Posts by Amy Bennett

Maria Wright62 said:Was I really walking right past you? 😳

It’s possible they’re swaying 🤣

I'm not sure what you're waiting for. 🙂

He's just too young for me 🙂

Back in the day, Katherine, Anita, and those other old busybodies once joked that fate would eventually pair me up with an older, sophisticated lady. 🥳

Maria Wright62 said:I actually have a floral one too—we should check it out some other time. 😒

Noted. 🙂

Rachel Palmer56 said:Did you fall in love or what? :ice:?
Just enough to have some ammunition against her:haha:

Oh, I'm just teasing our dear Maria Wright62 a little bit. 😳

Chloe Cooper10 said:My denim shorts and tank top :love:

Now that is a classic American look. ☕

Maria Wright62, you look lovely—just enough to lead Aljoša toward the right path.🙂

And here I thought I was already on the right track. In Russian, "right" actually means "right side." ☕

Rachel Palmer56 said:My denim outfit and my boyfriend's tail🙂

Some lady took this photo of me😳

https://i.postimg.cc/d02wg5K2/20190718-124245.jpg

You look great too. I really dig all those floral patterns you guys are wearing. 😁 The only thing is, Rupy's look is a bit... well (🙄), I might have to buy her a scarf or something. ☕

Charles Bailey2 said:How does he actually sniff out a woman who’s looking to settle down? 🤣

🤣 😬

Maria Wright62 said:They aren't exactly huge—just about the right size, actually. 🕺

Are you swaying a little sensually when you walk past me? 😳

Rachel Palmer56 said:I mean—do you really think our husbands would actually want to take photos of us just for some online forum?🤣

I’d love to take some photos of my wife for the forum—and honestly, I wouldn't mind at all if she dressed more like Rupy. 🥳

I'm not sure if it's just the way the photo was taken, but I couldn't help but notice that Ruby Rose seems to have really wide hips. 😳

Maria Wright62, since you’re the one who started this thread, you really should have kicked things off by sharing some of your own lovely outfits. You could have even gone for something a little more daring—I don't know, maybe just showing off an ankle or something. 😳

hiddenpuma75 said:I think you're pretty far off base here.
If anyone on this forum manages to be concise and clear, it's Ryan Wilson2.
It’s obvious you haven't really followed his writing or his work closely, whereas I've been keeping tabs on him for 18 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. Once you look past the smoke screen of his casual chat posts and TV series analyses 🙄, and actually pay attention to his work regarding religion, spirituality, and magic, you can learn a tremendous amount—stuff the average American Christian has likely never even heard of.
Once you actually get to know your "enemy," you'll see he isn't nearly as terrifying as his avatar suggests. 😁

So, my advice? Follow the work of Ryan Wilson2, bluemason3, and Yakuzza; when it comes to religion, spirituality, or magic, they are truly the best in the business.
I’ll also shamelessly recommend 🙂 hiddenpuma75 🙄.
That one is a bit too smooth for his own good. 🙂

There are others worth reading, but in my opinion, these guys are the top tier.

Look, you clearly believe that these "Left-Handers," as you call them, are essentially on par with Satanists.

Well, you're right about some, but you're wrong about most. Take Ryan Wilson2, for example.
Sure, he might be a "Satanist," but not in the way you mistakenly think Satanists are.
Don't forget, you once told me that I was spreading "Luciferian poison" 🤣, meaning you identified Satanism within me as well. 😈

Besides, back in the 18th and 19th centuries, many European bishops branded both Muhammad and Buddha as Satanists—something that perhaps 99% of modern Christians and bishops wouldn't dream of thinking today. 😉

Christ is God. Judaism is the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree it's foolish to say God is a Satanist. Jews are a different matter entirely...

Now we're getting into theology, and I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole...

One thing is certain:
99% of Christians, yourself included, hold a caricatured view of those who follow the Left-Hand Path.
That stems from ignorance and a lack of critical thought—or, as Žižek suggested to those on the left:

don't just label everyone who thinks differently than you as a fascist—that's too easy. It's better to actually think...

The same applies to Christians as well...

Just because someone thinks differently than a Christian or doesn't particularly care for Christianity, doesn't automatically make them a satanist. 🧐

Maybe, but I’m just commenting on the posts I’ve seen right here. I’ve seen Yakuzza around before; he’s basically like an old friend. I don't really get why you're bothering me with this.

Well, you might be right about some things, but for most, you’re wrong—like with Ryan Wilson2.
Sure, he’s labeled a "Satanist," but that isn't what people think Satanism actually is.
Don't forget, you once told me I was spreading "Luciferian poison" 🤣—basically saying you detected Satanism in me, too.😈

Right, because Satanists are definitely lovely people, and I’m just clearly oblivious to it.

I remember telling you that, and I still feel the same way. You have your moments where you're alright, but the issue is your syncretism.

One thing is certain.
99% of Christians, including yourself, have a totally caricatured view of what Left-Hand Path followers are actually about.

Not at all; they have a perfectly accurate description. The Left-Hand Path essentially boils down to rejecting God as the Absolute—it’s an attempt to unseat God from His throne in order to put man in His place. It settles into breaking moral norms and religious dogmas because, for them, man is the measure of all things. That’s why they seem so hazy, arbitrary, and chaotic—they ultimately promote disorder and a lack of reason. Catholics don't have a wrong impression of those people. If they have any misconception, it’s probably just that Catholics don't have a bad enough impression of Left-Hand Path followers regarding the total degeneracy we see today.

These people are subversive elements that society needs to be purged of. They are dangerous, not just on their own, but because of everything they touch. That’s why, among other things, they never produce anything truly good. Societies are built on the Right-Hand Path—the "true hand," as people might say in certain circles. Members of the Left-Hand Path are nothing more than parasitic subversives. This is because they are in conflict with the Truth, in conflict with Reason, and in conflict with everything that comes from God. Consequently, their movements can never build anything lasting, because they follow chaos, and chaos is evolutionarily maladaptive. Death and fire are their eternal fate, because they have rejected the very source of life.

Just because someone thinks differently than a Christian or doesn't care for Christianity—doesn't make them a Satanist. 🧐

But honestly, that logic is flawed—and that goes for Christians who aren't Catholic, too.

Ryan Wilson2 said:It is abundantly clear that we are speaking two different languages here. To you, my points seem like incoherent babble, while to me, your arguments are nothing more than hollow, lifeless platitudes. Fortunately, we have reached this impasse quickly, so there is really no point in continuing this debate. 🧐 😁

What kind of empty platitudes?

hiddenpuma75 said:Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

Look, I never said I didn't get what the "left-hand path" is—I just meant I can't make heads or tails of Ryan Wilson2's nonsensical rambling. The guy writes like he’s having some sort of hysterical breakdown; everything is disjointed, and honestly, I feel like I’d need a PhD just to decipher what he’s actually trying to say.

Anyway, I think you realize that those "lefties," as you call them, are pretty much on par with literal devils in my book.

hiddenpuma75 said:Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

Christ is God. Judaism is essentially the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree—it's ridiculous to call God a Satanist. But the Jews... well, they're playing a different game entirely.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Oh, naturally... I suppose Satan must have plummeted from the heavens simply because someone dared to advocate for basic logic and equality, rather than out of pure arrogance and pride.

But let’s be honest: you can't possibly reason with someone who believes their version of the Truth is the only one that matters—especially when their own holy book practically provides a manual on how to treat slaves.

I’m actually having a hard time following what you're getting at here. You seem completely incoherent to me.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Nothing but hollow responses worthy of a traditionalist religious zealot.

I guess everyone gets the answer they deserve.

Ryan Wilson2 said:I fail to see how traditional religions could possibly be any more constructive than any other form of spirituality. Unless, of course, you're referring to the massive tax exemptions and federal subsidies they enjoy... if we're talking purely about financial advantages, then sure, they certainly have the upper hand.

It's hard to make sense of things when you're looking at them with your eyes closed. So, maybe just head back and take another look at mistyscout2's post.

Ryan Wilson2 said:And what exactly would "constructive spirituality" entail?

Traditional religions.

It’s just about taking the right path. You can actually see the truth behind this idea hidden right in our language—for instance, we use the word "right" in English, which carries that dual meaning of direction and morality, much like how similar concepts work in other languages.

ISS, what on earth happened here again? 🤣

Lisa Jackson7 said:For now, I'm still sending Metcalf...

Preconception: These groups last only a short time with high membership turnover.

I have observed that intentional communities follow a developmental pattern similar to that of small businesses: many more are imagined and planned than ever start. Of those that do start, about half collapse within two years, with perhaps half the remainder collapsing before the end of five years. Most small businesses and intentional communities that make it to five years prosper indefinitely. Just as some businesses become multi-national conglomerates, some intentional communities become large, multi-million-dollar operations, such as Findhorn Foundation (USA), Damanhur (Italy), and Twin Oaks (United States).

So, basically, only about 25% survive past year five—but once they hit that critical mark, they tend to last ages, decades even, maybe even a lifetime.
What really bugs me, though, is when they turn into corporations. Once that happens, the whole point is gone... like some "all-inclusive" tourist trap village... yeah, no thanks.

The author also brings up how a lot of these communities rely on welfare... basically being dependent on government handouts or private donations... which doesn't seem sustainable to me at all.

What actually makes sense to me is partial self-sufficiency—you know, meeting at least some of your material needs within the group... or successfully balancing outside work with life inside, something like Ithaca.

We are wired to raise children in community

It looks like the communities that actually make it are the ones with a rock-solid sense of purpose—the Amish and Hutterites definitely fit that mold—or the ones that’ve figured out how to actually handle conflict.
I mean, fights are bound to happen, but the members actually deal with them instead of just splitting up.

There are massive problems, too—some are mentioned here, but there are much darker sides to these communities... I'll get into that later.

A human lifespan isn't actually that long—it's barely enough for one generational shift. It makes me wonder how many kids actually stay in these communities versus how many leave.

The whole point of these groups should be long-term sustainability—they ought to be intergenerational. If they aren't, it means they aren't capable of passing their values and way of life down to the next generation. Passing on knowledge and information is fundamental to keeping a community alive; without it, you're just looking at its end. This feels like a deep-seated flaw in most of these setups—this excessive emphasis on "freedom"—which is actually reflected in that link you shared below. The author's family tries to distance themselves from our individualized society, yet they don't seem truly willing to let go of that individualistic freedom they enjoyed. Reading the article, it almost feels like they just moved so they wouldn't have to deal with raising their own kids as much, and could instead borrow butter from a neighbor they're, well, on slightly more casual terms with.

I get the impression that most of these are just unsustainable, utopian bubbles with no real future. For this kind of lifestyle to actually work in its true, organic sense, people would have to abandon the illusion of individual freedom and independence—that thing modern people cling to as they head toward their own downfall.

The author also mentions the relatively high number of people relying on social welfare within many of these communities... basically, a dependence on government aid or private donations... which doesn't strike me as particularly viable either.

Of course you don't think it's viable—they're essentially living out a fantasy on someone else's dime.

What makes sense to me is partial self-sufficiency—meeting at least some material needs within the community... or perhaps finding a way to balance outside work with life inside, something like Ithaca.

We are wired to raise children in community

That sounds more realistic to me, but even then, that's just one piece of the puzzle. There are still plenty of things here that don't add up, a few of which I mentioned earlier.

It seems communities with a clear, shared vision survive—the Amish and Hutterites definitely fall into that category... or perhaps those who have figured out how to successfully navigate conflict.
Conflicts are inevitable, but in successful groups, members learn to live with them rather than splitting apart.

I’m honestly not sure anyone else can really compete with these kinds of religious communities. They offer—more or less—a realistic blueprint of what all these other utopians should actually be doing. The issue, though, is that most of these groups aren't willing to make the sacrifices their fantasies demand. In my opinion, at least half of them are just degenerate hippies and similar nonsense types who couldn't manage basic hygiene, let alone build a functional society. Unless they realize that their very idea of "freedom" is actually their biggest enemy, they won't achieve anything.

You definitely have a better grasp on the sheer scale of these communities than I do, but my conclusions come from the things I tend to talk about here—basically, my own more traditional worldview. And, looking at the articles you link and the stuff I find myself digging up on Google lately, it seems like my perspective aligns pretty closely with the reality on the ground.

Just to illustrate my point a bit better: imagine a total civilizational collapse tomorrow—everything we know is gone. You’re left with all these tiny little communities, and natural selection takes over. Which ones do you think would eventually become dominant enough to spread and essentially swallow everything else up? Would it be some secular, modern group, or even worse, those hippie communes? Or would the Amish—or perhaps a more militant version of them—be the ones to actually succeed?

Sam Martinez9 said:Cooperation without conflict doesn't actually require perfect people; it just requires rational ones. It requires individuals who, first and foremost, understand themselves and possess the capacity to regulate their own emotions and impulses. It sounds daunting, but it isn't. It would be significantly easier if our society encouraged this kind of stability rather than constantly fueling strife, warfare, and base passions. Yet, despite how much our culture pushes the opposite, we are seeing an increasing number of people who choose to rely solely on cooperation and actively avoid confrontation.

Furthermore, the existence of morally perfect people would signal the end of Humanity. You see, Humanity is defined by evolution and the journey itself; perfect people represent the destination, which means the end of the road for Humanity.

Exactly—they need to know themselves and the world around them, especially what is "Good," and have the discipline to live in alignment with that. In other words, they’d have to be perfect.

It sounds nearly impossible, but it isn't. It would be much easier if society encouraged this kind of balance instead of constantly fueling conflict, war, and base passions. Yet, despite how things are set up, more and more people are choosing to rely solely on cooperation and steer clear of confrontation.

I don't think it's about avoiding conflict at all—it's more about a way of life, about existing in a world that doesn't force you into combat. To me, people who just run away from existing conflicts are often just weak; they're dodging reality and getting lost in their own fantasies, which usually leads to a harsh reality check later on. That's when you see who they really are.

The existence of morally perfect individuals would actually signal the end of Humanity. After all, Humanity is an evolutionary process, a journey—perfect people represent the end of that path, the end of Humanity itself.

Reaching the end of the path isn't the end of humanity; it's where its eternity begins.

I don't really know how to put this into words—it’s a bit awkward to admit—but I feel like I've been stuck in a loop lately. It's that feeling where you're just... wandering? Not quite lost, but definitely not moving forward either. It's like being caught in a constant state of transit without ever actually arriving at a destination. I've been trying to process it all, but everything feels a bit hazy. Just one of those things, I guess. Sam Martinez9 says:
To be fair, some communities have actually managed to figure out how to handle conflict—whether they rely on the pull of a charismatic leader or some kind of democratic process aimed at reaching a consensus.
They tend to last longer that way, for sure—as long as they actually have a clear vision to hold onto. I guess the real question is what their actual purpose is, and more importantly, what someone really gains by sticking around in a community like that.
The author points out that their "success rate" is pretty much on par with what you'd see from a Silicon Valley startup—though, to be fair, I don't think anyone is actually questioning their underlying purpose or why they do what they do.

Is that figure a little too low, though? I can't help but wonder if there’s any more detailed data out there to back it up. It makes me curious—which types of communities actually manage to last longer, and which ones tend to fall apart first? Does anyone know what the average lifespan of a community actually looks like? I'd also love to know what kind of specific struggles different groups run into along the way.

Do you think the Amish count in this? To me, they seem to be holding it together a whole lot better than all these utopia freaks. 🤷

Sam Martinez9 said:On one hand, I see your point—cooperation and competition are often tightly intertwined, essentially packaged together. However, there is also a form of cooperation that doesn't stem from underlying conflict, though that largely depends on how rational the community is.

If a small community faces a challenge, it can be resolved through common sense, without any friction, posturing, tug-of-war, or fighting... they simply choose the solution that serves the collective good best.

In my line of work, everyone has their niche, and there’s no need to fight for someone else's territory. My company holds its own space in the American market, and I actually collaborate with colleagues who run firms in the same industry. Competition is literally right at my doorstep, yet I’ve maintained excellent working relationships with them for decades. They have their client base, and I have mine... neither side has any interest in poaching from the other.

That would require people who are morally perfect. Honestly, I haven’t run into anyone quite like that yet—if I had to pick the closest thing, maybe some of the hardline communists or progressives, but even then, you could argue that's just splitting hairs. There's also the issue that even in those groups, you'd likely see constant friction; any cooperation would probably just be a way to manage the underlying conflict. And that's just looking at the human element. Beyond people, you're talking about a total transformation of the entire cosmos along with us—for all the obvious reasons Flying mentioned down below.

Joseph Bailey41 said:That’s just one part of it. The second factor is the environment the community lives in. If things are tough—whether due to nature or just the way society is perceived—that pressure tends to pull people together and encourage them to work as one. But once you cross that line where the surroundings stop being just "difficult" and start feeling genuinely threatening... that's when things get messy. You see social breakdowns, or the group shifts back toward more "traditional" ways of organizing themselves to survive.

This is just completely nonsensical.

I have to admit, I’m actually pretty shocked by how many people I run into regularly on this forum who just post naked photos in these threads.

bluejackal2 said:If I'm not allowed to comment on someone else's posts, then they shouldn't be able to comment on mine either—otherwise, this new rule just doesn't make sense.

+

I was actually thinking the exact same thing. If it isn't mutual, it’s just going to end up being abused.

hollowdriver13 said:That’s just not accurate—you can clearly see that the "haters" weren't tearing into the ExxonMobil thread quite the way you're making it out to be. It wasn't like people couldn't follow the game or that they started posting negativity from the very second they signed up. Most of it was just some lighthearted ribbing toward Cosic and a few comments about Dalice's questionable decision to run four attackers at once—which, honestly, people were comparing to their old days playing FIFA or PES.

The local gossip, the hat makers, the ATM machines, and all that other small-town stuff...

Ever since that big win and the subsequent fallout—where you and a few other self-righteous types spent the entire night typing away and just being toxic—that whole topic has been pretty much dead. Honestly, that’s probably why you ended up getting banned in the first place; you were basically leading the charge for those internet mobs that night.

I know that’s exactly why I ended up getting banned—honestly, I saw it coming myself.

Joseph Stewart38 said:If there had been two separate threads from the very beginning—which, let's face it, there weren't—then this whole mess wouldn't have happened. Your thread wouldn't be "ruined" if we all had our own space to write in. We would've had a clear boundary between us, everyone could have stuck to their own side, and honestly, we probably all would have been much happier.

+

I mean, it’s perfectly fine if there's an equal platform for debate—after all, people have been arguing about this for ages. It's not like there wasn't enough passion or genuine interest to make it happen.

brightpilot6 said:On the other hand—and I mean this sincerely—I’d like to call on the moderators to just let you guys loose on our thread.

It feels like I’m just walking through a crowd where everyone is using that same old "you're all part of the problem" logic—you know, the kind of argument where people claim everyone is corrupt and why bother protesting corruption in places like Somalia when things are already so broken? It's exhausting.

I put forward two pretty straightforward arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what you're saying here—and so far, nobody has actually bothered to address them.

graniteharbor502 said:Look, we "guys" just have this thread where we joke around and hope for a win. Just because you aren't feeling it doesn't mean you get to lecture us with those massive walls of text that nobody actually cares about—honestly. If you're so unhappy, go hang out with the crowds at the stadium, cheer for Joe, and enjoy yourself. Just leave us alone so we can enjoy our own little corner of the internet.
Maybe try reading with a little more nuance:
The title makes the subject matter pretty obvious—if someone can't handle it, they don't have to click on it.

That’s essentially why this thread exists in the first place. The idea is that either everyone gets access to your discussion, or the other side should have their own private space where your group isn't there to stir the pot.