The "moral highground".

I have not been producing any information for a little while now. What is to be written has simply not been "there". Like, not having received a package. There is nothing to be written, therefore, I cannot write anything.

But I have pushed internally and this is all I have come up with. 

I am, in a small way, that I don't know if is accurate, thinking of hanging my hat up when it comes to this material. I will explain why in an analogy of sorts. One that revolves around some personal insights.

Global politics:

Global politics is happening and is about to kick off. This gives me a huge social advantage I believe which I will come to. 

The UK riots will not settle easily. There are hundreds of towns that have had a bad experience with Islam in general, and immigration secondarily, and the sex trafficking happening in many of these English towns. The global stock market is about to crumble to the point that the "normies" will find out. This is all starting in Japan and seems like it is pretty crazy. Global war has a real possibility of breaking out as well. Russia has been selling powerful weapons to Iran. 

The main point I will be talking about is the "moral highground" in much of this piece. A small examination of it. The additional insight that it is, in almost all of mainstream society, strategically confused with the idea of animal power. Like, the in group considers itself to have the moral highground that it enforces through numbers. But animal power and true virtue/ ethics/ morality do not belong with each other. There is animal power on the one hand, there is what is good/ ethical/ true on another. 

I will come back to how this global political situation changes my personal life. 

Destiny and this material:

Another issue that I have thought about for a while is; what is going on with this material and my personal destiny. I.e. the kind of things I would read in a chart, how does that apply to my life?

Well, I have often thought this kind of material is shown, metaphorically, by my south node in my normal astrology being in the sixth house. This is effectively my "service to others". Having gotten that concept from the Law of One material. 

"Service to Others" seems to be a concept that is so positive and illuminating that it can't bring against it any criticism. BUT, I have the south node in the sixth house and nothing else there of the main planets (I have Eros and Nessus there as well, not conjunct the South node!) I have described, on my youtube channel, my attempts to apply this material in the real world to the concept of "healing". Despite as positive as the concepts seems to be, it might turn out to be kind of codependent and useless to me. As in, I will still practically be "service to others" but with a huge awareness that I cannot be that in a lot of the practical ways I imagined and that the concept itself suggests. 

Individual linkage to this material:

Now, I'm going to get to the crux of this matter. 

Something is happening that is deeper than the shallow way we might have envisioned, been taught, since we were young, about how the world works. The fact that the global situation is changing is somehow deeply linked to our personal lives I believe. 

For me, I will explain something personal to illustrate this. In the past few years, I have, not consciously, mostly by coincidence and aided very heavily by socially significant events I have no control over; been manoeuvering myself into the position of the moral high ground amongst the people I have been in communication with. 

This feels like, in a way, an immune response to a certain situation out in the world. I will do a little separating out of connected concepts here. As I surmised earlier, in a lot of our society animal power, and the moral highground go together. This is enforced and often, not challengeable, or not easily challengeable, in all sorts of subtle ways. 

But the two concepts as they connect to me that need to be separated is this: A) The moral high ground in the personal and relating to the political sense. I.e. the assumption amongst main stream individuals that they are morally superior and you are "weird" because they follow the mainstream viewpoint. This is pushing against a campaign of gossip where you try and be nice to people, and they are kind of a little positive but they make snide comments and are always above you in some subtle unacknowledged way.

B)  The lack of personal animal power that I have: I have a medical condition. That is getting better now finally, for perhaps the first time in my life. Due to this, due to a lack of money, relationships etc. It gives more tools to those seeking to subtly, or even quite openly, minimise and disrespect me in relation to the concerns in the last paragraph.

The snide upper hand:

There are a few interconnected manipulation tendencies with this that would be worthy of a game theory style explanation. For instance, one tactic that is used in this subtle game is to put the other person on the back foot by constant subtle disapproval. It's things like, you are communicating with someone and sometimes they just stop communicating with you and you are always on the back foot and trying to kind of guess where you went wrong. The goal of this tactic, I believe, is so that you only express what is acceptable to said individual in order to be 'let in' to their social life. But as with many of these tactics, it is never stated outrightly, but often, they want the person on the backfoot to accurately guess. It is against their power games and self image of themselves to say "Do x or we are not friends". But communicating 'intermittantly' and getting you to guess is within their reach as a manipulative tactic. 

I was working on a theory once upon a time on how this effects the chart by switching off the "projector channels". But that is not for now. 

Another is 'pleading to emotions'. Like, no accountability is taken. Just 'you change this behaviour because it effects emotions'. Then it's like, in response, a response that will be ignored: "but there are practical, logical considerations here, you are ignoring".

Another is, just a kind of invalidation of your being and an absolute conviction that they are right. Like, you wouldn't bring up the thing that is 'off the wall' because it would find no purchase. If this happens again and again over a range of subjects you just deflate before you even bring it up. But it might be relevant.

Another is playing the victim more directly. Just always having a victim story and being uber sensitive all the time and not communicating. This tactic is a kind of gaslighting in a way. Or, it's not gaslighting actually but it has the effect of gaslighting. This tactic can only be used if there is something on the table. People have to motivate towards the person with this tactic because it's presence in a way forbids the 'victim' from being over active in initiating contact. They are always reacting never, with positivity and strength, reaching out. 

All of them.

But imagine every single one of these tactics being used in support of a left wing mainstream narrative. It would require quite a long time to individually challenge these and other tactics. Quite a force of intellectual rigor to set up defences against it. 

But that is what I have done. 

In the long term of being dragged down and tired from interacting in these ways and a kind of constant eggshell walking. Bear in mind, that these tactics are all passive in a way. They all have a common theme that gives them strength. Out of those tactics, if the person relating the 'snide' individual, is outward and positive and with less secrecy and agenda. The person using the 'snide' tactic is not like that. They gossip. They benefit from things not being said. The mainstream narrative of course benefits from things not being said. It's where "I don't want to talk about it", strengthens the snide individual. It's where lack of challenge benefits them.

There is a strong weakness to this though. The weakness is that the 'snide' individual, will be unethical, and they will think more short term. In the moment they might gossip about someone and use this to justify being unpleasant towards them subtly, but one or two years down the line perhaps, or longer, if that person sends back a long list of things the snide individual has done. They won't be able to justify everything. Because a lot of it felt morally righteous in the moment when given the benefit of gossip. But over the long term and with the evidence of these things all laid out on a page; it is not defensible. 

This means that if the other individual does have a stronger position on the 'ethics' front then they will eventually win said battle. 

Both of these points are very important because they carry over two separate areas of relevance. One is politics and that's why stuff going on globally has impact. The other is the personal life and the discussion of ethics and such. Which is such a strong part of life that it is everpresent. Since evasion has been referenced as a tactic here, it can be done in the latter case, but the former can be tricky. I will come to this as well. 

The amount of intellectual work that has gone in this article I feel is similar to how much must go into these real life battles.

So down to real life. 

Personal story time then. Over the past few years but the story really reaching back a decade or further in some cases. I have eventually putting together a framework to deal with this. This is more than 50% the benefit of the work of Stefan Molyneux. 

It is relevant like I have probably stated a few times that I have had an illness and part of this illness has caused massive anxiety. It has also greyed out my memory a little. Probably due to difficulty in replicating without the medical condition, the emotions I have had in the worse states. 

But really, the crux of what I am talking about is this. In relation to individuals I have dealt with, I have put myself into a position of moral highground in several ways and importantly, I have blocked the door to interacting with people unless they change. The way I have done this is to ask them to justify, ethically, their decisions in order for me to interact with them. This is not something they are in the habit of doing. 

There is, a really difficult and what sometimes feels like a nasty element to this. As an example. If this process had been done with an individual. If you good naturedly ask them to justify their ethics, and they don't or can't, but they don't like the situation emotionally. Then you might be tempted to ignore that, but it is obvious that it is completely illogical to ignore that as well. Like, you don't have the freedom, in a sense, to go with your own emotions at all. 

It is yet a long time before I can get to why this links to global politics changing my desire to do blogging. But I will continue. 

The thing with this 'nasty logical element' I just mentioned, is that even if there is a lot of temptation to not go with the logic. The logic is kind of unflappable. So if the person has some sort of power and status, charm or whatever, most people will not be refusing them. But someone that is following this process will be. So there is a potential for an ugly response, or realisation, here.

The tactics:

So, like I have just mentioned but will go back to. Due to my bad health. I have kind of been through this process with people twice. Once when I was not that well, in the more intense way. But just to be sure that it wasn't me I tried to recontact a bunch of people. Many of them behaved exactly the same.

But these are the kinds of things I am talking about. With the reason for them. 

The people with 'snide' tactics can only interact if people are coming towards them. Trying to be nice and help them... "Service to others" even, you might say. The reason for this comes down to justification. If they are going to judge the "giver" (let's say). They can't be that active in the relationship. The snide individual can't phone the giver a couple of times and go out for a drink with them because if they do, their usual subtly judgemental tactics the giver can then say: "Hey mate, you were the one who called me, it wasn't the other way around". So they need the giver to do a lot of the work. 

Really sounds like I have been dealing with the dregs of society. 

But they can still protest if the giver stops putting in any effort.

The tactics largely involve interacting with them, until they reach the point where some positive good thing is requested from them that they are unwilling to provide. An ethical justification is one. If you are going to behave in xyz manner then what abstract moral principle do you submit to? Otherwise, are you not only your emotional preferences? That are not ethical and have not served us well, so far.

Another is apologising. You apologise to them, they don't apologise to you. Then six months down the line, where you have apologised and have evidence they haven't changed their behaviour, (on the implication it was your past behaviour that was holding everything up!) you can call them on that if you need to. 

Another, which is coming for someone that is very flakey and slimey. Simply holding accountable. If I said x and you said y, that means you are saying z. Not forgetting, not budging. Making it clear that if someone is to behave like this they have virtually no utility. 

Bringing it all together. 

Might be the longest article I have written on this blog. (2439 words up to, but not including, this sentence).

I have felt like I am 'the giver' in a lot of situations. One of the things that happens, and how this links to politics and one of the common patterns in this. Is that the 'giver' is trying to communicate and talk about things. Philosophies, power, freedom etc. And the other person - (I won't go as far as saying snide for this example, I will call the mainstream person). Is not contributing anything, but taking the mainstream position and dismissing the givers perspective. 

So this might be a conspiracy example. When the conversation come up the giver explains their research. A video they saw, evidence of some sort. The mainstream individual puts it down and does not want to talk about it. This means though, that the information the giver is trying to impart, doesn't see the light of day. 

This can extent to a lot of different areas. Immigration is an example. You won't get a mainstream person to acknowledge statistical facts about it. But it goes into personal areas as well. We all know, for example, the mainstream narrative is that women do no wrong. In certain situations, bringing up things women have done in your actual life, will be shunned in this manner.

So this, over a long period of time. It has collided with me in different directions. One is pretty amazing and positive in that I tend to not focus on conspiracy too much which is kind of toxic for me and I enjoy things like playing guitar and focusing on my own life instead. It has gotten so advanced that I genuinely don't want to talk about these situations often, I feel it would be difficult for me if I tried. This is very positive.  

There is an interconnected non positive feeling though. The kind of rage of not being acknowledged when you have something legitimate to say. The knowledge, and a small awareness, of deliberate pushback from the other to prevent you from bringing these things up. The 'mainstream person' will get increasingly sensitive, not less sensitive. They won't discuss the area in a muted way one day and then six months later be able to discuss it a bit more. They will grow more sensitive. The six months later, they will stop the conversation earlier, because they cannot defend against the givers points and are wound up about it.

A few other bits. 

I think, my health is a holistic thing, and the 'design' side, the side in red in my chart, is the side effected and 'switched off' in a sense, with very bad health. Now that I am switching back "on" more, I think the red in my chart, the complete channels all below the throat, is pushing me to go more animalistic in a sense. To relate to real life more. 

When I started blogging I was blogging at llresearch and I was young, and far ahead in Law of One terms. I was well received and was given status in a sense. Perhaps, probably even, illusory, but status nonetheless. I am not getting status from this anymore. 

I have wondered a little bit if my blogging and youtube have a bit of a sunk cost fallacy to them. Thousands of blog posts and at least hundreds of youtube vids. Coming away from it, not continuing on it is admitting that I have wasted time in a sense. Not in an accurate sense since I was ill that time would have been wasted no matter what. But in an emotional sense all the same. Justifying what I have been doing with my time is something I think about. 

There is more to this though.

Not all 'mainstream' individuals I would classify as 'takers'. A lot of losers I have known take the most mainstream perspective, but within the number of mainstream individuals, are what I perceive to be fairly good, productive and intelligent people. 

Even so though, in the paradigm conflict I have discussed. The people with the most mainstream view are "giving" less to the conversation. Oh, that thing you experienced with women? I'm sorry that doesn't exist. Oh, you are interested in global politics? I have no idea about any of that. The medical treatments were nothing but positive. 

The steps to get people to discuss the possibility that there might be a political change that would change our lives is just not there. That perspective would also includes a lot of optimism and such, rather than resigned misery of the mainstream.

At a certain point, there needs to be some sort of response to my material. Acknowledgement of the paradigm of this infinitely complex and mysterious universe with positive higher forces. 

I DO NOT think people that have read thousands of words in these blog posts are like that. But I do think, that is partly the case with my youtube channel. 

The problem with democracy in general, is that sometimes, people are idiots. Just stone cold morons. I have heard it said by Chris Williamson that male self help material is all about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and female self help material is that you are a special princess and the world should adapt to you. The latter being extremely ineffective and essentially harming the people that subscribe to it. BUT, they are the ones that choose it, buy the material. And anyone advising young women of any hard truths will probably be shunned and have to go over to the manosphere, if that's their perspective they don't want to part with. 

One of my most popular youtube videos was about the dream rave. The dream rave is something that I recall that Reddit human design 'A wretched hub of scum and villainy' was not able to get easy answers on. Not able to download anything on for free. 

I think the way people are absorbing that information is to just take it in, and not have it change anything about themselves. Their viewpoints remain completely mainstream. I also think that, on a subconscious level, I have wanted to change the viewpoints of people as my 'service to others' to move our society into a better place. But, I do not think that that will happen through my videos, or output in general, anymore. But I DO think it will likely become a thing, now that we have all this global political turmoil about to happen.

Financial Crash.

I don't know how legitimate this is, as I have said I try to stay away from this kind of thing. But as I have been writing this article (for two hours now I think!) Twitter has been alert with pretty big news of financial crashes. It might have "arrived", the world changing event. 

In exactly the same way that with my personal situations with people, I put others on the backfoot by the stuff talked about under the 'tactics' heading, I finally wrestled peoples arrogant belief they are right, that is linked with their political beliefs so that THEY are on the backfoot. But in a larger sense it is not me that is going to do that. In a larger sense for the remaining glut of normal people, they will be more strongly influenced by real life events.

No more carrot, now some stick. 

To conclude. I have before written about not doing any of this anymore. But it strikes me being inspired to write a complex, about 4000 word article on it might be indicative that, this is a deeply held and real sensation to me. 

It is my birthday later today (5 am here!) The only thing that really makes me interested (potential Freudian slip there though "interesting) is music related things. Manuscript paper, pages of manuscript to write my songs. I like raw milk cheese. I have, in my meditations, had insights recently that a kind of remaining narcissistic perspective (but probably a defence mechanism against illness) needs to fall away. The statement was "As you accept your mediocrity, you lose your mediocrity". 

These blogs and such, this output linking back to when I was on the llresearch forum believing I was Don Elkins. Are a way for me to deny that. That I am really not that special. Or even if I am special. I am not particularly capable, and will unlikely become a famous genius from doing this kind of thing. 

Anyway, so that's that. We'll see how it goes. I might write another article tomorrow knowing my normal compulsivity. But I don't think so. I might not ever write again. 

But I don't think so.

But these are some thoughts nonetheless.