any email correspondence. Print only when necessary.

This email is only sent to the intended recipients and addressees in confidence and not for external circulation. *

Bring Me the Horizon: Why the fuck is this the only ever popular band to go from death metal to outright pop?
Bullet for My Valentine: Very stereotypically edgy emo kid shit
Underoath: Babies first metalcore artist and for christians at the same time and still good somehow
Converge/The Dilenger Escape Plan : Wow, you're so unique for liking technically complex metalcore on /mu/
Suicide Silence: Greatest deathcore band of all time... for around 4 years until Mitch Lurker died.
Knocked Loose: Screechy vocals somehow so screechy they end up sounding good surprisngly
Avenged Sevenfold: Uhhh so it's the edgy kid with the mosnter can that likes COD again let's just rush a shitty mr.bungle (????) album out to calm him down
Asking Alexandria/Black Veil Brides: Scene music for girls in the late 2000s-early 2010s
Ice Nine Kills; They just kinda, like, summarize horror movies and it's cool man cause they scream
Lamb of God: Pantera for Millenials
Motionless in White: "Breaking Benjamin for trans people" - Ronnie Radke
Killswitch Engage: Pioneers to the metalcore genre zoomers will proudly not listen to.
Lorna Shore: No one can imitate Will Ramos, stop trying
Tallah: So many youtube metal connections compared to actual fans
Pierce the Veil: You've only listened to a couple singles on Tiktok and not the full albums I'm guessing
Electric Callboy: Weird genre fusions come forth
Escape the Faith/Falling in Reverse: In a way, their life is like a video game.
Bad Omens: Pop music metalcore
Atreyu: That compliation album cover and their cool sounding name are so good for such an average lineup of albums
Attila: So deathcore, metalcore and rap metal with all fronts covered on everything besides a couple singles having annoying lyrics is an interesting combination
Attack Attack: 🦀
Whitechapel: I listened to one album, it sounded like biker deathcore but I never heard them be called that before so I guess not
Chesla Grin: Good, that's really all I got.
A Day to Remember: just metalcore blink-182
The Devil Wears Prada: Atmospheric and well-executed last record but everything else just kinda sounds like another metalcore album idk
Thy Art is Murder: Anti-theist band that will replace their band members every other year or so, so basically no gods no masters
Seeyoulaterspacecowboy: Fast chaos in their early work, nostalgia in their later work, no complaints
August Burns Red: Christian metalcore is not very frequently bad so really good metalcore got a grammy nomination
Trivium: Metallica goes blegh
Of Mice and Men: Don't know much new ep was good
Architects: Woah there's some Djent stuff here too
All that Remains: Slightly heavier classic metalcore and it isn't christian for once
As I Lay Dying: Slightly heavier classic metalcore and it isn't (truly) christian for once cause the singer is a fucking psycho but those clean verses in Confined and The Darkest Nights as well have been slightly stuck in my head for a year now
Protest the Hero: Stays in their lane as a progressive metalcore band

I’ve been seeing and hearing God’s name used in vain more and more lately it seems. From TV shows to Reddit posts, it just seems people are using GD more and more.
Has anyone else noticed it being used more and do you cringe every time you hear or read it? I think reading it is even worst than hearing it cause I hear it in my head as I am reading a post. It’s like, why did they have to put that in there?
Following up on why, why do you think it’s used so frequently? Is it a product of a world that rejects God or something else?
Lastly, what are we Christians to do when encountering such language being used? Do we avoid that show or block the user that typed it? Is it good or bad to just ignore it?
If you are not Christian reading this, and use God’s name in vain. I plead with you to try eliminating it from your vocabulary. It would mean a lot to us that hold Abrahamic beliefs, not just Christians but Jews and Muslims a like. Just please stop using it…

I saw a post about a month ago about the sabbath and in the comments there was a guy named the celt that very strongly shut down a lot of the “Christians” I saw responding in the comments. I was raised Christian but have since fallen off and not held on to my belief because the faith I saw growing up in the southern United States was shallow. It didn’t seem to have very much substance.
However, this Celt fellow piqued my curiosity and I found this subreddit. I’ve lurked ever since and while I don’t think this group is any more perfect than the Christian’s I normally run into the people here seem to at least know what they are talking about. I haven’t fully committed to being a Christian or whatever this group seems to be but I am very interested to see what the group is about. What I feel the most guilt for is my addiction to pornography. I’m very much in the NoFap community because I am trying to drop that habit. I was wondering if there was a unique take on why getting rid of the addiction is beneficial within this community as well as figure out exactly what all of you believe.
Here is what I’ve been able to tell so far from reading y’all’s post:
God made the law, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and you should obey all of it. I think some are in favor for salvific obedience and others just do it out of love, correct me if I’m wrong. Some of you really don’t like Paul and some of you are fine with him. You celebrate extra holidays. Some of you think that you should call God by a specific name like Yahweh, Yeshua, etc.
I admire the transparency and intellectual honesty that many of you have with your positions. Lots of people don’t stay consistent with their worldview when challenged. Especially on Reddit.
I do have lots of questions though when it comes to how you justify certain bible verses with your worldview. I’ve gone over a Christian YouTubers response named Mike Winger, who I watched a lot coming up, and he seemed to refute a lot of y’all’s claims. Anyways I’ll definitely be sticking around to see what y’all talk about but I’m not sure I can come around to believing the same things that you guys do.

Every year I’m confronted with the decision of whether to talk about the Met Gala. And it can be a tough decision if I’m being totally honest - on one hand, it’s always easy to point and laugh at rich Leftists wearing weird costumes and making fools out of themselves; on the other hand, it’s gotten way too easy to do that, and as far as celebrity freak shows go, the Met Gala is sort of like the Oscars at this point: its supposed “unpredictability” is now cliche, its zaniness is now boring. Unless mayhem breaks out—say, like an actor slaps the presenter live on-stage or something like that—then the truth is that no one really cares about any of these events anymore - in fact, I’m still not even sure what the Met Gala is. All I know is that the celebrities dress strangely and then go into I guess a big museum. What do they do inside the museum? Is there some kind of award ceremony? Is it a dance? Is it like celebrity prom or something? Do they sacrifice a live goat and drink its blood while chanting satanic curses? Is it some combination of these things? Nobody knows for sure. And most of all, nobody cares.
But fortunately, something interesting did happen at the Met Gala last week, or at least outside of it. Mobs of pro-Palestine demonstrators, apparently bored of their tent cities on college campuses, slowly marched through Manhattan towards the Met, and when they arrived, they tore down the police barricades and flooded the street.
Just for fun, here’s Lizzo dressed like something that you might find inside an unflushed toilet at Panda Express, and that’s what she wore to the Met Gala while riots raged outside in a clash of poor commies versus rich commies, as Peachy Keenan put it. These riots should also bring to mind I think some immediate logistical considerations that the Democratic Party now has to think about - for one thing, it’s safe to say that planning for the Democratic National Convention is going through some last-minute revisions right about now. Just imagine being in charge of security for the DNC; you’re gonna need bigger barricades than they had at the Met, and probably a lot more cops.
But more barricades and cops aren’t gonna fix the underlying problem that the Democratic Party has created here. There’s now a full-on uprising on the Left against the elitism that Democrats have long embraced - and the media is getting involved, too. Yahoo, for example, has already turned on the Met Gala; they just published a piece declaring, “The Met Gala’s Opulence Is Always Gross. This Year, It’s Obscene.”
Now, the whole article is a rant that hits a crescendo with this paragraph, which is probably the single-longest run-on sentence I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Here it is, this whole thing is one sentence, just so you know:

Even in an era filled with the horrors of late-stage capitalism run amok—bipartisan support for genocide; rolling back of reproductive, civil, and voting rights; a threadbare social safety net; decades of wage stagnation; tax cuts for the the rich; the crushing of unions and labor rights; expansion of the militarized police surveillance state; creeping techno-authoritarianism; untested, unregulated, and unchecked A.I.; entrenched racial inequality and injustice; right-wing and white supremacist extremist violence; and Boeing jet parts falling from the sky like so many dead whistleblowers—that kind of frivolous urgency promises that this year’s event nonetheless will stand out as a vainglorious display of self-congratulatory decadence and tone-deaf extravagance.

Now, first of all, just as a stylistic matter, if you’re going to make a sentence that long, it needs to be coherent. And “Boeing jet parts are falling from the sky like so many dead whistleblowers?” That doesn’t even make sense; the dead whistleblowers didn’t fall from the sky. I mean, they’re not being pushed out planes. One of them shot himself allegedly and the other died of an illness. Now, even if you subscribe to the theory that Boeing’s hitmen killed these whistleblowers—which, who knows, maybe they did—the fact remains that they didn’t fall from the sky. They died on the ground, so the metaphor just doesn’t work. And this is the problem you get into with 100-word sentences: eventually, you just lose track of what you’re saying.
In any event, that whole massive paragraph could be summed up as saying, “We’re living through late-stage capitalism right now.” That’s what the Left-wing media is saying. That’s the way that they are framing this, and of course, “late-stage capitalism” is one of their favorite phrases to use these days. And they used to celebrate the Met Gala, but not anymore. Now they’re saying the same thing the demonstrators are, which is that the frivolous elite are partying while Rome burns—which they are, of course—and they’re furious about it, or pretending to be.
Now, what the media and these demonstrators don’t want to admit is that the elitists at this gala—all the celebrities who are dressed like slutty Star Wars villains and so on—are on their team. The celebrities are part of the ruling class, the protesters and media critics are its products and in some cases quite literally its offspring. Now, to be sure, the celebrities and college administrators and the politicians are reluctant to acknowledge that their own Frankenstein monster is turning against them, but that’s exactly what’s happening.
Remember that it was two years ago that AOC showed up to the Met Gala with a “Tax the Rich” gown. There were a bunch of sympathetic news stories highlighting her bravery at the time, and here’s how AOC justified showing up to an event that costs $300,000 per table while equipped with a custom dress, handbag, shoes and jewelry costing more than $2,000.

REPORTER: “You know this dress has a message for this Met Gala, tell me about what that is.”
AOC: “You know, I made a message, it says ’Tax the Rich’ right there, uh, it’s really about having a real conversation about fairness and equity in our system, and I think that this conversation is particularly relevant as we debate over budget and reconciliation down. What we’re talking about, providing working families with child care, healthcare, and meeting the climate crisis [unintelligible]* it deserves. … I think that ultimately, you know, we’re at a very critical point. I think there are some folks who are starting to really understand that this is a very critical conversation for us to be having right now. Other folks have invested interest in not having that conversation, but our point is to keep organizing and keep it going.”*

It’s a really important conversation, AOC says, some people aren’t ready to hear it, but we need to punish rich people, we need to make them as uncomfortable as possible, we need to take their money, and that was the message from AOC, who not incidentally, grew up in a very well-off suburb.
Her whole schtick was always hypocritical and disingenuous, of course, but it turns out that Leftist activists were listening to this rhetoric, I guess, they were taking it seriously, we’ve seen this a lot lately. When Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court justices, Leftists showed up at the justices’ homes; when the White House claimed that “trans kids” were being abused, a Leftist shot and killed Christians; when Democrats accused Israel of “genocide,” college students occupied university buildings; now two years after AOC attacked the Met, leftist gathered outside of the building.
This is the escalation that Democrats have primed this country for; it’s now in progress, whether Democrats intended it to happen to THEM or not—which, of course, they didn’t—but that’s not to say that ruling elites are going to roll over and let this happen. I mean, as you saw in that footage, the cops showed up in force and started making arrests the very second that protestors trespassed through the barricades in front of the Met. They were on the scene immediately.
Now, that’s kind of a noticeable contrast when compare it to other things like when these people set up encampments on college campuses, they were given in most cases a few days, maybe a week, before the cops moved in; when they looted and burned poor neighborhoods, they were given about three months to inflict carnage before anyone did anything about it; but when they showed up at the Met Gala, they were given three SECONDS before the arrests started. So it really shows you kind of how the hierarchy works.
The Democrats can’t protect the rest of the country from these mobs, nor do they intend to. So last night, in addition to creating a scene at the Met Gala, Leftists also vandalized a World War I memorial in New York and torched an American flag in front of it.
So please note, again, the contrast, the hierarchy, and the fact that this was happening at the exact same time as the Met Gala thing - REALLY shows you where the priorities are when you notice what kinds of illegal demonstrations the police will stop and which demonstrations they’ll allow to continue. The mob can deface World War I memorials all they want because in doing so, they’re communicating their hatred for this country and everything it stands for. So the Democrats who run New York aren’t going to stop them. But the mob isn’t allowed to inconvenience celebrities at the Met under any circumstances.
The point is that this is the hierarchy that Democrats clearly want to enforce. The trouble is getting the mob to RESPECT the hierarchy, and the Democrats are having trouble with that at the moment.
Yet they still seem oblivious, the Democrats are—or acting oblivious, at least—to the fact that they created this monster themselves, and that’s why inside the Met, as chaos unfolded outside, the party continued uninterrupted, and so did all of this associated weirdness, which was as off-putting as it’s ever been - take for example this decoy costume worn by someone using the name “Karol G.” Now, apparently she wanted to keep her real costume a secret, so earlier in the evening, she sported this beige umbrella-looking lampshade thing instead.
Now, imagine being a hardcore, AOC-loving Leftist who sees this - Democrats have spent the last several years telling you to despise rich people and commit crimes in the name of political activism, and then down the street from your hippy commune at the local university, some celebrity is walking around in a lampshade costume which probably costs $50,000 or something, and the entire Democratic Party establishment is pretending that it’s all normal. What do you do? How would you view the Democratic Party establishment after seeing this?
Now, as for the costume itself, of course, it’s clearly a bid for attention, and I guess it worked—I’m talking about it—but it’s not even an original idea - as a lot of people have pointed out, the outfit bears a striking resemblance to a certain shower curtain costume from the film “Karate Kid,” only with different colors, so there’s really no redeeming qualities whatsoever here, it’s a total debacle all around.
But to be fair, there was at least some originality on display last night - for example, this celebrity apparently walked through a wind tunnel full of roses somewhere before arriving at the Met, and for her trouble, Vogue named her as one of the best-dressed women of the evening.
We can assume again that this… woman?… paid many thousands of dollars for that outfit, which is just a trench coat with flower peddles and glitter glued onto it. It really looks like something a four-year-old girl might make. As everybody knows, in the mind of a four-year-old girl, anything and everything can be made prettier with copious amounts of glitter and flowers, which is a fine mentality for a small child; doesn’t translate very well in this case. And as self-congratulatory as it is, again, there’s no self-awareness whatsoever - it’s almost as if the entire purpose of the event is to celebrate the elites’ total inability to detect how preposterous, self-absorbed, and laughable they are.
An this is nothing new, it’s been the case since the Met Gala was established, it’s always been a mini-theater of the absurd. What’s changed is that the voting base of the Democratic Party isn’t laughing along with these clowns as much anymore. They turned against the universities; now they’ve turned against Hollywood. What the protesters of course don’t understand is that they have inherited their own worldview and everything they believe from these very institutions and these very people.
Hollywood and Academia don’t realize that they’re being attacked by their own Frankenstein, but the Frankenstein monster also doesn’t realize that it IS the Frankenstein monster. And if Frankenstein ever wakes up to that fact, well then the ruling class will really be in trouble.

The Palestinian people after 60+ years of colonial rule by the British, with the help of the USA, left the Palestinian people in a very bad place. A serious wrong was in the making... White European Jews with a colonial agenda, invaded Palestine under the guise that the god of the bible, promised the Jews a land of their own and since the bible mentions the Israelites being in Palestine, these Jewish people actually think that they are the Israelites from the African history and therefor the rightful owners of the land of Palestine which they want to turn into Israel. Why do they not identify as Hebrew Israelite? but instead call themselves Jews ! Maybe its because they know it just wouldn't fly as the history of the Hebrew Israelites is well documented and it is no secret that these people were black Africans so, instead these white Europeans decided to go with their own creation called Jew and went about changing history. With their money and influence; the face of the white European Jews; became the poster child for the Lost children of Israel. The European has sought to take everything away from the African including their history, only the African history has been well preserved and is now being recognised.
Here's the thing. 1; The information found in these ancient scrolls came from Africa so, it is African history. 2; Nobody in this African history were, Jews or Christians as these religions were created hundreds of years after these biblical figures had died so neither Moses or Yoshua was a Jew or Christian. 3; In this day and age we would all look foolish trying to claim anything based on the bible and the word of god as the bible is a work of fiction and cannot prove the existence of a god let alone prove that god had said such things. 4. Saying that god said, is one thing, but making such moves to take land that does not belong to you in such a manner is not only scary but very dangerous to the global community.
To witness colonization taking place in 2024 is a; in your face reminder of what can happen to any country since the people who are doing this are too powerful to be stopped and seek to do what they want, when they want and to whom ever they want; 5; The lies that are being upheld by the global West in regards to who these Jews really are. A simple blood test will prove that little to none of these people have any blood relations to that region of the world; yet, here they are, claiming to be descendants of the book. These white European Jews have fabricated history to suit their own requirements. As usual, the European likes to covet what does not belong to them. These Europeans painted themselves into a history that is far older than they are as a race. Such is their jealousy and envy; 6; The identity of being a Jew is a white European creation.
The bible never referred to the Israelite as a Jew, that is a misconception and a deliberate fabrication by those who wrote the modern day bibles. The so called Jew from the bible were called Hebrews who were a black nomadic tribe of people. A select few were called Israelites who came from a Tribe called Judah who today would of came from the region they now call Nigeria. Judaism and Jew are White European creations that were created around African history. Can you see where I'm going with this. If god had really said those things in regards to some promise of a home land for the Jews, then there wouldn't of been any bloodshed involved but the reason why Israel is in turmoil right now is because if such a promise does exist and is true then this promise is for the Israelites not the Jew as the Jew is a European creation and as such is not recognised by the god of the bible;
8; Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity and as a religion, it does not need its own country to exist. Could you imagine if the Christians demanded their own country because god promised them their own home land? that would be absurd, so why is it different for the Jews who are from Europe. Some of them are from a German bloodline or a Slovakian heritage. Most are Russian or Ashkenazi. If any Arab or African blood exists in the Jewish community, it is only through interbreeding.
And finally; The Name Israel was never the name of a place or the name of Ancient Palestine. Yakub otherwise known as Jacob from the bible was later on renamed by god and was given the name Israel. Israel was never the name of a Jewish homeland, this has been fabricated and holds know truth to it and is a construct of colonialism.
We are now moving into an era of enlightenment; were what was once hidden, will now be revealed. What was in the dark, will now see the light. An era were secrets, lies and the truth meet head on.
Share your thoughts in the comments section below. And if you found this analysis insightful, don't forget to hit the subscribe button. Stay informed, stay engaged, and be a part of the conversation. This is Channel Zero, the channel that brings a brutal; but honest perspective on current affairs. Thanks you for your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaiOhquap2w

Millions profess to know God or believe that there is a supreme creator, and yet, the surprising truth is that not many people truly know who or what God is. It may sound shocking to make such a statement, but it happens to be true; Satan, the god of this planet has deceived humanity to have a false view of God.
People do not Know Who or what God is
What God is NOT
The popular belief in the professed Christian world is that God is a trinity – composed of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being a trinity.
There are those who will quote several scriptures which seem to refer to the holy Spirit as being a third person because the Bible – using the personal pronoun, often refer to the Spirit as HE. For example, John 16:13 says, “… when the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak …” Looking at this has convinced millions to believe Christ is speaking of another Being or third person. But what the millions have failed to understand that the personal pronoun “HE” should actually be correctly translated as “IT” and not “HE”. The translators who wanted to believe God is a trinity, used the word “HE” instead of “IT.” It should read: “When “IT” the spirit of truth is come …” This word is in the neuter gender and is not referring to either male or female; and should not be translated as “He.” If you go to Romans 8:16, you will read the correct usage - for here it says, “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit …”. The spirit of God is referred to as “ITSELF”. The holy spirit of God is a “IT” and not a He; it is not a third person.
Also consider this: The Bible says in Matthew 1:20 that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. If the holy spirit was a person, then it means the holy spirit would then be the father of Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Bible does Jesus makes any reference to the holy Spirit as being his father; You never see Jesus praying to the Holy Spirit but to God as his Father; This fact alone is proof positive that the holy spirit is not a third person.
https://preview.redd.it/ebsgp3le680d1.png?width=474&format=png&auto=webp&s=b78e30338c31a95b20fdb9a8a2dbd84cc4175a75
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but Jesus NEVER prayed to or called the holy spirit his father because the Spirit was not a third person but the power of God that conceived Christ in the womb; and we too are to pray only to God the Father.
In Zechariah 4:6, God says, “… not by might, nor by power (meaning human might or power -as God does not rely on human power), but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” God says his power comes from his own spirit - meaning the spirit is the power of God; it the power that emanates from God himself.
In John 7:38,39 Jesus spoke of the Spirit as rivers of living waters; a person is not a river of water; also Acts 2:17 speaks of God pouring out his Spirit; if the holy Spirit was a person, how can a person be poured out or quenched – even a 1 Thess. 5:19 says?
But what about 1 John 5:7,8 which says, “For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word and the HOLY GHOST; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth) the spirit, and the water and the blood …” If you take careful note, the words placed in the parenthesis or bracket - beginning with “in heaven and ending with witness in the earth” was actually added by editors to the Latin Vulgate translation possibly in the Early Fourth century as it was never in the older Greek manuscripts; men added these words because they wanted to pass on their own belief that God is a trinity, but thankfully God has so inspired his word so that we can know this is false and was added to God’s inspired truth. You can read this passage in the New American Standard Bible, The English Bible and others to see that they left out this false or spurious scripture.
God is not a trinity; this is a false belief that people have been led to believe and a little diligent study on your part will open your mind to this stunning truth. The Bible command the true servant of God to not only prove all things, but also says we are to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Who or What God is
If you go to Genesis 1;1 you read these words: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. “The Hebrew word for God is Elohim and it signifies more than one person; it is in plural form but can be used in a singular sense to represent that which comprise more than one person; For example, the word can refer to a Church or family or group in the singular sense, but, at the same time, we know that a Church or family is made up of more than one person. Consider it this way: Suppose a person goes by the last name of brown as the family name; we know that the name Brown, in this case, is speaking of the Brown family – meaning one family named Brown, but having more than one person in the family. Similarly, Elohim is referring to God in the family sense; it is revealing that God is a family; Elohim means God is a family comprised NOT of three persons but only of two persons; it is comprised of the other person to whom God said; “… Let us make man in our image …” (Gen. 1:26).
When God said, “Let us,” God was not talking to himself but to the other God Being – who became Jesus Christ in the flesh; the one who created all things. If you go to John chapter 1:1 it speak of the beginning that was long before God created the heaven and the earth. Notice what it says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
God is a family name comprising two supreme Beings
Consider carefully that the Word was also God and that this Word or God was also with God. “With” God - signifies that you are talking about two divine personages or persons. In other words, this Word or person who existed with God was the very same one who became Jesus Christ in the flesh. In speaking of this eternal relationship, Jesus said, “… O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
Notice Christ said before the world was; this is speaking of their eternal togetherness in eternity; you will also notice that no third person or holy spirit is mentioned as existing with God as a separate person or individual; it was only two personages mentioned. Do you see and believe that?
The truth is God is NOT a trinity, but God is a family of two supreme Beings who has eternally existed in harmony and peace together; there is one God existing as one family – meaning ONE God family, but are two separate individua person who make up the God family.

The word ‘jew’ is a modern word. It’s only been around for a few hundred years so when we talk about jews in ancient times, we cannot use the modern moniker we thoughtlessly use today. In doing so, we mistakenly link modern day ‘jews’ to the people of the Bible, the descendants of Judah.
The word jew comes from, depending on what language we are using, ‘Judean’, which was a person who dwelt in the land of Judea.
If I move to Japan, does that make me Japanese? Thankfully not, and as such, we can say the same thing for the people who moved to the southern part of ancient Palestine in the days of John Hyrcanus. Josephus informs us that it is he that is responsible for bringing in this mixed multitude(mostly Edomites) and forcing them to convert to the laws of Moses, what we later call Christianity.
Later in the 2nd to 6th century A.D., the term Judaism was applied to the religion of these Edomites(Idumea), Canaanites, and Pharisees, just like they hijacked the word “jew” so they could pretend to be the people of the Bible.
This is also why they include the Torah in their “holy” book, their ultimate source of Pharisaism(modern day Judaism), the Babylonian Talmud. It’s Identify theft; they need some truth in their books to push their lies and deception.
“Up to the seventeenth century this word was spelled in Middle English in various ways: “Gyu,” “Giu,” “Gyw,” “Iu,” “luu,” “Iuw,” “Ieu,” “Ieuu,” “Ieuz,” “Iwe,” “Iow,” “Iewe,” “Ieue,” “lue” (“Ive”), “Iew,” “Jew.” All these forms were derived from the Old French “Giu,” which was earlier written “Juieu,” derived from the Latin accusative “Judæum” with the elision of the letter “d.” The Latin form “Judæus” was derived from the Greek ‘Iουδαĩοσ; and this in turn from the Aramaic , corresponding to the Hebrew a gentilic adjective from the proper name “Judah,” seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9).” –Jewish Encyclopedia
Jew (n.) late 12c., Giw, Jeu, “a Jew (ancient or modern), one of the Jewish race or religion,” from Anglo-French iuw, Old French giu (Modern French Juif), from Latin Iudaeum (nominative Iudaeus), from Greek Ioudaios, from Aramaic (Semitic) jehudhai (Hebrew y’hudi) “a Jew,” from Y’hudah “Judah,” literally “celebrated,” name of Jacob’s fourth son and of the tribe descended from him.
Spelling with J- predominated from 16c. Replaced Old English Iudeas “the Jews,” which is from Latin.” –Etymology Online
Ioudaios (Greek: Ἰουδαῖος; pl. Ἰουδαῖοι Ioudaioi)^\n 1])^\1]) is a Greek ethnonym used in classical and biblical literature which commonly translates to “Jew” or “Judean“.^\2])^\3])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios
Christogenea Europe, July 5th, 2015: Judaea, Judah and Jew (listen to this)
“Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a “Jew,” moreover, that he was “King of the Jews.” Thus, by inference, that the “Jews” were the “Chosen People” of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ’s Mission and Passion no such people existed called “Jews” nor indeed did the word “Jew.” In short: Jesus was NOT a “Jew” nor was he “King of the Jews.”
In fact, Jesus is referred as a “Jew” for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word “Jew” is quit clear. Although “Jew” is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word “Jew” is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin “Iudaeus” found in St. Jerome’s Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word “Ioudaios.” The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word “Jew” found in the Latin word “Iudaeus” but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin “Iudaeus” to the English “Jew” the evolution of these English forms is: “Gyu,” “Giu,” “Iu,” “Iuu,” “Iuw,” “Ieuu,” “Ieuy,” “Iwe,” “Iow,” “Iewe,” “Ieue,” “Iue,” “Ive,” “Iew,” and then, finally, the 18th century, “Jew.” Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for “Jews” is: “Giwis,” “Giws,” “Gyues,” “Gywes,” “Giwes,” “Geus,” “Iuys,” “Iows,” “Iouis,” “Iews,” and then, finally, in the 18th century, “Jews.”” – http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/origin_of_the_word_jew.html
“Strong’s Concordance more or less defines the words “Jew” and “Jews” as: “in the sense of a country, i.e., a Judean.” The word “Jew” is used 22 times in the King James Version of the Bible in the New Testament, and the word “Jews” is used 172 times and 170 times of those are from the same #2453 as the above “Jew” definition. There are another 6 times the plural word “Jews'” is used and all but one of these is this #2454. So for the 200 times, the words: “Jew, Jews, and Jews'” are used in the New Testament, at least 197 occasions are referring to a Judean in the sense of from a place, i.e., as from a country.
The question still haunts many and they have often asked just who are these people the Bible calls “Jew, Jews, and Jews'”? Why were these people not just simply called “Judeans,” “Israelites,” or “Judeans whose religion was Judaism?” This is the age old word problem of society problem that is surrounded with so many, many, lies and deceptions. “THE FEAR OF THE JEWS” syndrome that plagues society today.” – http://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/OriginoftheWordJew.htm
https://comparet.christogenea.org/sermons/bible-not-jewish-book
“If “jew” is a legitimate synonym for Judahite then why in your Bible don’t you see Ephraimites called “efrays”, Simeonites called “simeys”, Danites called “dans”, Naphthalites called “nafts”, Asherites called “ashes”, Reubenites called “rewbs”, Zebulunites called “zebewls”, Gadites called “gads” Issacharites called “issachs” Benjamites called “benjams” and Mannassehites called “manasses”? …I’m aware of the fate of the northern house, but I would have to dispute the translator’s choice of “jew” as a proper rendering of Yehudi/Judahite or Ioudaios/Judaean.”
“When the Israelites moved into the land of Canaan, they were instructed to destroy all of the Canaanite peoples. They failed to do this, and were warned that harm would later come to them because of this failure (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3). It is evident that both in Jerusalem and elsewhere, the later Israelites did indeed have a problem with infiltration and race-mixing by the Canaanite tribes (Jer. 2:13, 21-22; Ezek. 16:3, 45 et al.). This was one of the chief reasons for their chastisement and removal.
…Judaea from 130 BC forward was a multiracial polyglot of a nation. The first Herod, an Idumaean by race who usurped power from the Maccabees, bribed the Romans for the kingship and from that time the temple priesthood at Jerusalem was used as a political tool. Both Josephus and the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius admit that many of the priests were not worthy of the distinction under the former Levitical traditions…
…It can be shown from the New Testament that many of the original Israelites of Judaea converted to Christianity during the ensuing years, losing their identity as Judaeans. The Edomites never converted, clinging to their traditions found in the Talmud – which has absolutely no authentic connection to the ancient Hebrew religion. Today these people, and all of their many proselytes and those whom they have intermarried with, are known as Jews.”
https://christogenea.org/overview/concise-explanation-creation-jewish-people
John 10 22:30 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one.
^In these verses Jesus is talking about the modern day Jews, or the bloodline of Satan.
In the following verses Jesus (Yahshua) is talking about the true “Jews”, better known as Judahites (descendants of Judah), or pure blooded Judeans (Judahites who lived in the land of Judea).
He’s talking to his sheep, not “jews”. He’s talking about modern day Israel. He’s talking about White people. He’s talking about Judahites when he says “jews” here, not today’s “jews”.
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

u/Kafka_Kardashian, u/Pleronomicon, u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP
The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan (Gen 10:6). The Moabites were descendants of Moab (Gen 19:37), a grandson of Lot. They occupied different areas, but they were neighbors.
Moses commanded the Israelites not to intermarry with Canaanites Deuteronomy 7:

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to possess, and He drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you to defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.
3 Do not intermarry with them Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,

Do not intermarry with Canaanites. Why?

4 because they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and He will swiftly destroy you.

It was okay to take a Moabite woman. Boaz married Ruth (4:13).
Deuteronomy 23:

3 No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever.

They were excluded from the formal assembly of the LORD. However, converted foreigners were allowed to participate in other celebrations of the LORD.
After the Babylonian exile, Nehemiah 13:

1 On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people. And in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God.

Nehemiah found this command of Moses. He continued:

23 In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab.

Ashdodites were Canaanites; Moabites were not.

24 And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people. 25 And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.

I.e., regarding the Ashdodites/Canaanites.

26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. 27 Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?”

There was no law against marrying foreign women universally. However, according to Deut 7:4, marrying an idol worshiper was a bad idea.
Was Nehemiah against Israelites marrying Moabitess?
Not exactly. He lumped the Moabites with the Canaanites because they were all pagan groups. More to his point was that He was against Israelites marrying a pagan.
Today, we can apply Nehemiah's wisdom for Christians not to marry non-Christians.

Something I have observed is the oppression trope for modest woman, but I also realized that a lot of women actually have animosity towards not just dressing mostly but also people who dress modestly.
Even in religious communities who encourage one another to dress modestly, you will find aunties and uncles, pushing people to dress modestly in ways that are not very encouraging and are rather shameful and riddled with guilt. Personally, I remember growing up as a Christian and being compared to inanimate objects or telling me that creepy men will look at me and want to do things they shouldn’t be. So I also can understand and grew up with the misconception that modesty was for the sake of other people, which pushed me away from it initially. I saw Dressing non-modestly as freedom, and seemingly the highest form of self expression .
I became Muslim, who is the first time in my life where I was told that modesty was an active worship and done for the sake of our creator, wisdom, and practical reasons aside. Once I started dressing modestly, of course, I was met with people who saw me as brainwashed, physically, weak for some reason, and a submissive pushover as if I was oppressed. This wasn’t the only side of the coin though, because I noticed that woman particularly would treat me with because it was as if I would automatically be judging them for what they are wearing because of my choice of clothing, which has absolutely nothing to do with them.
Further, I realized that some woman would look at me in a way I could only describe as an oppressor as if I wish for all woman to be subjugated in similar ways that I can only describe as in a way I could only describe as an oppressor, as if I wish for all woman to be subjugated in similar ways that I can only describe as handmaid‘s tale the society of handmaid’s tale; for those of you who do not know, this is a TV series, which is about a hyper, religious patriarchal society, enslaves women to be either servants or essentially sex slaves who must submit to a man and a tyrannical government at large.
I didn’t really know how to put this into words, but I came to this realization last year, although I didn’t realize it. The first instance was most subtle, I just realize that some women were particularly mean to me and would push me away emotionally.
The next instance was somewhat more directly stated, but not necessarily towards me per se. I wear a uniform and I was talking about how I would prefer to wear a skirt and was talking to a female Supervisor who is a bit more masculine in her demeanor. I had asked her if it would be OK for me to start wearing a skirt or at least I could ask up chain-of-command and her automatic response was “absolutely not” so I asked her why, and her response was that ‘if one woman starts wearing a skirt then they might force all of the woman to wear skirts…’ I asked her what was wrong with skirts and she said that she feels sexualized in them, so I said that “I feel more sexualized in pants because you can see my shape when I’m walking around and when I sit down, they get tight and certain places that make me feel uncomfortable which is why I tend to wear looser pants.”
I’m not entirely against pants, but for my work uniform I can’t wear the kind that I would prefer just which is why I tend to wear looser pants. I’m not entirely against pants, but for my work uniform I can’t wear the kind that I would prefer just as a skirt. about as flowy as a skirt. I wrapped up the conversation with her, just stating that it would be at least nice to be an option, but not an obligation for women to wear the type of bottoms they prefer, I buy no means was suggesting that corporate starts, forcing all women to wear a certain bottom, just because I feel more comfortable in it.
If I had interesting that one person‘s form of freedom is another person’s form of oppression; likewise, one person‘s form of being liberated from the male gaze is another persons form of being subjugated to the male gaze. At the end of the day, choice is what matters in terms of free will, I’m not talking about morality here and what people ‘should’ do. People often think that hijab is something that is forced upon woman, and that may be true in some cases, but on the other hand, some woman are forced to take off hijab despite their desire to cover.
I should also add that ones ethnic background can also play a factor here because the way a hijab of color might be looked at is different than who is white (or ‘white passing’) because my guess would be that people color are looked at as oppressed people more often than white people, often resembling the oppressor. I’m sure it happens on both sides, but there is a strong correlation between white people and being perceived as they want oppression for other people. at the end of the day, these are racist tropes but it’s important to talk about it because when we are aware of these things then maybe we can do better & know how to respond.
Personally, I have seen both sides of the coin, being both treated as oppressed, as well as being deemed as an oppressor for my modesty. I am a bit sensitive to people pointing out things about my body because my weight has fluctuated throughout my life to where I have been, too, too skinny, fit, and I won’t say where now as that is nobody’s business, but I do my best to be healthy at the end of the day… That being said, I do my best not to point out physical characteristics of other people, as I would much rather give someone a compliment based on how I feel when I am around them, congratulate them on an accomplishment, so it baffles me sometimes how focused people are on appearances and how dressing in a way that contrasts the other person brings out this passive irritability within someone else when it is often the furthest from my mind. In fact, part of the reason I love dressing honestly is it takes the focus off of my body and sort of forces people to interact with my mind instead of body checking me weather from an objectifying male gaze or a competitive female gaze- to name a few forms.
At the end of the day, it is all just projection, but this realization that I was being looked at as an oppressor sort of woke me up to how I could be responding and not just assuming that they see me on the other side of the equation because it can be very frustrating when dealing with an oppressor who acts like a victim and so I need to be aware of how I am coming off to people who may be projecting this persona on me. I think that the best thing one can do is to just remain neutral and not get defensive as that shuts down conversations which can be healing or corrective experiences for everyone involved.
Of course, not every experience is going to be unlocking emotional and spiritual trauma, there are going to be times where people stay in their ignorance but the least we can do is be our authentic selves and not some oppressed or oppressor trope that other people project onto us. even if someone in the moment cannot see past their own projection, we might not see the behind-the-scenes of this person reflecting on what happened and what was said and then realizing that they were wrong, so try not to take these projections personally because it has more to do with the person projecting than it has anything to do with you and your intentions.
This was just some food for thought, be interested to hear if you have had experiences of your own, where you had a realization about how other people were projecting on you and if you have any advice on how you handled it or how you wish you handled it, Please feel welcome to share. I apologize in advance if there are any grammatical errors, I will do my best to fix them later, but this is done with speech to text feature.

2 Peter 1:5 “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;”
Peter has just told us that God’s divine power has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. Now he’s telling us what we are expected to do with our knowledge of God’s power. We need to diligently add to it.
That doesn’t mean we have the power to increase his power. However, we do have the power to increase our display of his power in our lives. We can build on what we’ve been given, complementing our basic faith with virtue.
Virtue is defined as behavior showing high moral standards. It is moral excellence or ethical strength. A virtuous person is mighty in holiness, honest and trustworthy; one filled with integrity.
Every Christian needs to display these characteristics. There are people all around us who don’t believe that God exists, yet they believe in being virtuous.
The real problem I see is that people who claim to be Christians sometimes fail at being virtuous. We need to be careful not to let that happen.
A few days ago I was at Wendy’s with two of my grandkids. I didn’t realize how much the bill was until I got my change back. I handed the girl a $20 bill. She gave me back $15 and change. She thought I had given her $40. I brought it to her attention and we made the correction. That girl was so happy that I did the right thing and her cash register would not detect that error at the end of her shift.
Who saw that display of honesty? That girl sure noticed it. My grandkids saw it as well. They know I profess to be a Christian and so it was important that they saw my actions follow my words of faith. God saw my actions too. More than that, Satan saw it. He didn’t win in his attempt to get me to fail in being a Christian. (Not that time, anyway.)
I remember a line from a movie when a father was talking with his adult son. He said, “Son, if I can’t believe every word that comes from your mouth, I can’t believe any word that you speak.” We are called to be a people of faith which displays virtuous actions. Do you pursue moral excellence?
🙏Father, thank you for loving me. Thank you for your forgiveness and for the guidance of your Holy Spirit. I want always to seek moral excellence in all I do. Matthew 5:16 says, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” That’s my goal. Help me to reach it. In the name of Jesus I pray. Amen. 🙏