Jump to content

zaji

Members
  • Posts

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by zaji

  1. @Mel Hopkins, you nailed it. LOL. I observe you, me, us, human nature and beliefs in general. I watch to see how we dissect our own ideas and how we dissect our observations. I reject no observation made by us humans. What I question only is how we interpret those observations, which can be varied. This is what we as a species can't seem to accept. I experience gravity, another person experiences gravity, but our conclusions can still be different based on how we see the world. One will say it cannot be defied because of the observable fact that they cannot jump off a cliff without damage to the human body or death, and another will say it can be defied and go forth to invent something such as...I don't know...an airplane. LOL. All because they did not fully go along with the observations made by every human on Earth. Observations are not conclusions. Those who never imagined it could be defied, invent/create nothing. Creation happens in a space of fluid being, not accepting or rejecting a thing, so creation and discovery can be possible. Taking a solid stance on any side of a subject blocks creativity, and, to a degree, the ability to be aware of possibilities. I stay fluid. So yes, I operate, when I am aware and awake enough to do so, outside of this status quo of thinking and processing information. I try to live in that other dimension/plane. I'm an adventurer. I want to explore ideas without being told that I'm not allowed to do so. Those first people who discovered flight were rejected, laughed at, told they were being ridiculous. That their experiments were dangerous and would lead to nothing because humans cannot fly. Had they fallen in line with conventional "science" we wouldn't have planes today. Frankly, they didn't even need science to tell them anything. Our personal experiences SHOW us that we cannot fly. Yet, someone decided to go against even their own personal observations and create something that defied what they knew to be true. I'm that person inventing the plane in this discussion. LOL. And no matter what anyone says, we gonna fly!! Cause I'm looking at ALL sides of the wind and my creation to figure this thing out. Thanks for your words Mel!
  2. @Pioneer1 I am against a monetary system but have always been curious how others see this system. I'm all about real wealth and finding ways to acquire it.
  3. How do we, as melanin rich people around the world, measure up in capitalism? Essentially, do we have any leverage in this monetary system that could globally affect change for us? Why or why not?
  4. @Troy I came to that conclusion because you insinuated that I have not considered the belief you currently hold. I remain on both sides of the conversation, regardless of how it might look to you. At the moment, I'm merely sharing the side of the conversation from which I've received new information over the last decade. I have read scientists who do not accept the mainstream version of the issue of race. See, you are dismissing what I have personally read by scientists who study this field. This is the issue Troy. Because you have not been exposed to scientists who based on their observations believe there is race, you dismiss me and others. You can't read everything that is out there. The mainstream rarely shows both sides of the discussion objectively. You say the science is clear, but again, I HAVE read scientists IN the field who do NOT come away with the same conclusions based on their observations. AND, in many cases, have made OTHER observations that are being ignored. Why are you asking me to accept ONLY what you have read, but you dismiss what I have read? I am not dismissing the scientists you have decided to agree with. I believe they see what they see. I merely am open to listening to professionals who see something else. Just because a test doesn't use the term race, doesn't mean one is not allowed to draw conclusions. Their decision to not use the word has nothing to do with conclusions we can draw from a test that clearly has the ability to discern one on a list of things that determines phenotype. Always remember you are relating information told to you based on HOW another human being processes their observations. I try at all times to rethink how I process observations, rather than taking what someone else tells me an observation means. You also assume that because you changed your position, that automatically means I have not become aware of the science. You state that YOU became aware of the science, intimating that I have not. Don't make that assumption merely because your position has changed and that now means you have reached a level higher than someone who believes (tentatively) your old beliefs. That is not necessarily the case. As new information comes our way, we can end up flip flopping on many ideas over the course of our lives. So be careful what you suggest here. Your new stance doesn't mean that you are right...or wrong. It is merely your new stance based on information YOU have seen, but you have not seen what I have seen. So it's always best to avoid assumptions. I don't have a world view per se. I have a thought that I am expressing based on what I've discovered recently about the science. And that thought is not set in stone. So please don't set me in stone by assuming I have a solid world view on anything. I don't. Really? I am rejecting the "truth"? Or am I rejecting YOUR truth and fallible science to a degree and you don't like it? I an not rejecting anything in general Troy. I don't carry that much ego. And I'm not even rejecting how you now see this race issue. That is what is funny. LOL. I'm introducing some things I've researched and pondered over the last 30 years. Again, nothing hard and fast, just things to consider based on the scientists I've read up on and the conclusions they've come to. How is considering another way of seeing a rejection of anything? Above all else, know that I have no solid view. I'm merely expressing conclusions I've come to based on OTHER scientists who you have NOT read up on. DO NOT overlook that point. I don't reject or accept anything 100%. For me, this discussion is 50/50. It can go either way based on what we continue to learn and discover. And since I am not invested in the outcome of the race vs. no race discussion (to a degree), I cannot accept or reject anything. It would be foolish of me to do so. I want to know the truth, and I don't just take what people say just because of what they claim to observe. Let ME observe it and see if I come to the same conclusions. Please, going forward, don't accuse me of rejecting or accepting anything. Let ME tell you if I reject something or accept it. Just because I don't flock to your position and openly announce to the world a position you hold, doesn't mean I out of hat reject it. Let me speak for myself please. That is how you show proper respect for me as a human being. I ask that NO ONE on this board think for me and tell me what I feel or don't feel, think or don't think. Don't tell me what I reject or don't reject just because I don't fall in line with your view, or, if I FALL in line with your view. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with you, don't think for me and don't tell me what I'm thinking or feeling. It is the highest form of disrespect. ASK me how I feel and let me tell you. And don't assume that because I don't agree 100% with what you think, that somehow means I dismiss your views all together. I don't. Same with agreement. Just because I agree with you, it doesn't mean I am always on board 100%. Please don't do it to me. It smells of talking heads on television who just want to be heard, loudly, be verbally abusive to each other, but resolve nothing when the conversation is done.
  5. I've noticed this in general as well. When we step outside of the status quo in every area of knowledge, either discarding some ideas or expounding on some ideas, we invent/create great things.
  6. @Pioneer1 It's worse than breaking them. They've changed how the laws read. In this culture, they like to boss people around, bully them, take take take and point fingers as they mutilate folks. Their 10 commandments bear out this behavior. THOU shalt not kill, THOU shalt not do this or that. YOU YOU YOU shouldn't. Whereas in the 42 Laws, we take responsibility for our behavior. I shall not kill. I shall not to this, I shall not do that. Or more rightly, I have not stolen, I have not committed sin. We look at self first, not tell others what to do.
  7. There's the thing. I have and continue to consider this, the view that there is no such thing as race. THAT is why I wrote my piece on Racism, to challenge this to a degree. Not the general discussion on race, but specific behaviors that use race as an excuse. But what baffles me is why those who oppose another view are unwilling to consider those other views (the view that race may exist). Even science is divided on the question, hence the article I sent you on that scientist who was able to determine the race of a murderer, thereby allowing law enforcement to catch the person because of this scientist's effective science on determining race. So only one side must reconsider their points, not the other? LOL. I find it amusing because I actually do not dismiss the mainstream view completely, only to a degree and with amendments and other considerations. I merely have examined other things and see it differently now. BUT, I see it differently, from my viewpoint, WITHOUT rejecting wholesale the view I no longer hold. THAT is the key difference between me and those who see things differently. Essentially, there is a desire for me and others to consider the mainstream view (which I've actually considered AND believed for the last 20 plus years). But NO ONE else feels they should at least be open to the possibility that the view I now have (which is NOT set in stone and merely things I've come to understand) should be considered? Feels a bit one sided when it comes to asking for others to consider a point of view. When I see folks asking me to consider their views but they defiantly and condescendingly refuse to consider mine, I'm done talking. What else is there to say? What I hear is this person saying to me is, I'm stupid, they are not, and I just need to listen to them because their views are infallible and their sources are infallible and science would NEVER lie to them (or be wrong) ergo, I should stop saying stupid things and concede that THEY are right and I am wrong. @Troy, I DO consider that race is an illusion. Do you consider that it is at least possible that you have been misled and race is NOT an illusion? If you can consider that as possible, then I think we can truly discourse. Otherwise, it is merely you trying to get me to take your side. I don't take YOUR side. I don't take Pioneer's side, I don't take ANYONE'S side and NEVER have in my life. Me agreeing with @Pioneer1 does NOT mean I take his side. Something I have PERSONALLY discovered resonates, which is why I agree with some things he writes. I take the side of TRUTH and truth ONLY, and I attempt to always find that when and where I can. And me questioning this new science doesn't mean I'm an idiot. It means that science has fluctuated in two directions (sometimes dozens over centuries) and is now asking me to believe the idea or "research" that makes it comfortable today. Since science didn't get it right before, using their so called experiments to determine race, and now they want to use experiments again to determine there is no race, it is time for me to step in and use my own observations, considerations, intellect, experiences, common sense and, of course, research I can find that I only hope is reliable (my own scientific experiments if possible), to discover and come to a conclusion on what I think about this race vs. no race conversation. I think it is disturbing to me to see people taking a hard stance on either side without considering the possibility that BOTH stances could actually be wrong, and there is a dynamic of our existence that we have yet to understand, but we are here busying ourselves with the wrong questions to start with. This is not to say we can't discuss it. But BOTH sides need to be open to possibilities. BOTH. We are fallible, remember that. If I must merely defer to another person's view, then there is nothing for me to say in the discussion. I will go silent and let others discuss what they wish. I will go on my merry way and find truth while folks fight over whether they are right or wrong, or whether science is right or wrong. I don't want to be right. I want to know what is going on on this here globe to the best of my ability. Truth is my friend. If we try to seek that, we'd be better off. AND, when we ask someone to "consider" another view, let's be sure we are giving them the same respect and considering their view.
  8. @Cynique I'm aware of that. The point I was intending is that it went on for about 50 years before it was exposed as a scientific fraud. I have the book on the entire fiasco. Bottom line, many people believed it for 50 years, which is a long time for a scientific fraud to go on. That is why I cautiously accept science. Lots of fraud and revisionist history that continues today. I discarded ALL religions decades ago. No use for them beyond idol conversation and a few items within them that were stolen from other cultures. Until the lion writes her own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. - Proverb I neither doubt everything nor believe everything. I examine everything and humbly submit when I don't know. And, I can say I don't know without accepting a thing. It doesn't mean, at least for me, that I am in limbo. It simply means I am humble enough to say "I don't know." Period. I don't know if there is life on another planet. Admitting that doesn't leave me in limbo. It means I am admitting that I don't know a thing and may not know in my lifetime. And that is ok. I have no desire to be so egotistical that I MUST know everything while I'm living and breathing.
  9. Very true. I lived in Germany for 2 years and I actually liked it better than the United States. I almost stayed, but was young and didn't have the wherewithal to figure it out. I was only 22 with a new baby born in Germany.
  10. @Pioneer1 Age of Fraud and Piltdown man. AND, all that is hidden in the Vatican. That's all I'll say about that. Those things speak for themselves. As for prior to 150 years ago, I'll venture to say even now, in the last 150 year, 99% of the things we believe or think we know we cannot personally confirm. We take many things on faith/trust, and that those humans in labs (and overall science/biology) are being honest with us. Additionally, only a tiny handful of things can we confirm that were learned through those lab studies. Most things we simply cannot confirm and are forced to look at what OTHERS have WRITTEN about it, not our personal observations and experiences. And, even IF we accept the observations of that which we cannot confirm, we still need to consider that not all conclusions about an observation will be the same, or accurate. History has shown that humans often come to different conclusions on a shared observation. Which is why whenever reasonable and possible, people should be allowed to make their own observations and have their own experiences so they can see what they walk away with from those observations/experiences. Of course, within reason. I certainly don't need to take a teaspoon of mercury to accept the observations on how it affects the body. Why? Because it is not a single observation that has led to an understanding of what mercury does the body. It is thousands of observations of the outcome that led to the conclusion.
  11. @Mel Hopkins, I'm giggling right along with you. Yes @Cynique. Ego can catch us unaware at times. I make it a point to attempt awareness of when my conversations are all about my ego, rather than finding truth. Some folks think we are trying to find truth, desiring to reveal truth to others, when in fact, they are just full of ego and trying to be right. The worst part is when an individual finds a little bit of information without knowing the fullness of a thing (or using no critical and unique thinking) and then they are off and running with the I-know-I'm-right attitude. And not from a humble place of so called knowing, but from a boastful place, a place of intellectual superiority. If I have to boast about knowledge I believe I have, then I need to question myself as to whether that knowledge is true and not just something I'm using to pretend I'm better informed than others and therefore above them. Truth does not require me to fight for it. It can stand on its own whether someone wishes to see it or not. Truth also doesn't require me to be angry and overly passionate on its behalf, simply because someone doesn't see it. My job is to drop seed and keep it moving. I try to leave my ego at the door whenever I am aware of its attempts at infiltration. Third eye gotta stay open!!
  12. Yes indeed @Pioneer1. Exactly. Designed with intent. Yes! Yes @Troy, bittersweet reality.
  13. You all bring so much passion and fire to your posts! I appreciate ALL of your words and look forward to seeing many more thought provoking posts such as the ones I've read. I really do mean it when I say I appreciate ALL thoughts, not just some. Watching the opposition between ideas sharpens me and makes me even more desirous to fall back and detach from views that could be debated all day long. Bottom line, 99% of what we know we get from methods we cannot personally confirm. It's a sad truth. But it is what it is. I lay wait like a lion in the bushes for new information to guide us to truths. Stay lively and keep bringing the fire! Thanks for having me here!
  14. @Mel Hopkins, I think you dropped the Buddhism bomb. Attachment. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have found in the past that when I have too much of a stake in the outcome of a conversation, I become too passionate...I want to be right, I want the world to revolve around my views. I am not open to possibility. No matter WHAT I discuss on ANY forum or in person, no matter what I express, I am NOT attached to it, no matter what I say about my feelings on a topic. That is why I do not get upset with anyone who has a different view or experience and eventually go silent when folks cannot consider another view on a topic. I don't want anyone to "take my side" but to just consider ideas. Because at the end of the day, my stance is, we could ALL be wrong about our thoughts/ideas/opinions, even, dare I say, our observations that we define a certain way. Our observations in and of themselves may not be wrong, but our interpretation of what we observe could be 100% wrong. There could be 6 billion separate views of life and existence, and they could ALL be wrong because we have yet, as a human species, to advance to the point of understanding what we THINK we are looking at. So while I enjoy discussions about things and I share what I THINK I know, I am not attached to anything. I leave myself forever open to possibility. Possibility. That is the crux of it. So many are attached to their view of the world and how they've defined their observation that they cannot consider possibility. For example, I've pondered the changes in weather/climate, etc., and have not come away with this doom and gloom that is pushed by the scientific community and something that needs to be fixed. Just like we go through seasons in a year--winter, spring, summer, fall--what IF the planet is merely going through a couple millennia long season? What if what we think is some terrible warming that could destroy everything on Earth is merely the planet's normal shift into Summer that will last for about 2,000 years? I am not saying for sure that is what it is, but because we are so stuck on what we've decided the observation means, we cannot consider other possible reasons for what we are observing that does not include doom and gloom. Love your assessment on attachment. It brought up a lot that I often meditate on. I detach when I see I am communicating with those who are attached to their way of seeing things, or have decided that their conclusions on their observations are the ONLY conclusion that can be derived from an observation or experience. That is why you will rarely if ever hear/read me use the words, "you are wrong" no matter if I think they COULD be. I am more inclined to ask, "Could you be wrong?" If someone said to me they are going to walk off a mountain because gravity doesn't exist, to be frank, unless it is my child, I am not arguing with grown folks who think the way they see is the ONLY way. I'll merely ask them, after a bit of discussion to gauge how they came to their conclusion (can't let them go out without at least speaking on gravity), if they can, to let me know how it goes when they've tried it. Cause at the end of the day, maybe they've developed a way to fly that I am unaware of. So who am I to tell them they are wrong? LOL. :: closing eyes and crossing legs :: I detach myself from my opinions, knowledge, information, facts and beliefs. Ommmmmm. Namaste...
  15. I have never experienced what I consider to be true freedom, so I have no idea what it really is and what it feels like, but I do know what I don't consider freedom. And everything this culture is, for me, is the opposite of how I envision/imagine authentic freedom.
  16. Brilliant. That is how I classify information as well.
  17. After reading this thread, I must say, @Pioneer1 and @Del, I like ya'll.
  18. All I know is, if reincarnation exists and I have a choice, I do NOT wanna come back here. LOL!
  19. That is not what I"m saying. I am saying that skin color is one of several aspects of race, but not the sole determining factor. There is not a single thing that determines phenotype (race), but numerous things. Chinese have a particular phenotype (race) but they lack melanin. The Twa look like Chinese people with melanin. They are two variations of a similar phenotype, one brown, one not brown. Race is a group of things that make up a certain look, such as the distinct look of Aborigines, brown skin, specific phenotype. When I see Aborigines who have been diluted by one generation, it is still evident that they have carried over the aborigine phenotype (race), even though they are now mixed. I wouldn't even need DNA to distinguish them from other human phenotypes. If I see aborigine folks who are brothers and sisters, it wouldn't matter if one is slightly lighter or darker than the other, their race/phenotype would be evident. Doesn't matter that you and your sisters have varying skin colors, your phenotype, negroid, is still evident. Science can determine phenotype of bones and DNA is what determines the phenotype to begin with, even if we never pinpointed the marker for it. But they have. Like I wrote before, all cats are cats, just like all humans are humans, and genetically we can be identified as being human. But there IS a genetic difference in how cats look AND behave in their social environment. It is because of genetics why lions and tigers and panthers live in their own groups, almost never encroaching on their cat buddies with a different phenotype. There is a gene for our varying phenotypes (race). Again, try not to use the word race. They are really talking about phenotype and using the word race in a charged way to replace the very real phenotypes of various humans and all species.
  20. @Troy They have isolated the gene for skin color. And there are genes for every feature that humans have, their phenotypes, which is really all they are calling race. In other words, race is merely one's phenotype coupled with their skin color. They are being clever with the words they use to keep us arguing over this mess. Genetic research CAN tell a person's phenotype/race. Even without genetic tests, our bone structures are different, which is a major aspect of race/phenotype even before one gets to skin color. If genes don't determine how a Chinese looks or how an Aborigine looks, then what does? Chinese have slanted eyes, what is considered a phenotype (or race), because of their genetic make-up. How do you think Ancestry.com is surviving? They are sampling not just locations, but racial groups to perform their tests on others. They are tossing in a few games given that they do not have access to all phenotypes that have ever existed, therefore cannot produce honest scientific outcomes, but it is based on race at the end of the day. Skin Color Gene: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-identify-huma They are playing word games with people's heads Troy. They have known about this color gene long before 2005. Check this out: https://www.amren.com/news/2007/10/the_inconvenien And this (where the above came from): https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/ Trust me Troy, they know already that DNA can show race, a clever term for phenotype. They don't want YOU to know because they are getting something out of this game they are playing. Here is an ABC report on Frudakis' technology that includes standard technology: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125079&page=1
  21. This article is fairly recent, 2005, but it talks about the specific gene discovered for melanin. It was known long before this that there was a melanin gene. Common sense dictates this given what we've learned about DNA. There is a gene for everything in the human body, whether we've discovered it yet or not. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-identify-huma I learned about threonine and alanine long before reading this article. I have been doing heavy research on melanin for about 10 years now. I have copious notes. I discovered the threonine and alanine connection to melanin about 8 years ago. At that time, I hadn't heard talk about a discovered gene in the mainstream. All my discoveries where made through other mediums and through connecting the dots on my own. When I finally began to hear the mainstream discuss it, it was hushed up pretty quickly, then resurged for the benefit of profit via companies such as Ancestry.com. So now the discovery was being used to take people's hard earned money without discussing the many factors not being discussed around finding one's ancestry. Anyhoo, I continue to research melanin. And I see the game they are playing with race/phenotype/melanin. It is all pressing. But this discussion of race is just a discussion and certainly not at the top of the list of things that are pressing. We prioritize the best way we know how. This is a forum after all, not a place for sword and canon. So all we can actively do here is share our words. But we knew that already, right? LOL. This space is meant for talk. So then, let's talk. And when we get weary of the talk, we get out of here and go DO something offline. But we can't do the physical required for change here. This space is what it is. As for theory, the issue with all this, no matter what we call theory, whites are putting into practice. So theories become tangible things we must fight to destroy. We cannot ignore the theories imposed on us. They are the things that have led us to this place.
  22. As I wrote in my piece on racism, whites use this very real genetic fact, my melanin, as an excuse to cover up their violent behavior. Basically, it's not that they are narcissistic lunatics, it is because I am brown why they do what they do. My brown skin is real, anyone can see that. My brown skin is a genetic fact that has markers for it, just as there is a marker for slanted eyes in Chinese and a marker for the straight haired Aborigine and original dark brown skinned Native Americans. There are genetic markers for all these things, coded in the DNA, and they've found these markers. A very long time ago actually. All cats are cats, but a lion is very different from a tiger and a leopard and a black panther and so on. But they are all cats, just like we are all humans. Being human doesn't mean we are not different. Just like being a cat doesn't mean they are not all different. All cats in the animal kingdom have varying habits. AND, the most interesting thing...unless they are in captivity, they do not breed with each other. You won't see a lion rolling up on a black panther's spot and trying to screw it. But they are all cats. At the end of the day, whites benefit from keeping race AND getting rid of it. Both. They benefit based on their needs in the moment. We shouldn't keep swaying with their wind. When we do that, WE are not being scientific, but rather, sheep with no common sense. So race/melanin/phenotypes are real. However, HOW they are used is what is NOT real. THAT is what we need to fight against, how they are using our melanin (physically and socially). We dispense with race not to ignore my melanin, but to derail how my very real and visual difference is used. I believe the brainwashing is deep and we've become so divided that sometimes some of us can't see beyond the games they play...the games we play into.
×
×
  • Create New...