There Are Two Paths You Can Go Down? | Forum

Although passive resistance might work in democratic or mild authoritarian systems, it would for sure prove self-destructive in tough and rigid totalitarian regimes, where the dictators aim to totally eliminate the opposition. If the prevailing ideology is "You're either with us or against us", then refraining from supporting those in power automatically marks you as their enemy.

That's why it's bullshit. Any sort of compromise requires mutual agreement. You can't stay peaceful if your opponent aims for the confrontation unless you're willing to be a victim.

Now, going out of your way to pointlessly resist something for the mere sake of resisting something is a different cup of tea. I could sit down in the middle of the street and protest against the patriarchy forcing women to wear high-heeled shoes. Only... nobody is forcing me to wear high-heeled shoes. So what am I protesting against?

I fail to see what the examples you gave have in common with the LHP.

Well I have found I am alone when I say the core (in the case of the latter example) is represented by the Lucifer archetype, which centers around personal principle and will of the individual... How quick they are willing to be cast down regardless of where self interest resides..  But don't listen to me, you are probably right when you say:

Three answers on this:

1) One path is aggressively confident, the other is confidently aggressive. One path leans defensively, the other offensively. The two are at odds, in that the answer lies directly in the middle. Neither is willing to accept they might be wrong and change their world view. The churning continues trying to find 'an' answer, when 'the' answer takes too much work to accept.. The answer is in the liminal spaces we unconsciously avoid. Adjusting your eyes to the light and stepping into it only adds fidelity and definition to the shadow.  

2) Socially, once your spells go black the RHP don't want you back... (go ahead and roll your eyes.. you know it's funny, and true.)

3) Only two paths? Lol, hold my beer I gotta go make some popcorn.

He called it The Buddha and The Adversary, and probably explained it better. 

Called it the two most valid approaches. And centered between them was the satanic conundrum. 

But Anna is absolutely right, as was King, the latter is a dead-end and ends up against an immovable wall. So you gotta be cool with head injury. 

And in that case, when you cant change or do anything about the bullshit your own way, you now hold a default exaltation of serenity god bullshit right out of a prayer of accepting things you cannot change.  This situation-forced passivity is the downfall of many adversaries which cannot "let this aggression stand".  In my stolen opinion anyway. 

And the former in its extreme form is the type to sell anyone out to save their own ass.

I haven't seen it. I can only refer to your argument. And it seems to me you've been advocating some rigidity in thinking and behavior, which might work in few extreme situations, like being interrogated or tortured, but doesn't work in the great majority of situations in daily life. 

The whole point is the ability of a bird to learn a new song vs habitually singing only the song it already knows. A real live thing vs the stuffed toy running on a battery. The latter gets tiresome after a while. In life it translates to modifying your behavior in such a way that you eliminate counter-productive or even self-destructive habits. That implies flexibility. What works in one situation might not work in another so the rigid behavior fails as it leaves no room for improvisation, let alone personal transformation. And by transformation, I don't mean some drastic and impossible change, like a bird becoming a whale or an elephant, only altering or updating one's repertoire so it doesn't get old, sentencing one to stagnation.