You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too
Todd Hayen
Cute little girl eating tasty cake in kitchen
When I was a kid, that was a pretty common phrase I would hear from the adults in my life. To me, it basically meant you couldn’t have something you wanted without also accepting the consequences that came with it.
Officially, it is a common idiom meaning you can’t enjoy two mutually exclusive benefits or options at the same time—you must choose one or the other.
The official explanation doesn’t fit the context of this article as clearly as my childhood interpretation. You’ll see what I mean in a minute.
Recently, I was engaged in a deep conversation with an ultra-liberal type. I use the word “type” because I no longer know what “liberal” actually means. The term has been twisted and redefined so many times that it has lost all recognizable shape. We’ve had to invent a new label—“woke”—to describe what used to be labelled liberals who have now drifted far beyond reason.
What struck me most during this conversation was how many of these people (assuming this one person represented many) seem unable to grasp a very basic truth: two contradictory ideas cannot exist in the same reality. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. They have to choose. But they typically do not.
You cannot believe that a country should have secure borders and, at the same time, believe that anyone who wants to should be allowed to enter without any legal process. A border is either closed (or controlled) or it is open. Both cannot be true.
You cannot champion women’s rights while simultaneously supporting a culture or ideology (such as strict Sharia Law) that systematically denies women basic rights.
You cannot believe a woman has the absolute right to abort her unborn child and, in the very next breath, insist she should be punished if she drinks or takes drugs while pregnant.
These should be obvious contradictions, yet they aren’t to many people. As our conversation continued, my head began to spin. When we touched on trans issues, I asked, “So you believe an 11-year-old should be allowed to have their genitals surgically removed?”
“Oh no,” she replied, “I don’t believe that!”
Later, when she spoke passionately about wealth being equally distributed, I said, “So you’re a neo-Marxist?”
“Oh no,” she exclaimed, “I don’t believe that either!”
It was the same pattern every time we came upon diverse views on a particular topic. She eagerly embraced Statement #1 (having the cake), but adamantly rejected the logical consequences of Statement #2 (eating it).
This is a serious problem. With this kind of logic, it’s impossible to reach any real conclusion. Having the cake cancels out eating it—and in the end, you’re left with nothing.
I pondered this for some time and realized it is one of the main reasons these “types” are so incorrigible and impossible to reason with.
The fact that you can’t have your cake and eat it too is exactly why a sane person eventually chooses one position or the other. Or, more often in my case, decides to choose neither.
There are many topics where the consequences of choosing either side feel so heinous that I simply refuse to commit. Since I’m not responsible for deciding for anyone else, it’s easy for me to shrug my shoulders and sheepishly (pun intended) mutter, “I don’t know, I haven’t decided.”
Take the moon landing debate, for example. When I listen to someone making the case that we really landed on the moon, I find myself nodding along. When I hear the opposing argument, I agree with quite a bit of that too. I can’t settle firmly on one side because both carry uncomfortable implications, and nothing in my life depends on my decision. So, I waffle.
The typical ultra-liberal, however, will usually stick rigidly with the official narrative (“Yes, we absolutely landed on the moon”) even when presented with strong counter-evidence—such as photographic anomalies, the vanishing of original telemetry data, or the technological limitations of the time that many experts still find difficult to explain. They may even quietly concede some of these points when pressed (if they listen to them at all, which most do not), but they refuse to let them challenge their core belief. You can’t have it both ways.
Let me pick an example I’m much clearer on: the taking down of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. I am certain those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition—or something similar.
The science and physics are very clear.
Most liberals reject this outright because it contradicts the official terrorist attack narrative. Yet if you point out the basic laws of physics—that a steel-framed building cannot collapse at near free-fall speed into its own footprint without the support columns being removed—they sometimes grudgingly agree with the physics…but still won’t accept the obvious conclusion.
You can’t have it both ways.
One of the major factors in making a clear decision is recognizing this particular truth: two opposing ideas cannot exist in the same reality. When faced with this, most critical thinkers are forced to choose. Which principle matters more to you?
In the case of borders, I believe a controlled border is more important than an open one. Therefore, I accept the choice—along with its necessary enforcement—even if I find some aspects of it cruel. (That said, if the enforcement becomes criminal, it must be properly addressed.)
So, my “ultra-liberal” convo ended poorly, as it usually does. And I continue to wonder what mind-altering substance was included in those mRNA vaccines. I don’t put much weight in the comment “liberals have always been like this.” No, they haven’t. They’ve been close, perhaps, but never to this extreme. My arguments landed like something from outer space.
In these situations I always think of a documentary I once saw about deprogramming cult members. No matter how many logical, objective facts were presented, they clung stubbornly to the original cult narrative. Only after very careful, patient work did some of them finally break.
Needless to say, I don’t have time for that. And I am not this person’s therapist. But man, it really is like talking to a cult member.
And maybe that is exactly what they are.
Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here
Thanks for reading...
You can help us keep doing what we do. Every little helps and is hugely appreciated.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Sublime, or what?:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BWerj8FcprM
Is the problem people are having trying to work out which of any two viewpoints is right fundamentally flawed because both are wrong? Our entire education system has used lies to convince us of other lies till we are so entangled in deception that we can make no sense of anything. At this point, I have chosen to accept all possible theories and throw them up like balls for a juggler and keep them in play till one by one the balls fall and only one is spinning. On the issues such as the moon landing, for any individual to believe that their government would perpetrate a costly and pointless fabrication seems so unlikely to them and therefore in their world has to be deemed impossible. And yet the evidence clearly points to space travel being fake. So a group of individuals who run (aka ruin) this world have deliberately perpetrated fraud against its citizens. It’s a big ask to expect people to take onboard such extensive levels of deception. Leave them in peace. One day the truth will be known and their lives will be shattered. We have tried to warn them but they didn’t want to know so let them be.
Yes, Todd, it’s a mark of adulthood to be able to simultaneously entertain two (or more) contradictory ideas. As a child of 8, out in the barn, I considered how we knew whether something was really true. It seemed to me that if I knew something that also seemed true but wouldn’t fit in the first idea that it was a present– a way to learn something more,
I decided to start a notebook and that I would have to put any ideas that conflicted on the first page and leave them there until I could find a way to solve the problem. I was a lazy child and so never started the notebook, but I did keep the technique in the screen of my mind.
It seems to me that the ability to entertain two contradictory ideas until one can resolve them requires a certain attitude: Again and again I am struck by a certain arrogance and hostility in those who assume the Dogmatic Mantle: All who disagree w them are sheep or labelled as evil.
To look for the truth and to be open to it requires HUMILITY, the ability to welcome that uncomfortable little fact that doesn’t fit.
Enjoyed your essay. Thanks.
PS I guess the error you were mostly pointing out is the Floating Abstraction wherein, by their isolation from principle, no concrete CAN contradict another.
“Yes, Todd, it’s a mark of adulthood to be able to simultaneously entertain two (or more) contradictory ideas….”
Of course. And “ideas” are not the issue in Todd´s text, I believe. In my imagination, I can entertain a host of contradictory ideas. No problem.
Reality – real life – is a different matter, as Todd describes very well. A choice has consequences in real life.
A simple example: You can´t have a booming Economy in a country, if your government shuts down all nuclear plants and blithely accepts the sabotage of the Northstream gas pipeline, even if your government insists on the idea that thanks to these and other measures concerning the energy system transformation, the failing Economy will boom anytime now.
Milton Friedman said “we are all Keynesians now” though how we are Keynesian and how Keynesian is a matter of individual choice.
Similarly, pretty well everyone now is liberal in some sense, the adjournment of the wars of religion sine die accepted as a $49.99 value which we have no intention of giving up. We accept the somewhat bizarre base assumptions of the doctrine and are willing hold opposed concepts in suspension because the results of doing so are so pleasant. As well I think at the back of many peoples’ minds is the belief that the profane simplistic liberalism we experience is simply the manifestation of some higher principle of “metaliberalism” hanging about in the aether impinging upon the material plane and that some day the real thing will descend upon us in toto.
This kind of suspension of judgement and so disbelief is aided by the difficulty of making sharp distinctions in the real world. “This car is blue.” seems to be a straightforward assertion but cars can be blue-green , greenish-blue or tending towards violet and in darkness all cars are black.
Turning now to Dr. Hayen’s assertion that fakery may have been involved in the moon landings this assertion could be proved or disproved if sufficient evidence could be found but it would not necessarily follow that the United States astronauts did not reach the moon. Some very suspicious people wonder if better technology was used than we know about that was to be kept secret or if the astronauts had other things they were supposed to doing and did not have the time to put on a show for the folks back home.
Stanley Kubrick, Neil Armstrong and Richard Nixon walk into a bar.
The barman asks them, “What is this a conspiracy?”
Stanley Kubrick says, ” No. It’s just a joke.”
My wife and I enjoy trying to discover the truth about any subject. We have come to the conclusion that most people are stupid and don’t care about anything. They’re just looking for social validation on facebook with as many “likes” they can get. They could care less that the covid shot they took will eventually kill them. Many also will say “Thank you sir may I have another.” It’s really true what Ron White says. “You can’t fix stupid.”
Also is this a prequal to a coming staged event in England – to be blamed on Russia or Iran for that matter.
Sky TV (@skytv): “Behind closed doors, the clock is ticking. The Wargame, based on the award-winning Sky News podcast of the same name, sees real political heavyweights face a simulated attack on UK soil, tested under pressure like never before. Coming soon to Sky.” | nitter
“There will be blue birds over, the white cliffs of Dover”.
Oh dear, I expect that wd comprise an excellent pretext to remove the young men (incipient revolutionaries) safely into the armed forces where they can be conned into killing the incipient revolutionaries of other countries.
I expect a Russian attack on drone-building factories wd lend credibility to a false flag.
I expect a huge false flag even to happen in the States soon- if the below is anything go by.
” Beni Sabti, an Israeli journalist for i24 and Channel 12, says ‘maybe the USA needs another Pearl Harbor or 9/11’ to realize that Israel is their true friend.”
The Mi5 news outlet the Telegraph reporting that the English PM Starmer will resign from Monday on.
That indicates the money market & banks pressure on the Labour Party to
leave him stay PM didnt work… The New Guy is gonna find out soonest how
little wriggle room they’re gonna allow him… Bets are The New Guys
popularity will plummet within six months – because the moneymen & banks
will have their way…
Basically it just a like for like swap – Burnham isn’t any different from Starmer, he’s just another puppet face – put forward by the corporate media, and a few bought and paid for politicians – who’ve been given permission to promote him by their behind the scenes masters.
When the masses are restless due to the current puppets (PM’s) actions – a new puppet, always promoted by the gatekeepers, is brought into to replace the old puppet – to appease the masses, Burnham won’t make one iota of difference on anything significant.
Thank you for this very enlightening article, Todd! I´ve been thinking a bit about it, and have come to the conclusion, that eradicating the simple truth that two opposing ideas cannot exist in the same reality in the minds of mankind is what “it” is all about.
Anything becomes possible, if you indoctrinate people long enough and loud enough in the ways of a non-reality which eventually blocks logical thinking:
A worldwide, extremely deadly “Pandemic” for example, flooding emergency units with suffocating patients, while doctors and nurses have ample time to perform complicated dances in the hospital and make videos, which are distributed internationally.
The same applies to the story, that Russia is planning to conquer Europe in 2029, and so NATO must be the leading military power by 2029, because Russia will surely wait with annihilating Europe until NATO ist strong enough to defend itself and win the war.
There are many more cakes, which are supposed to be eaten hook, line and sinker, while people supposedly can have them, too.
Which would not be possible without cell phones. Many people check reality by their cell phonse, not with their senses, their experience, their instincts, their intelligence and logic mind.
Relatives of mine, both sheep, immediately start to google, if I say something which contradicts official cakes, be it the “Pandemic”, human-made climate change, etcetc. After that, the conversation is finished, they absolutely refuse certain topics with people who aren´t members of the Cake Cult.
Just a lovely night at Swan Lake at the Metropolitan Opera House—you know, where we all politely admire the ‘grace’ of an sick art form built on kids breaking their bodies before they’re old enough to go through puberty. Nothing says refined culture like lifelong injuries, rigid body standards, and a quiet industry of disordered eating that we collectively pretend is just ‘discipline.’
Funny how people will debate strict moral/legal systems like sh*ria law with intense scrutiny, but sit comfortably applauding the equally intense rules and control baked into elite ballet—just with better lighting and Tchaikovsky in the background.
More like a tightrope than a ‘treewalk’:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd-81VRVQXw&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD
Just a lovely night at Swan Lake at the Metropolitan Opera House—you know, where we all politely admire the ‘grace’ of an sick art form built on kids breaking their bodies before they’re old enough to go through puberty. Nothing says refined culture like lifelong injuries, rigid body standards, and a quiet industry of disordered eating that we collectively pretend is just ‘discipline.’
Funny how people will debate strict moral/legal systems like sharia law with intense scrutiny, but sit comfortably applauding the equally intense rules and control baked into elite ballet—just with better lighting and Tchaikovsky in the background.
The saying in the title teaches nothing about logic. It teaches about capitalistic ideas. So do not eat from the capital, save the capital so you can profit from it.
”In the case of borders, I believe a controlled border is more important than an open one.”
Sure you believe that. You are speaking for the State.
It’s money, state and capitalism you believe in.
Don’t tell other people what they believe in. Jerk.
”two contradictory ideas cannot exist in the same reality”
What do you think an idea is? You seem to think you know what ideas are. You talk about great things like ”sharia law”, ”feminism”, ”neo-marxism”, ”liberals”, yet there is no evidence that you would understand what these words mean. You use them as labels. It’s obvious you hate them. You have made those words your enemies.
Not just words, but people. You constantly judge people.
You whine about people you don’t like. You whine about people who don’t share your conservative (or whatever) ideas.
So you met this one woman. After some very shallow conversation, you decided she was not worthy of being called by her human name. She’s not a woman – she’s a ”type”. She’s ”ultra-liberal”, ”now drifted far beyond reason”, like you imagine all those ”types” are.
You make logical fallacies of both going from specific to general and from general to specific.
The important thing in your actions is judgment. But what makes you so righteous that you think you are above everyone else?
In religion, it’s called pride. In philosophy, it’s called hubris.
Either way, it’s bad.
And a fine display of hubris from you, congratulations. I’d call it pride and arrogance but that’s probably not philosophical enough for you. Judgement works as well, and there’s always one who just has to read what someone wrote, although no one is forcing or even asking you to do so, and then come here and tell us all just how crap the article is, while calling out the hubris of the author as well as others, but far too shallow to see it in themselves.
Well said, Lizzy.
Fallacious in logic & bad in manners. Go back to bed; maybe you’ll wake p w some manners.
“This Cake” is rotten to the core: you neither want to eat it or own it. Let it self destruct.
Wow, they’re just like us—they also get checked.
Lord David Cameron’s prostate cancer was largely asymptomatic.
He sought testing after his wife, Samantha, urged him to do so. The couple had listened to a radio interview where entrepreneur Nick Jones detailed his own prostate cancer diagnosis.
A prostate-specific antigen test showed Cameron’s levels were above normal range.
Clarkson’s been pushing the same agenda.
“Taking care of those around you”? Is prostate cancer suddenly contagious?
Testing. Testing. Testing.
If at first you dont find what you think you should
Test, and Test Again,
then Test Again…….
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-12-screenings-that-manufacture the patients they claim to find
Can you trust the test?
It could be that the reason behind this is that these people don’t actually think.
They are just looking for answers, so they don’t look silly by not being able to answer, but don’t really know the meaning behind the answer they provide. If you like, a short cut way of not having to do any thinking; just provide an answer.
If you were to ask why they <believe that> they would have to start working!
To all who believe The USA lost The War against Iran, it didnt. The War hasnt ended…
To those who believed The USA’s goals was to break-up Iran, or destroy Iran’s non-existing Nuke Weapons Program, or destroy Iran’s Missile Weapons Program, etc, etc etc… You were wrong…
The USA’s Plan was to force Iran to The Negotiations Table – and It Succeeded.
Trump’s Plan has been A Huge Success**…
Everything said and done was with the sole intent of getting Iran to The Negotiating table…
And dont you forget !!
** President Trump could not reveal The Plan before, because The Iranians would
have blown up The Negotiating Table… And that wouldt do !
Where has all the money gone?
Somebody who doesn’t know you is going take you seriously, silly.
Betting with myself it could be one way Trump will spin the situation…
(Claim the current situation was the intent all along, then interpret everything
that occurred prior as being intended to bring about the situation)…
Patrick Wood’s piece exposes an underlying dynamic…
An exhausted people (and ruling groups) cant resist the pull of Normalcy, even
though the only Normalcy that offers itself is akin to sugar-coated poison…
All depends on the Balances of Forces… The Comprador class in the Russian
Federation, like in Iran, wants the kinetic aspects of The Conflict to end so they
can get on with the task of sucking all the wealth out of the country. privatising it…
https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/iran-the-goal-was-always-economic reintegration
This is about the Normalcy being offered…
But, Les, it’s what the Bankers always want– War always produces the need for reconstruction and the loan for it is a credit on the banking ledger. Doesn’t matter whether the country is defeated or not.
The moment that I heard Iran would have a “$300 billion investment fund” all the hair on the back of my neck stood up. It’s very different than receiving $300 B cash in reparations. If someone invests in you, you have a great big debt & to that extent you’re owned.
Doesn’t matter whether you won, lost, negotiated or not. And no I don’t think all this was to get Iran to borrow $300 B; it’s not a large enough qty.
Foreign Direct Investments are preferred as these can buy thus own thus have political clout inside the country… Loans, on the other hand, allow
the Zelensky Types to pocket a cut. and, provided they get shares etc, determine what the loans are invested in…
Clausewitz apparently wrote that war is ‘the continuation of political discourse with the addition of other means.’ Someone else wrote
‘the business of politics is business’ – ergo (?) ‘war is just another tool for doing business.’
Maybe we should forget the cake and just play:
‘Albert Einstein said that if he could not play his violin every day, he could not think as well. Play is not a luxury. It is a biological necessity. Choose the play that gives you joy and happiness. Do not play based upon what someone else says is the right play. Reorganize your day so that no one tells you that your work is more important than your nourishment, your rest, or your joy.’
More here:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/overcome-all-our-crisis/5930544
Einstein, I understand, didn’t think much. His cousin did it for him.
Most of the quotes attributed to the “great man” may have been contributions from the propaganda industry.
O Ye of little faith !! (aka – How Dare You !!)
Dunno, I reckon he was probably on the Spectrum.
Profound in some ways, socially inept in others.
He was the “poster boy” for the “master race”. In relativity, he may have plagiarised his wife’s work; he did not acknowledge her or any other theoretical physicist. His “Nobel Prize” was for optics.
For such quotes, I now add “attributed to..”.
Oh dear, I feel an anecdote coming on: I read Freud when I was so young that I didn’t understand why spoons were female and forks male (in his interpretation of dreams).
When you can identify with the cake / be the cake at will this all doesn’t matter. The consciousness dimension controls the physical one.
So consciousness is in the driver’s seat, in which case consciousness
is in control of the instincts. Moralists believe that, too…
And maybe our consciousness can to transferred to a robot body when
out physical one dies…
As with frequencies there is a spectrum of consciousness levels. Instincts are on the low level and are in control of a lot of Homo sapiens; the herd behaviour is part of that. Biological bodies are far more flexible than physical robots.
Well, as a mate sometimes reminds me, “You’re either awake
or you’re woke !”
And i someimes say to him him, “Why do people seem to always
hierarchise things. It just aint Natural !!”
That comfy aphorism never made sense to me as a kid. You couldn’t eat any cake until you actually had some cake!
It’s one of the long list of pat sayings people parrot without a thought.
And this is just one more “other”-bashing article. Everyone gets to live their own perception of reality, however nonsensical it may seem to you.
When someone’s eaten the cake they no longer have it.
The article doesn’t “bash” anyone. Criticism isn’t “bashing”. Toleration doesn’t mean mindlessly accepting any nonsense someone comes up with without arguing back.
‘Let them eat cake.’
Whether you can or can’t is beside the point, because cake is bad for you, and so is any con that chooses what choices we have as the ‘freedom’ permitted us.
The quote was a deliberate msitranslation by those out to destroy throne and altar.
I mean, she sounds loony. But, in her defense, who doesn’t want to take all the billionaire’s money and re-distribute it? And then wood-chip them feet first?
Ouch!
What you speak about is taking directly out of the KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov’s advises in the 1970’es on “Ideological subversion” techniques.
Demoralisation by the Frankfurt School.
“A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information, the facts tell nothing to him. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov].
Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change his basic perception and the logic of behavior.” OIP.n16PPlzaMURGyfNXBjE2ywHaHa (474×474)
I recognize your description of same people I meet. The incredible frustration on the discover that these people cannot access true factual information.
They are programmed to make havoc in the society. If Hayen or anyone have an idea on how to deal with these idiots I would like to know!
Help your society and the world on how to neutralise these human robots!!!
Does your religion tell you to love the world and murder ”these people” you don’t like?
No one is talking about “murder”. ‘Neutralise’ the same way we neutralise criminals and mental sick persons.
Note that China has death penalty for ideological people who try to promote these subversion ideas from the Frankfurt School into Chinese society. Here in west we do nothing.
You are going personal, putting people into boxes, rather than relate yourself to the subject of the discussion.
Is there a relation between what Mr. Hayen describe here as a troublesome and dangerous feature, and what Bezmenov also describe from marxism indoctrination?
Yes is the same psychological escape patterns and difficulty to focus on factual info!
The separated minds are driven by terror.
Masking against fear is a self protective gesture.
But the ‘self’ that is protected is then defined by its defences.
The seeming ‘solution’ has become the arena for the working out of conflicts that are thus never truly addressed, Nor are the conflicts recognised or allowed into consciousness, because the ‘solution’ is internalised as personal and social virtue, gained from the eradication, subjugation or mitigation of evils that are framed by common hate as the social order.
It is cultic, for its ‘love’ changes to hate as soon as its terms and conditions are not met.
It sets terms and conditions for love by which the hated is masked, distanced and hated, attacked or cast out to the Others.
When you leave or release a social identity you no longer share its worldview. If you leave with a blessing, you will look back with gratitude or appreciation for the love that was lived or shared. If you leave with a curse you will make them ‘Others’ while seeking to join the ‘better cult’. The signature of the ego is a self specialness by which others are withheld love or withdrawn from. Such is the fruit of judgement set over or upon others.
Social behaviours can be superficial, without self-revealing or extension of trust, such as to ‘play within expected or accepted parameters’. It is very easy to see our judgement of others instead of really seeing them and extending an acceptance of them.
I am not concerned with indicating virtuous behaviour toward others here, as a ‘good person’ but towards the recognition that because we judge ourselves in others, our freedom is in their release.They may be not in the right minds or behaving insanely, (contradicting themselves), but correction comes from their willingness to open to or receive a real relationship, not from our attempts to change them such that they fit our diagnosis, receive our ‘treatment’ or join our cult/club.
However, I also see that a deeper shift can need a period of separation from the old habit-behaviours in order to allow a grounded awareness to abide with and grow in us. If our life is to be fulfilling we need meet people who accept us as we are, which is also why we need to be such a person to find or be found in such synchronicity.
People come in every kind of packaging and presentation, and at the level of the personality, can be demanding, controlling or needy in ways that are not really seeking or sharing relationship so much as seeking to get from or use relationships.
Isn’t that a masking agenda?
To extend a sense of worth-ship and with-ness to the willingness to receive it, with no strings attached, and to leave with a blessing where unwelcome, is also to be guided as to where to go, who to meet or approach, and when or whether to speak.
Living from a discernment of the Holy Spirit or wholeness of being is not at all what we have trained to become or learned to do in the world to which we have adapted.
Trying to go the old way meets a deep dissonance. If we persist, we can hurt our selves.
My oft used example of ‘cant have your cake and eat it’ is the monkey trap.
The gourd is fixed down, it has a hole big enough for your hand but not for your hand AND the fruit placed inside to withdraw. Refusal to let go of a false fruit or a fruit set in a false context, grasps the very means by which we are then trapped, while perceiving ourselves as denied or deprived by forces outside our control.
He who binds unto himself a joy
doth the winged life destroy,
but he who kisses the joy as it flies
lives (in) Eternity’s sunrise.
~ William Blake
Personally, i think love, and wanting to be love, should be banned, outlawed, and so on.
Love, and especially wanting to be loved, cause so much discord, misery, and conflict.
Every punch that Muhamad Ali landed was a demand to be loved. President Trump
demands ‘love me or i’ll bomb you !’ Get rid of love !!
Oh, yeah, if we could there’d be nothing to watch on The Tele except food prep, and
cooking shows. SO ?… Stop loving things – let things become things again. Stop loving
money, Yeah – stop loving money… I’m not sure PEACE will then reign, but do you really
want this world that want of love is screwing up, to continue…
Those who love their self image want to ban everything.
Wanting your self image to be loved is indeed the self-specialness that sets your self, your relationships and your world in discord, conflict and misery.
That you can think of love as a demand shows you know not who and what you are.
As you love to hate, so must you hate to love, how then could you receive anything truly?
Love is not what you do, but what truly does you.
Banning the true movement of the heart runs a control mindset.
The ‘networking’ of the separated ones generates a social masking order.
Each has their own intel inside.
What does ‘really want’ mean for you?
The feedback we receive to the thought, we attend and intend is the world we meet and participate in.
As long as you worship grievance you will suffer and die at the hand of ‘an other’, by giving It’s voice priority in your heart – as ‘what you really want’.
The continuity of what we call life or survival is not what we think, but if we give our thinking to blind assumptions (or frameworks of internalised assumption) we can get the ‘social reinforcement’ of group-think as our guide and protector.
It does give continuity, by stamping the boot of past grievance onto the face of a present into a future forever. But is this the life and world you want?
The ‘crucifiction’ of love serves as the basis for a world set in and on a body of pain seeking vengeance and validation. I wrote it thus, because, it is only in imaged concept and form that love can be denied. Over, over and over again.
This continuity in time ‘steals’ from Eternity.
There Is no peace nor truth nor love in lies stolen from whole truth, but that it is stolen from you even as you seem to have it.
Thus you may say there is no peace nor love in what you accept as the truth of you.
You may not care to even consider a word I share, but we are writing into in a shared focus of attention.
This is not ‘all about you’ but of course you are welcome.
Love waits on welcome not on time.
Our terms and conditionalities replace love with ‘permission based’ and limited access.
It’s being WRIT LARGE on your BIG SCREEN for you to notice.
Hey Binra?
Glad I’m not serving you at the Drive thru.
The queue would be a kilometre long _ _ _ _😖
Well you’ve found some gladness in your life – or is it a living death?
It is very possible to believe you have an imaginary cake that you can never eat.
The cake saying comes from a contested tax court case where the judge summed up by saying, “You cannot eat your cake and have it too.” Which makes perfect sense.
Reversing it makes no sense at all, for what is the point of a cake which can’t be eaten?
Holding onto a ‘store’ of value against a fear of future need can be a similar theme. Deferred eating, spending or using, makes a means of exchange a store of value, and possession or boosting of relative immunity as a private ‘saving’.
Holding onto or releasing something can be a sticking point. If we hold against change we can become possessed or trapped and defined by what we think we have or have become thereby.
Don’t get me wrong I have no truck with mild liberalism, if it helps society, but its not mild – its now rampant, and anyone who speaks out against certain rampant liberal ideas is classed either as a Nazi – racist or a bigot.
Honest level headed folk are now too afraid to speak out about the madness that’s engulfed much of the West for fear of sanctions or violence against them – this has further opened the doors to ultra woke madness.
You can have your cake and eat it to… (this is obvious)
You are living whilst you are dying and you are dying whilst you are living… (this too is obvious)
Weasel words and false dichotomies are mind games invented by cult members denying the consequent to confuse mental midgets.
You cant be alive and dead at the same time **
They are mutually exclusive…
If you want to keep the cake – then dont eat it.
If you eat it – then you no longer have it…
One or the other – you cant have both…
** Though BBC watchers, and Guardian newspaper subscribers do their best ?
You can have it by living the moment of experience. Attachment to or identification in form ‘lives and dies’ in the coming and going of appearances. Why is it ‘obvious’?
What exactly lives and dies?
What is the you that seems obvious but is a complex of learned thinking?
Greetings…
It is ‘obvious’ because it is plain to see…
Nothing lives and dies in the same instant that everything lives and dies…
There is no what, why, where or how, there is no who…
Thank you for you inquiry.
.
Jeremy Clarkson Says He Has an ‘Aggressive’ Cancer
British TV Host, Says He Has Cancer. The 66-year-old gave few details of his diagnosis but said the disease was “aggressive.
By 2021-03 (less than 3 months after launch), at least 24 governments suspended or barred the AZ jab. But UK continued to impose it. -info. from Simon Elmer, off-guardian.org 2022-12-23
Does this mean other jabs were safer? No, this was in accordance with the will of the Terrorist Empire, because UK had the temerity to beat it in releasing the first jab.
Australia’s national Public health officials wanted to suspend it – The Prime
Minister at the time overrode them… Until then it was injected into 65+ year
olds. The PM then decided it could be injected into all age groups… The PM
had absolutely no medical training or qualifications…
Once the restriction was lifted, there were then plenty of jabs, so state
governments imposed lockdowns that wouldnt be lifted till nearly everyone
had submitted to being jabbed…
If there’s such a thing as an “ultra-liberal,” what would you call yourself?
I don’t think you’re a traditionalist, since strongly favoring the preservation of established customs and institutions can be cult-like as well.
Those categories are designed to put us into boxes …. and to divide us. Let each man or woman define him or herself.
It’s just another made-up category – in the Identity Wars…
Like, if you’re ‘Ultra-liberal’ then i’m ultra-ultra liberal , and i’ll become ultra-ultra-ultra
if you claim you’ve become ultra-ultra… We must preserve and stress our distinctive
differences – or we’ll cease being Individuals, will become one of the nameless mass
And That Wont Do !
Of course, some can be identified by their smell…
I guess it should be said that although your points on “liberals”, whatever they are, are certainly valid, they can easily be applied to “conservatives” as well. Just look at the Maga/MIGA cult. I think what you’re describing is cognitive dissonance, and it crosses all spectrums/categories of people, including those in the alternative media who think everyone else is stupid. I’ve long felt the hardest part in life is being consistent in thought and opinion. And as an aside, the biggest supporters of the idea that 18 Arabs took down the towers with jets, as well as the continuing war of terror itself, were conservatives under Bush the Chimp. And they’re still at it under Trump.
We must cease to care what the ‘liberals’ ‘think’, or indeed anyone else in the land of Normiedom.
In history there are those who do things, and those who have things done to them.
We belong to a third group, those who observe what is being done. Being able to see clearly what is happening is a kind of liberation in itself.
It is the fate of most never to clearly understand the context in which they live.
It doesn’t matter. The Tao is working itself out. Every day I see a hundred signs of this system’s mortality.
Enjoy the small things in life while we wait. A sunny day. A glass of red wine.
Thanks for the article Todd!
Very good observation, thank you dr.Hayen ! I have noticed the same thing (the impossibility to reason with them because of the apparent lack of logic) but I couldn’t explain it clearly. At the time I thought it is something that they learn from each other in their groups, I blamed their youth (in most cases) or their lack of experience but it was a very sad exercise. I have spoken out many times, lost a lot of friends (?) and now I just nod but it doesn’t feel right. Once you have seen the truth it is impossible to ‘unsee’ it.
I could never understand that expression. It is totally illogical at face value.
Thank you Todd for clarifying it being an attempt at describing two mutually exclusive benefits!
Wonderful article.
I too am astounded at how the liberals around me are so… stupid? Agree totally – what does it even mean anymore?
Love that: “drifted far beyond reason”!
Let me pick an example I’m much clearer on: the taking down of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. I am certain those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition—or something similar.
The science and physics are very clear.
Most liberals reject this outright because it contradicts the official terrorist attack narrative. Yet if you point out the basic laws of physics—that a steel-framed building cannot collapse at near free-fall speed into its own footprint without the support columns being removed—they sometimes grudgingly agree with the physics…but still won’t accept the obvious conclusion.
You can’t have it both ways.
*
Even the most energetic, diehard supporters of Donald Trump will divorce from the Trump cult once they understand retired New York City Fire Department Captain Richard Patterson’s harrowing testimony of what he saw at Ground Zero on September 11, 2001 was published (made available to the public) by Richard Gage years ago – while Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu et al continue to ignore Captain Patterson’s absolutely critical eyewitness testimony.
See: https://onenessofhumanity.wordpress.com/2024/02/22/new-york-fire-department-captain-shares-what-he-witnessed-on-september-11-2001/
There is no statute of limitation in America for the crime of mass murder.
Not a criticism, just a brief reflection on how we can be distracted by familiar repetition even when our critical faculties are on target…
We speak habitually of the Twin Towers and (maybe) Building 7. The supposed attacks by aluminium tubes – injecting aluminium, however flimsy, is never a good idea – involved not two or three buildings but seven (plus minor structures), one of which was not adjacent and all of which were written off and demolished. The complex was newly leased to and insured by Larry Silverstein and Australia’s own Frank Lowy.
Anyway, excellent comment, Jerry.
For crime that the oligarchy initiates, the usual approach is (a) distractions, fakes and patsies (b) delayed investigation (c) censored testimony (d) creative conclusions (e) evidence simply locked up for years (f) waiting for the perps to die.
Good article, well reasoned out – Europe’s in the state its in due to open borders, the ultra woke as I call them – make a lot of noise but not a lot of sense – in the Scottish colony its the Greens and the SNP who are the worst, both parties can’t even admit that they know the definition of a woman, when asked – and one Green politician wants to abolish prisons – there’s two things going on here and not just in the Scottish colony one, folk have been so dumbed down that they put forward crazy points of view – that other dumbed down folk agree with, two, elections are rigged (which we know they are) to get these folk into power – where they cause chaos and most importantly widespread division, or maybe its both points together.
These people are deliberately put into power – and then folk susceptible to their crazy points of view argue with folk who can see the madness of their point of view, but as you say – you can point out the flaws in their argument – but they’ll never abandon what they call their beliefs and principles – the Wests populations have been so dumbed down that – they believe things that beyond logic.
There’s one thing you can be reasonably sure of: the cake was not home baked.
“His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink”.
Meanwhile O/T
The most interesting analysis I’ve heard in a long time. For anyone who thinks the world has gone mad, Alex Krainer sets out the cold logic in an interview with Glen Diesen yesterday.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/alex-krainer-the-wests-political-legitimacy-crisis-is/id1822142909?
We are programmed into ‘cults’ from an early age:
Team sports at school.
Different religious sects, Christian or otherwise.
Supporting our sports ‘heroes’ and our district, state or national teams.
Brand loyalty, from foods to coffee, beer and cars.
Political preferences.
Hollywood ‘heroes’.
Favourite Talking Heads on TV or radio.
Favourite Celebrities and/or Influencers.
Yep. Pawns in the grasping hands of our Masters.
Pathetic, isn’t it?
I just came back from a two-day trip to New York City to see Swan Lake at the MET, and I have never felt the “cult thing” more. It seemed that every single human behaviour I witnessed, from how people ordered food in a restaurant to how people stared at a cell phone while walking down the street, was indoctrinated behaviour, learned from schooling, from television, from movies, from news programs. Nothing seemed natural. It was suffocating.
Krishnamurti called it ‘conditioning’.
Propaganda. Brain wash. Semantic manipulation of words and concepts.
But I noted Mr. Hayen saying it is possible by therapy to bring these people “back”. Is this true?
Yuri Bezmenov say that the brain wash is “irreversible” and this is also my impression.
No matter what you do, its impossible to penetrate their stupidity when it first is there.
They will zig zag back to their wrong basics whenever they get the chance.
Wow Todd – so identify. But do tell – how was the performance?
I have two recordings of Swan Lake.
One by the American Ballet Theatre with Gillian Murphy as prima and the other by the La Scala Theatre Ballet with Svetlana Zakharova as prima (of Bolshoi fame).
To put one ballerina before the other would be impossible.
Why can’t the world be like that? Beauty is truth…
Tchaikovsky was a magician.
Absolutely!
Yes, but then you grow up, ffs.
So where are the grown ups?