This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on further inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). After all, this idea promotes accidentalism! This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim adopting the belief that any discerning of racial differences is a negative. To create this belief, wrap the activity in an abstraction (ie. "racism"), and imagine a negative reality for it (ie. "it is a quality of evil, ignorant people", "it is the cause of poverty, crime, etc"). Contrive these realities and present them over and over until seen as "real" by the victim. Now the magic: because the victim will automically avoid and demonize any activity which appears "racist" according to the reality you constructed, this label can be applied to any habit, tradition, or thought pattern of the victim that you wish to stop. It follows that you can "corner" the victim into adopting the patterns that you present as the "solution" to their former "racist" activity.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beliefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). After all, this idea promotes accidentalism! This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim adopting the belief that any discerning of racial differences is a negative. To create this belief, wrap the activity in an abstraction (ie. "racism"), and imagine a negative reality for it (ie. "it is a quality of evil, ignorant people", "it is the cause of poverty, crime, etc"). Contrive these realities and present them over and over until seen as "real" by the victim. Now the magic: because the victim will automically avoid and demonize any activity which appears "racist" according to the reality you constructed, this label can be applied to any habit, tradition, or thought pattern of the victim that you wish to stop. It follows that you can "corner" the victim into adopting the patterns that you present as the "solution" to their former "racist" activity.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). After all, this idea promotes accidentalism! This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim adopting the belief that any discerning of racial differences is a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity in themselves. To create the belief, wrap the activity in an abstraction (ie. "racism"), and imagine a negative reality for it (ie. "it is a quality of evil, ignorant people", "it is the cause of poverty, crime, etc"). Contrive these realities and present them over and over until seen as "real" by the victim.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). After all, this idea promotes accidentalism! This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim adopting the belief that any discerning of racial differences is a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity in themselves. To create the belief, wrap the activity in an abstraction (ie. "racism"), and imagine a negative reality for it (ie. "is a quality of evil, ignorant people", "is the cause of poverty, crime, etc"). Contrive these realities and present them over and over until seen as "real" by the victim.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). After all, this idea promotes accidentalism! This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim adopting the belief that any discerning of racial differences is a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity in themselves. To create the belief, wrap the activity in an abstraction (ie. "racism"), and imagine a negative reality for it (ie. "is a quality of evil, ignorant people", "is the cause of poverty, crime, etc"). Contrive these realities and present them over and over until seen as "real" by the victim.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). After all, this idea promotes accidentalism! This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having adopted the discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having believed this imagined reality and now desperate to avoid the guilt of being an accidentalist (the negative which brings discontent), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having adopted the discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures are the actual cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having adopted the discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures being the cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having adopted the discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures being the cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures being the cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

This technique is infinite in variety: all that is required is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures being the cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks safety and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures being the cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes mistakes, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone? They just had a dangerous accident and now you are giving them even more trauma by blaming them.

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks escape and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. Despite what this goof says, there is obviously nothing "cult" or "guru-worship" about the simple use of negation. So what is missing from negation for it to become useful as a manipulation tool? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that already makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. The use of negation logically creates the Thought of "car manufactures being the cause of car accidents". Now we add what is missing: the negative Thought which compels behaviour. We'll call it "accidentalism":

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes them, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone and try to interfere when they have an accident?

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks escape and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. So what is missing in the argument? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that you makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. Suppose I installed the notion of "accidentalism" into the mass consciousness.

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes them, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone and try to interfere when they have an accident?

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks escape and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars to stop car accidents). Naturally, they will defend their new refuge by rejecting the former idea which has now become dangerous (drivers are the cause of car accidents). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. So what is missing in the argument? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that you makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. Suppose I installed the notion of "accidentalism" into the mass consciousness.

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes them, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone and try to interfere when they have an accident?

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks escape and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. So what is missing in the argument? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that you makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. Suppose I installed the notion of "accidentalism" into the mass consciousness.

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes them, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone and try to interfere when they have an accident?

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks escape and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact of .

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to take a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. and present some aspect as undesireable until an emotional compulsion arises. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.

This guy is confusing two distinct concepts: negation as a philosophical operation and the negative as means of manipulation.

For an example of negation, one could claim that beaches do not exist. Why? Because on futher inspection the "beach" is nothing other than a large quanity of sand on shore. Therefore, "beach" is just an abstraction of sand which has certain quantity and location. Sand is real, beach is not. However, the same operation can be applied to sand which is nothing other than an abstraction of rocks of a certain size, etc. Also note that this can also be applied in reverse. Sand can be said to be unreal. Shoreline sand comes in all shapes, sizes, colours, quanity, types etc. But you are wrong to say it is real because regardless of its qualities, all of this sand is really just beaches and you were fooled!

However, any real/unreal argument remains unconvincing. Why? Because anyone can see that Beach and Sand are both simply ideas, thought. The fact that one thought can abstract another - or that one thought is basis of another - doesn't change the "reality" of either one. So what is missing in the argument? Emotional compulsion.

To manipulate you into my "wizard circle" as he puts it, it is necessary for me to present you with an idea that you makes you feel discontent (the negative). By fixating on the relief from, or avoidance of, this negative thought, you will begin to unknowingly follow my proposed solution, which of course, will involve the rejection of whatever your current reality happens to be.

For example, his Critical Car Theory appears stupid exactly because it's missing this crtitical component. Suppose I installed the notion of "accidentalism" into the mass consciousness.

Don't you realize that it is bigoted of you to impose punishment on other people when they make mistakes? Everyone makes them, but you think you're entitled to assign "blame" and seek "justice". All of this arises from the systemic accidentalist culture of which you are actively participating in. Don't you see you are oppressing people just like you who have accidents and are simply trying to live their lives? Who are you to find fault in anyone and try to interfere when they have an accident?

Do you see now how a "wizard" can make abolishing cars an attractive proposition? Having adopted accidentalism as reality and desperate to avoid being labeled as such (labeled as the negative), the victim seeks escape and finds it in the wizard's solution (abolishing cars). This is emotional compulsion by using the negative (thought).

It is no different with Critical Race Theory. It's effectiveness is wholly dependent on the victim having implicity adopted their discerning of racial differences as a negative and then seeking to avoid (the appearance of) this activity. Everything flows from this simple fact.

These techniques are infinite in variety: all it takes is to have individuals fixate on a disparity in race, nation, wealth, status, gender, religion, etc. They will always work just as they have for thousands of years. Why? Because humanity is not spiritual. They are believers/disbelievers. They take their Thoughts and Consciousness for granted. All believe/disbelief arises out of the discontent with the present circumstance; it is a form of self-soothing.
The theist seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "God" contrived by scripture. The athiest seeks relief from uncertainty about the world in the Thought of "Material" contrived by science. In terms of conciousness, they are identical. And neither understand this process operating in themselves in ALL aspects of their lives in a million different ways. Therefore, they are ripe to have new beleiefs/disbeliefs installed in them.

I have never met any Christian or otherwise who is even interested, let alone makes it their aim, to empty themselves of compulsion or automatic Thought.
It's funny, even their master told them "become as child". The young child, of course, is utterly without contrivance, is not searching for answers, is not constructing beliefs about what is or is not, is not seeking relief nor fulfillment. The child is completely without "isness". He has taken neither a position nor a negation. He has not confused his Thoughts or Senses with notions of "Real" and "Unreal". Even the Satanists explicitly give the reason they use children for their rituals: because they are "closer to God". Apparently, both Jesus and Satan were aware of the nature of conciousness! A spiritual individual would consider these facts well.