Law of Attraction - Do You Really Need Action?

Source: spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com?

There is a theory suggesting that "You create your own reality with your thoughts" and there is another one suggesting "You create your own reality with your beliefs".

When I study the idea of the Law of Attraction, I see suggestions that you must "visualize" something and you will get it. Then some say that you must do 'action' for it to work. Action?
I know that this sounds lazy but is action the only way for something to work?
If thoughts create reality, then isn't it possible to use your thoughts to create an event you want such as "Money coming to you?".

Why The Need of Action Makes no Sense

They say for the Law of Attraction to get what you want, you must take action. Some even believe that it's an "obvious" choice.
Really?

Debunking That Belief
Alright, what about the random events that I had no action involving? What about: murder, the Sun and Moon, random moments on the streets, seeing random people's opinions on the Internet, and any other event that I had no action for?

What about those stories I've heard where stuff has actually come to them without them doing any limited action?
What about my own experiences where SOME positive stuff actually came to me without limited action?

Is 'lack of action' to blame? Seriously LoA Action fans, think about this. Think about the above message.
If "I" or "You" created this reality with thoughts or beliefs, then this world would probably not exist if 'action' was a requirement.

However, action did help with other people, but it's not the confirming belief that proves that you NEED it.

Beliefs > Law of Attraction

Perhaps this is the true answer as to why some stuff work and why some stuff "doesn't".
It is your limited beliefs that create negativity results.
You can do action, and try to visualize, but when I tried that sometimes, it actually didn't work. I think. If it does always, then I think it does involve a better way of making things work, but at the same time, that was probably just a trick for your belief system. Remember what I said about the debunking section right?

It may in fact be true that visualizing only won't work, it may require more. It may require addressing the limited beliefs that create the lack of something.

The Conscious Mind and The Subconscious Mind

Source: http://thirdeyeactivation.com?

When I learned about this, it might of actually made a ton of sense! The subconscious mind is a place that your conscious mind can be unaware of. The Subconscious Mind might be higher than the conscious mind and it's much bigger. In the subconscious mind, you have stored beliefs in there, and forgot about them.

Yes, when you forget about a belief you long had, is it actually gone? No, it remains inside the subconscious mind unless you try to align yourself with it, and address the long lost belief you held for so long.

This could be why stuff always come to you randomly, and since it already does that by your beliefs, then it must be possible to trigger the beliefs to control the events around you.

In The End

From what I experience and the questions that some believers get to ask, I don't think the idea of "action" makes sense in terms of "creating your reality".

When I was little, I don't think I've had much negativity in my life. You know those huge fulfills (dream come trues) you used to get when you were younger?
The last time I've probably ever had that was (I think) when I figured out ROM hacking with games like Super Mario World and A Link to The Past or maybe some time after.
That was probably the last time I've ever got it. I guess the major negative fear beliefs started to get in my subconscious mind and ever since then, that huge feeling I've got, pretty much never happens.. It's often what I feared.
Oh and by the way, what kind of action did I do to get those tools I've never made, even though it was possible for me to create them my self?

If "I" or "You" got full control of the subconscious mind, then this reality would be like a full controlled lucid dream.

Realism Doesn't Mean Better

 Inspired by a "Little" Personal Journey I've Had

This focuses on one example of a major problem.

If they go more closer, or don't bring back all the elements from the first movie, then I hope they get rid of Lilly, and maybe the other two..

I've been browsing some huge hypocrisy and claims that I've seen no evidence on around a movie called Alpha and Omega, and the worst part was that it was some fan, or fans.

I been one of the guys serving feedback by wanting the next sequel to bring back some of the styles from the first movie, then some other guy completely attacked me by claiming that "Your bias" (Whatever it was) and then act as if "realism" is better as if the guy thinks that he or she wasn't bias. Obviously the other guy who claim bias was bias, and since the first movie was all about anthropomorphism, it would be bad and unfair to the fans to change it to something it's not.

Worse was that he or she blamed the style for haters (Yes, actually respecting the bias reviewers) and blamed that it was the "style's fault" for haters.

How much non-sense can this get? This message was so bad as it was a deep negative energy effect on me and makes me wants to hate critics more.. Now let's analyze this whole thing and teach that critique isn't supposed to be bias.

_________________________________________________

First: Critics and users can be extremely bias in there so-called "critique".
Second: The main unfair hatred towards this movie doesn't look like it's because of the animation, more like the plot and the lack of things.
Third: Calling an anthropomorphic movie a flaw because it has anthropomorphism in it is like calling an anime movie a flaw because it has anime.
Forth: Like the third, you cannot bring out a "style", or any other "style/art purpose" in critique, otherwise, what is critique?
Fifth: This movie is not supposed to imitate realism, it's supposed to be a cartoon/mix, the animation was meant to be like that, etc.. I could of also swear that Crest Animation Studios said this themselves. However, I am not so sure. Anyway, calling that a flaw, is the same thing as the "Third:" reason.

As I've said, even if this movie got attacked by some people because they didn't like the animation style, then I will also need to let people know that many other styles got attacked too by just some people and some selfish non-critics (What's the difference?)

1. It's also gotten attacked for the Art Style/Design of the characters
2. It's also gotten attacked just because it was a love story
3. It's also gotten attacked because it has wolves in it
4. It's also gotten attacked because it was a furry movie
5. It's also gotten attacked because they hate the jokes
6. It's also gotten attacked because the characters 'didn't have enough'

I also like to note that many people hates furries just because they are different. So this as a furry movie would probably get bashed by some bullies just because it's furry.

I was so offended (Not that way) how that user just decided to blame the amazing parts of that movie just because haters hated it. The user also hates the style, so I'm guessing the user is extremely selfish.

______________________________________

What is Realism?

From what I can study, realism is about taking away all the new creative ideas, and it's hyper generic, even though some movies with "realism" can be indeed good. (Is SciFi Realism?)

But what does it mean to take out the "less" realism in Alpha and Omega?
Getting rid of all anthropomorphism, including the effects that does indeed effect the story (log riding, certain objections, certain love scenes, no dancing, etc.) From what I can see, since adding anthropomorphism means more, all I can see is a huge downgrade as it takes all the other creative stuff away. Furry/Anthropomorphism effects is not a flaw, as it's another style in art, and in the end, it offers much more creative ideas.. Getting rid of that prevents that, and that's not a good thing.

Not only it means taking out all the human characteristics, it's also about getting rid of the art style/designs of the characters, and getting rid of personality.
Yes, even in the sequels, they still have human characteristics. The way they have personality, and the way they express there faces still counts as "human-characteristics" I think.

"Real Wolves"
Real wolves don't have "games", "tree climbing", "human expressions/personality", "holiday expressions", "rock paper scissors", "dancing", "log riding", "certain objections", etc.. Also, they don't have a "alternative language" to English.

What "real wolves" do is basically limited stuff: Run, Walk, Eat, Make Noises, Hunt, Sleep, Howl, and some more. That's it.

If Alpha and Omega was turned into that, it would indeed ruin what made the first movie and some effects of the sequels great. Yes, the sequels still had anthropomorphism, but not as much as the first.

Everything would just be the exact same but in different locations maybe. Though even in real life, there is some luck, but very limited luck, and a different kind of brain.


Turning Alpha and Omega into "Realism":

I DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN
 My God, stop ruining Alpha and Omega.

______________________________________

In the end, that website is indeed sloppy. Well, actually it's an area inside the website, not the whole place.
I see members being rude to the guy who types a lot, and when I be careful and learn, I have to say, the active members of that area/group is actually being rude, even though I have seen other people "attack an opinion" as well.. I see the person re-criticizing that, and sadly some members are probably going to act as if the criticizer is the bad guy.
I see the guy trying to explain, then another, no wait the same member, goes in, and refuses to understand that person (once more) and comment like an ass.

I did try to explain and may have did some "too far" messages but at least I can understand that I'm not the only one who criticize another opinion, unlike whoever did post hypocritical crap like the bias idea that "realism" is "better".
Yet that person thinks that "getting rid of Lilly" is unfair but "getting rid of the main theme of the movie" isn't.

What the flying god damn f**k is wrong with people?
Let's change Alpha and Omega into something it's not! But they better not get rid of my favorite characters.
Seriously, ^^^^^^ is extremely bigoted.

Why can't everyone be happy and respect other people's styles that may get added into the future by some company? It's very selfish to take it away from others.