astralbrojection-blog

[astralbrojection-blog]

Comments on an Owen Benjamin video (Jordan Peterson, to)

Comment 1:

I think Vox is a good guy, seemingly, but I see some willful misunderstanding of his work (Jordan Peterson‘s) in what little I’ve read of Vox saying that he isn’t all that. And the Kavanaugh thing I think is overblown, I wouldn’t have agreed necessarily with what Jordan said, but I think he really was throwing something out there and people went kind of SJW on it from the right. I feel like a lot of what they’re saying even here about him could be seen as something, I’m not sure, I would have to check the base quote about Jordan saying he didn’t know he was lying, as what the Left does, infuriatingly: When somebody like Kanye or somebody like Tucker Carlson makes an interesting or a savage point, the Left will either obscure the content of their phrase totally or twist the words so that whether the Left know it or not they were wrong or at least not what the person was really going for or their focus, or they will laugh and pretend that the person didn’t make sense and in so doing they don’t have to actually talk about the logic behind what the person was saying.

Comment 2:

I feel like I sense a lot of dishonesty from Owen Benjamin, he seems to have a good heart, but I feel like there’s a lot of aggression and a lot of sort of hiding away from something when he talks.

Comment 3:

Owen, if you’re reading this, I don’t want to make you feel bad, I just want to say constructively that I’m not sure I get a totally clear vibe from you in terms of especially talking about what Jordan was saying. I just think that a lot of what I’ve read of what little it has been have of what Vox calls in Jordan‘s writing something mistaken for smartness because it doesn’t mean anything, and if he were being truly honest in his assessment, Vox’s, I mean. If he were being truly honest I think he would actually point out the meaning of the statement and then perhaps say this is why it doesn’t make sense or something, but to just put a block of text that I would read and did read and read and thought I could pretty easily see what Jordan was saying, and could even paraphrase it and probably explain it with totally different words, when Vox just calls a paragraph of something like that nonsense or just says these are the ravings of a madman and it doesn’t mean anything, I say, whether subconsciously or not, well part of this isn’t connecting because I can clearly see and even tell you what the meaning of that statement could be, and I only use that “could be” here because in poetry and in life almost anything can I have any meaning you give it, but the words are very clearly telling a message that doesn’t need to be paraphrased to understand necessarily but that I could paraphrase and tell you and if you just summarized that as something that you considered meaningless or that had no meeting and was just a jumble of words put together to sound smart, I’ve got to say, Hey man, fuck you because you’re either trying to put one over on me or you’re the type of person who would see me say something like this, and I know you’re going to call me a Gamma but whatever, who would see me say something like this and just sum it up as ha ha you’re stupid that didn’t mean anything. And that really pisses me off

Comment 4:

This is the same stuff that they do to Trump meanings, really. I mean watching here Owen say that oh, I guess you’re just going to say we misrepresented your work because you can change the meaning of anything, seeing Owen say something like that about Jordan Peterson feels almost *infuriating*.

Comment 5:

The thing about “Depending on what you mean by ‘truth,’” that is very easily although perhaps missed by a lot of people summarized and seen as, well it depends on whether you mean that the truth is the truth of something in itself being either true or false, which is the Sam Harris and the basic definition of truth, and then what Jordan Peterson seems to conceptualize as a higher truth, which he would I guess call truth, too, perhaps capitalized, wherein what he’s really talking about, and you can see him explain it with the building-on-fire-and-you-being-in-another-room example in the Sam Harris podcast, he did. What he’s really talking about I think is that if you have some amount of truth, if you have some amount of *knowledge*, if you have some amount of context, that may not be enough context around a fact that is itself true, he’s not saying I would think that the fact is not true, he’s just saying, and repeatedly, it’s “not true enough,” and I think what he’s talking about is having enough context around a particular fact so that you have a certain idea or a certain clarity about it in your value assessment of it.Show less

[astralbrojection-blog]

Life Is Fair

Life is Absolutely fair.

We all work with the same national boundaries and restrictions of physics, with science and prosperity and biology and everything.

Yes, we have different abilities. Yes, we have different predilections. However, we do have the same basic framework in with to work--we have the same biological propensity as everyone else, we have the same national rules of the universe--”As a nation,” itself--we have the same physics with which to work. If you fall off a cliff, you will fall the same way anyone of your body would fall, because the universe doesn’t care about what you think, it cares about what you do--and to the extent that it cares about what you think, it cares about that in the same way with Everyone--The Law of Attraction, it works for everyone or it works for nothing, and nowhere in between.

Take with this the idea that someone says life isn’t fair and we should have “equal rights” according to our skin color rather than our right to be alive. This is Evil, this is saying we will put in metaphysical guidelines not equally applying to everyone--we will aim a bigger gun at your face, as the government, depending on your skin color or your gender or your social class. If you make a lot of money we will take away more, not at the same ratio.

If you are white, we will give you less chance to speak--if we are black, or if you are, then we must say these things or we will be called a sell-out and ignored in favor of the collective mind.

You guys are crazy, you guys are assholes, you guys are evil, and life is fair, but you guys have come in and you have taken the metaphysics and based them on skin color and race and money and social class and caste system, not equally applying to all but instead built in a way that is unequal.

[astralbrojection-blog]

This

Warren.

https://youtu.be/SzHd5bmEdU4Just one video to know what I’m talking aboutThe basic idea being there was no crime in black communities, or very little, even up to around a hundred years after slavery—but once people came in saying they would do good and created the welfare state, now we take for granted, as Sowell says here, that there is great crime in all black communities. Nope, it’s because we destroyed them with “good intentions” by building into law treating people differently based on the color of skin. Now they’re cutting down the amount of Asians, for example, getting into certain schools because there are “too many” and calling it “progressivism.” Nope, it’s just racism, as alwaysThat’s why I’m so mad. People openly treat people differently based of the color of their skin and call it good and call people like me “racists” or “babies” for speaking out on it. It’s disgusting, really.*based on the color of skinIt’s crazy, and people are pushing it, judging based on skin color, as if its actual Gospel*as if it’s actual

This is actually in your Dad’s newspaperAnd people call it “good”When I say brainwashing, I mean itActual racial quotasI’m glad all the subjugation is not white just so I can point out that actual other races are treated like shit too in the name of “progressivism,” because of their race and nothing else. MLK would be rolling over in his graveDon’t ever believe that judging someone by race is good, is what I’m saying.So when someone says I can’t talk because I’m white, or if Kanye is a “white man” for having a different opinion, see it for what it is

Attachments areaPreview YouTube video Thomas Sowell on The Effects of VictimologyThomas Sowell on The Effects of Victimology

[astralbrojection-blog]

Frank(lin)

Sure, I am extreme, or I have very strict values, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong if I’m not wrongI see being moderate being something that you could argue for just a little self, but if I’m saying that it’s unfair that you’re calling someone crazy for accusing you of something that’s right in the vicinity of what you’re actually doing, that’s not being extreme, that’s pointing out something that I think most people would point out as wellAnd this is not just a thing where it’s like, well other people are extreme too. Because other people are wrong, stealing is wrong, killing babies is wrong, if I’m extreme, it’s extreme because I’m calling out an extreme society for what it’s doing and it looks extreme if you don’t go along with the tide.And if it’s extreme to call you out on calling someone crazy for saying something that is so close to what you’re doing that she basically called you out on exactly what you’re doing, it’s in sane*insaneBut I’ll tell you what, they’ll bury the real issue of nine-month-old abortions by making a story about this guy’s bullshit racist pics instead. Obfuscation? I’m on the right sideNot extreme—correctIt’s a world of treating real shit as stupid and stupid shit as real. I don’t make a mistakeAnd if I do, you know what catches me? The truth and logic, assholeThis is the kind of guy that your side hates, because it is rooted in unreality, and he’s trying to break that.https://youtu.be/87OIyCFKQBkYou guys choose one malevolence as “good.” I say all malevolence is bad

But it doesn’t matter what he facts are, right https://youtu.be/SzHd5bmEdU4They’re literally destroying the community that existed where whites and blacks didn’t hate each other, and I’m not sure they know itYou think fucking Stephen King like William Faulkner would hang out in Harlem with actually people, “Friends,” today? Nope, thanks LiberalsI mean, the Truth is the only thing we have—but drive us into the Apocalypse

[astralbrojection-blog]

The democrats/the Left

This. I’m not kidding about racism, just count the cases you see in an average day from people calling themselves progressives.

And then try to find one case from someone who represents conservatives. Really just one,I’m not saying one is bad or one is right, but there is one who practices a lot of racism, and it seems to be the one who accuses the other of itNot to mention sexism or classism, wherein you will see a lot of examples from so-called progressives. And almost no examples whatsoever from the other side.But of course if we pick the right gender to hate, or the right race to hate, are the right social class, then it’s OK and it’s even good to these people.And for whatever it seems, politically correct is just a way to lock in racism and sexism and homophobia and everything else.*or the right social classThat’s why I’m so enraged, because half of our society is trying to bring us literally back into the slave days with this shit.Or at least something resembling themFor example, a racially segregated college commencement ceremony in the Ivy leagues in the last five years. That happened not under Republican or conservative rule, but directly under Democrats.It’s no wonder this was the party of slavery, it still isAnd openly, too. But people are so brainwashed, they think the racism they practice is some kind of social goodIt’s not, it never is. And that’s the lesson of history, over and over again.But people are just so stupid, or aside from that, our controllers of public opinion are just so evil

https://youtu.be/SzHd5bmEdU4 ThisIt doesn’t have to be a black man, but it helps that it is to all these people who have been fooled, I guess. But it shouldn’t matter, and it doesn’t. It matters that he speaks the truth, not anything else, everAnd we care not at our will, riskI mean care not about the truth. We should never care about race, as a defining or even descriptive factor, reallyOr at least “functional,” unless you’re looking at actual biologyBecause that’s how they strangle us away from talking about it, political correctness. That’s why if I even bring the stuff up, if I bring up the obvious racism and not allowing more than a few Asians at your school because of their ethnicity, I am called a racist because I am trying to fight against racism.*in notAnyway

Example in point So you know what, America is good. We stopped racism and slavery before a lot of other people did, and now they’re trying to tear us down, because they secretly want it backBut not secretly, openly.You know how I get all this? Because I care more about the TruthThat’s the only thing, that’s the only thing you need. EverAnd now you’re literally getting people in high school debates saying that the other side can’t talk about fairness because of the color of their skin.That’s evil, that’s evilAnd you want to guess what skin color it is, for the record? I’m sure you know, and it’s not the “oppressed” one.But it doesn’t matter what, because judging on skin color ever before the truth is an easy way to fail.But goddamnit, if my skin color is the one being subjugated, and you say I can’t even talk about it *because* of my skin colorBut then again, they destroyed black neighborhoods too. LiberalsAnd, before that, of course, they had them in slaveryBut it doesn’t matter what side, the only thing that matters is the TruthWhich is why when a Muslim girl gets her clitoris cut off, it doesn’t matter that they’re a different “culture,” it matters that she’s screamingBut of course, the left would tell you that it’s OK that she had her clitoris removed because that’s their cultureWhich tells you that they don’t have actual morals, they just care about group ruleYou know the sound of a slaveowner, the sound of a suicide bomber? The sound of a Democrat. The sound of a Marxist? The sound of a Notsi? This is all about big government and social control over actual morals. Over actual Truth*NaziIt’s all the same Ideology But we live in a culture of fear, so we can’t even talk about what’s wrong with us.ButI tell you what, the people saying tax the rich at 90%? Those are the same people who are going to cause a millions-dead genocide in the fashion of Stalin and Mussolini.But if I question their validity? Well, then they’ll just point out the skin color of whoever I’m saying is bad and say that I said it because I was a racistThere you go, World War III.*90 percent*whomever*WWIIISo there you go, if you hear someone’s a racist, question what they said before they said it.*rich 90%*I’ll tell youNo wonder they don’t care about babiesI don’t think you really are a Democrat, because I don’t think you really are evil, but you have unexamined values

[astralbrojection-blog]

This:

System of a Down

Seriously, System of a Down may be the greatest band ever made.

They are so good. Their second album plays like a Metallica led power charge through the idea of changing time signatures, weird songs about tapeworms—I mean, their lyrics are gorgeous, their playing is gorgeous, their harmonies (and intensiveness) is unreal.

They are like a Magic band, a real-life magic band.

And all their songs were awesome, ALL their albums were intense works of art that didn’t slow down or stop and changed ever so slightly.

So good.

And Aesop rock be the greatest Rapper.

I’m not even a fan of their politics, and they are great. Actually, Shavo’s a Trump supporter, right? Great, really.

Correction: John Dolmayan

Like Radiohead, but better, honestly

And Jay-Z is the Best

They are so good

[astralbrojection-blog]

Againg

this is the birthday of my 29th but I am 28 on the 28th last year, and yeah, now it's 2019, and I'm the year of the age of the date on my birthday

[astralbrojection-blog]

"Casting Always Starts on Time”

Wow, the second season of season seven of Mad Men is like an extended fever dream.

“I’ve got a lot of time to make up for,” says Ray Wise.

“This is another girl.”

“Next.”

__

“You missed your flight.”

“Thank you--you’re Wilkinson smooth” . . . something.

BACK to WOrk

“He is going to have a ball.”

“There’s always another hurdle”

____

“So they’re worried that legs are going to spread all over the world?

That wouldn’t bother me at all.”

__HI<

___

“Are you Okay??”

“I’m done.”

“Well, that’s you, I guess.”

____

I think You have Me confused with someone else

[astralbrojection-blog]

Tentacles (or “Tentacruels”)

<u>Tentacles</u> (or “Tentacruels”)

It was the wild nineties.

Er, 2000s. 2001s—it was the time where we smoked weed.

We got into the room, and we smoked. And we smoked, and we smoked, and we smoked, and we held it in—and, “Ah,” there we go. We go all the way to the red piano in our heads and we played and we’d play and we’d play, all there in our minds, playing that piano for the flurishing minds that were around us and blooming, blooming in darkness.

-- - -

I love St. Anger. It’s got twisty, thorny branches of rhythm, taking us to the next thing in the life of anger and pride or at least just repression and anger. Great album, it’s like art rock mixed with Southern rock mixed with heavy, heavy, heavy.

* head, heavy, heavy

An angry And Justice forall.

[astralbrojection-blog]

Canibus (”Poet Laureate [[[!!]]]”)

“Liked Cool J,

“But thought Stephen Jay Gould was cooler.

And never liked to propagate rumors . . .”

I love Canibus, I love Canibus, i love Canibus.

He’s cool.

[astralbrojection-blog]

Tony HAwk

As I have been watching a Tony Hawk video, about the nine-hundred, where I thought he was going to do it and then he didn’t make it but I thgouth, wait, did he? And then there were three guys and each one looked like Tony Hawk and they all went at once, one after the other, and it was WEIRD. 

And it looked like one of them did it, but he wasn’t Tony. And I was like, “wait, what?”

And he was wearing bright yellow.

[astralbrojection-blog]

This.2

“Bill Maher, you’re a fucking loonbag.”

That’s what I said to myself after hearing President Trump make a passionate plea to Democrats to protect our boder with a wall while also saying that he would give some kind of extended protections to illegal immigrants, or at least some illegal immigrants, already here. This would be great, and then Bill Maher comes up on an MSNBC Youtube video (well, the name of it--I didn’t watch it--and the picture) with some headline about “If we don’t impeach Donald Trump,” or something.

People don’t know what they’re talking about. People don’t know what they’re fighting against. Nothing, common sense. Love, equality.

[astralbrojection-blog]

POEM:

Metallica: Prose poem

“ . . . And Justice for All”, the song, breaks down halfway through into what sounds like Kurt Hammet and the guys dragging and American flag through the dark hallway, struggling to keep it alive, dragging it up with each strain of “”, the classic medley, or it just sounds like it, getting stronger with each drag, but bleak all the way. Then they go into gray pounding against the ground.

[astralbrojection-blog]

Talking to Myself

LOL, just kidding. But yeah, that was an easy joke to make. And it is funny, because it does seem like the story of someone from a place that has bad water, everyone’s talking about him, but he never made it out. It’s actually sort of epic in a way. But maybe he will be famous

[Redacted]

Yeah, I mean Eminem’s on his last legs, he can’t carry this fucking city! Lol, who knows.

[Redacted]

Btw, If you’re unaware, or don’t see the extent of, this hit piece culture on actual human beings, check out this article from HuffPost. They clearly make it seem like this woman, from the headline and almost the entire article, was angrily confronting a handler of a service dog about their not letting her daughter pet the dog. At the very end, they reveal that she was actually confronting them because they told her daughter to fuck off. They spent almost the entire story making her seem like the bad guy, and then reveal at the very end, after everyone stopped reading, that she was actually confronting them for a totally different reason and she was actually 100-percent in the right. This is the news being the enemy of the people, they are literally the enemy of her. I would hope you wouldn’t think that the HuffPost was the good guy in this situation

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c1f134ae4b08aaf7a89818b?ec_carp=4840329111565481261 (headline: "Angry Mom Confronts Service Dog Handler After Being Told Not To Touch")

All you have to do is read the headline to see what they’re doing here. Where in that headline does it say anything about the mom’s actual reason for confronting them? But of course, it’s more important to demonize and make someone seem like the bad guy then to tell actual news, and especially when you’re inventing the whole story to make her seem like the bad guy.

I mean this is a real person, not that anyone else isn’t, but this is just a citizen, and they’re taking the time out of their day and literally sending it to my iPhone to make her seem like an evil villain, and hope you don’t read the end of the fucking story to realize that the whole fucking story was meant to miss lead you.

*mislead

I think the press could be so good for this country, but it is so, so bad when it’s doing this, especially when it’s doing this about public figures where they’re just literally trying to bring people down without giving you any semblance of reality. They’re trying to literally control this country, through intimidation.

But this is a hilarious example of them doing that to an actual citizen, for no reason whatsoever except for I guess clicks and to make her look like an angry blonde white idiot.

*than to

(for second word bubble, third bubble overall)

I mean, this is by no means the most serious example of that, for example the insane influx of people from other countries into Europe, where now it is actually a punishable offense by law to insult the Prophet Muhammad. You can’t agree that insulting the Prophet Mohammed should be a punishable offense, right?

I mean if you do, I’m not sure where you stand at all on anything. But I think that’s a horrible change, and that’s a change that the media is doing their best to demonize anyone for criticizing.

There literally doing their best to stop people from criticizing the government cracking down on free speech over religious figure. This is not the act of a savior to society, this is the act of big brother.

*Big Brother

You can’t agree that that’s good

*They’re

*a religious figure

And then going after just normal people, like the HuffPost does?

Combine that with their insane campaign of racism against white people and you have more or less a terrorist organization masquerading as the good guys.

Don Lemon calling Kanye West a “minstrel show” talking to the president and saying how dare he act that way in front of *white* people?

I mean, if you just put them all in Confederate garb and then had them all smoking pipes, they would be so indecipherable from the actual Confederates of the South that it wouldn’t be funny. Except they call themselves the good guys so much that people actually believe it

But when they’re taking whole groups of people from other countries and saying that they are wrong to even talk about them not being allowed to criticize religious figures anymore, by law, that’s when it gets to be beyond just racism and beyond just obscenity into them literally trying to restrict the freedoms of other countries. And seeming to succeed.

These people are the Enemy of the People, and good journalism could be such a help to the people that I think it could solve all of our problems within a year. But bad journalism could drive us so far into the gulag that it’s not even funny.

*indistinguishable, may have it

I mean, if you like a press that’s sole purpose is to restrict freedom and demonize anyone saying anything they don’t agree with, then I don’t know who you are anymore.

The press isn’t supposed to be its own hitman, it’s supposed to help people.

It isn’t supposed to be the suppressor of all the good information

*of all good

And then after spending their whole lives trying to destroy us, they say boo hoo when anyone points out anything they’re doing wrong.

It’s like, “Well, they’re doing more harm than good.” I wouldn’t want to for a second limit their ability to print any shit they want, but it’s horrible, what they’re doing to people, all of us.

[Redacted]

Okay, glad to see you agree. I doubt most people wouldn’t, but it seems like half of the journalism industry’s objective is to tell you, we’re all good, no matter what we’re saying, it just matters in the name on the bottom of the screen. I mean you literally had Scott Pelley telling Mike Cernovich, no matter what you think of him, that there are people out there who consider themselves a real journalists who are saying things against the journalism mainline. As if to be a real journalist the only thing you need is to have some big organization behind you, and then whatever you say is real journalism, and any other citizism is just an asshole for trying to tell the truth that the “journalism” is trying to hide from you.

I mean their job at this point, as they see it, is literally to shut anyone up who isn’t saying what they’re saying, no matter what the truth is.

*real journalists

It’s actually really a shame, I’m listening to Eminem with Lil Wayne right now, and Eminemsaid where the fuck is Kanye when you need him? And that was before all of this madness, or a lot of it anyway, and it’s just like, there was such authenticity with him calling to Kanye as a fellow rapper, and these days, I feel like the toxic culture is so great that it would be like, oh, now I’ve got to think about myself as a white man calling out to a black man and think about our colors rather than what I’m saying.

It’s crazy lol.

Then again, Kanye was saying George Bush doesn’t care about black people back then, but still, it was a totally different atmosphere. It’s 100% worse now, so bad. Lol, hundred percent might even be a little bit of an underexaggeration.

Kanye might’ve been authentic in saying that, I mean it’s so different that from today’s standards, I think of something like that as an immediately throwaway line, but back then, it might’ve meant something when Kanye said something like that.

I.e., him saying that about George Bush I mean. I think he was probably overreacting, because George Bush doesn’t strike me as a hateful person at all, whether or not he was any good as a president. But in any case, if Kanye said that today, he would make no impact whatsoever because one side is already pushing the narrative and the other side is like, you guys are just total bullshit by now.

I was there, this guy was good.

https://youtu.be/io1M3_rDw4Q

They took out a good part of it, but.

He’s talking about, in one of the parts that glitched out, how I think it was Al Sharpton that said that the black leadership thing that he went to was comprised of people that were paid to be there, i.e., that the black people there were just paid to be there. And he saying like, I didn’t get my check in the mail.

*he’s saying like

In one fell swoop basically calling him a sellout or an Uncle Tom and then calling Donald Trump just an opportunist for having them there. Whether or not you think Donald Trump was an opportunist for having them there, it’s funny that this guy is like, I went, and I was glad to be there, and this guy is full of shit saying that I was paid to be there.

Also, this is interesting. People think the hammer-and-sickle is some kind of empowerment movement, while they rightly demonize the swastika. But the hammer and sickle was responsible, if this is right, for the deaths of 100 million people or so. Maybe more than that, whatever it is.

https://youtu.be/YXgZAdaMtS8

And it’s like, oh, let’s be revolutionaries, with the hammer and sickle. It’s like okay, you might as well be wearing two swastikas, because it sounds like the hammer and sickle was responsible for perhaps double or even way more deaths than the Nazis were. So however bad the swastika is, talking about communism as if it’s this great movement is so much worse, it’s not even funny.

You might as well call yourself a Nazi intellectual, to say that you’re some kind of Marxist. I guess Marx himself wasn’t behind, although I’m not totally sure, a lot of the actual carnage. But everywhere his ideas went, from Pol Pot to Josef Stalin, you get madness and killing by the dozens of millions. Or however much it was.

It’s like oh, it’s not Hitler, it’s just someone that was much, much worse.

Oh, okay. Let’s celebrate Che Guevara and call ourself some kind of revolutionary. Maybe it’s not the revolution that we think we want, but after everyone dies, maybe we’ll realize again.

Not to say Hitler was any great guy, but for how monstrous he was, what’s him times 10 or 20? That’s got to be like 10 or 20 times Hitler. By definition lol

Oh, Che Guevara killed children? Well, those children deserved to die. Lol, these people are insane. Or they’re just stupid or they just celebrate people without learning anything about them because they’ve been fed some kind of symbology.

Obviously, I will say that Hitler’s aim was to kill the Jews, while the aim of Marxists seems to be the redistribution of wealth. So it seems like one is a lot worse than the other, but the practice of Marxism seems to go so badly so often that it’s just insane to say that they were any better than Hitler was. And perhaps you could look at them and say that it’s not the Jews that they want to kill, it’s anyone who does anything better than the bare minimum in society. And that’s probably a higher number than there are Jews, which is why there’s probably a higher body count every time.

It’s like, OK, Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews. Marxists basically wanted to kill anyone who did anything more than the Marxists said they should do, or did any better. Whatever. Contributed anything more, had a nicer life, than they said they should have. So that means that it was Jews or anyone else alike.

So in actuality, a lot of Jews would’ve been killed under Marxism, as well. Or they would’ve been met with any penalty that Marxism places on them. And them in particular, if they did better in a democratic or demographic sense than other people did.

Which is why it’s so toxic to hate the rich, too. Without ever asking, huh, what did Jeff Bezos contribute to society by everyone literally in the world using his website?

Not to say anything he does is good, I don’t know much about him, but hating him for his wealth is just to say, I don’t think he should be paid as much as he contributed. Because he clearly contributed many millions of times more than anyone else in the world does. *Everyone* uses Amazon.

It’s like it’s some kind of virtue to hate the rich, when what it really is is jealous people saying, hey, what they have, they shouldn’t have it. It doesn’t matter how they got it, whether it was good or bad. Whether it even helps me or not, I would take myself away from any benefit of it just so that they couldn’t have the fruits of it.

“The right-wing stands for hierarchy and the left-wing stands for the, for those who are displaced by the hierarchy, right? An endless problem.” That’s a pretty good, compassionate way to look at both sides of any argument. If you go totally left, you have people saying, no, I am going to control you totally so that nobody steps out of line. If you go totally right, I would imagine you have anarchy, which is something you might not want.

It’s like the compassion of the right is to say, you shouldn’t be impeded in doing what you want and benefiting from the fruits of your actions. The compassion of the left is to say, yes, but if someone doesn’t do as well, we should still help them. If you go way too far in the left direction, you’re basically controlling people and throwing them in jail. Again, if you go too far in the right direction, I think it’s probably just anarchy, no government at all. I think going too far in the right would be better, then. Because at least you’re not trying to hurt anybody, you’re literally just saying, I’m not gonna have my hands in any of it. But in any case, that seems to be the ethic that we should look for in either side.

*displaced by hierarchy, quote update

It’s funny, it would seem to be that quote-unquote liberals are on the left, but if you look at it, I think the left stands for putting structure in place to help people and the right stands for taking away all the structure you can. I guess when you have the right within the government already existing, the right stands for saying, let’s have as little structure is possible, and then let’s also have that apply exactly the same to everyone, whereas the left looks at it and says, but where else do we need structure, and then which groups need the structure more.

And again, you see the idea with slavery that a certain group of people shouldn’t benefit from the fruits of their labor. Which is generally the idea with all Marxism and socialism. You shouldn’t benefit as much from the fruits of your labor as we do from those fruits. So it’s easy to see why left-wingers were the people supporting slavery and right-wingers were the one saying, hey, let’s knock this off, let’s have everyone benefit equally.

And not everyone benefit from your labor equally, I mean everyone benefit from their own labor however much they did the labor and however much is produced by their own labor. No one benefits from your labor, except for you. And you don’t benefit from anyone else’s labor because they are the only ones who benefit from theirs.

The right being egalitarianism, I guess. The left being equity.

Then again, you could look at it like the right-wingers might say, well whatever hierarchy appears, that’s okay, so if there’s a slavery hierarchy, then that’s just what happened. I guess the enlightened way to deal with it would say, let’s have a right-wing philosophy but let’s make sure that that philosophy includes the idea that we should not put government restrictions on anybody. And then I guess the protection aspect would be, let’s set a few basic rights that we are going to protect you on. Because then again, slavery itself wouldn’t have been a problem if there wasn’t a government around telling people that slavery was the way to go. Basically, enforcing slavery. Because then you could just band together and leave whoever is trying to enslave you and there wouldn’t be a massive social system that people could go to to say, hey, they escaped, now let’s use this whole network to bring them back. But indeed, that is an interesting question, because totally letting free all of the restrictions also means letting free all of the protections, and then maybe you’ll end up exactly where you were, because everyone chose with their freedom to impose all of those same restrictions.

I don’t know, but I feel like it’s either total anarchy or freedom with a few basic protections for people, and otherwise, you’re lurching towards something bad, but then again, what we do have could be looked at as total anarchy and, well this, this is just what we chose to do with it.

I guess the idea of anarchy itself presupposes that there wouldn’t be a group of people choosing to impose their will on everyone else.

And in any real sense, what we do have is always anarchy, but this is what we’re choosing to do with it.

The truly enlightened sense might be that we don’t enforce restrictions on anyone, and I think that’s where we are, but then again, that’s where you might end up having people enforcing restrictions on people, because it’s just people doing what they’re going to do. As 2pac said, “There ain’t no justice, it’s just us.” Or something like that

I’m not convinced that it’s not total bondage equals total freedom, at the end of it. But I don’t know, and I see a lot more of the bondage going on.

Or at least, it seems like the bondage is usually where it’s in the wrong direction. Then again, I don’t know.

Because then you could say it would be in the wrong direction to say that there should be no law against murder. But then you could say, really, that murder might not happen nearly as much if there weren’t great government institutions promoting it.

In which case if you’re going to have the lock, such as the government, then you should also have the key.

Or it’s just total freedom all the time, and then bondage is just whatever the humans choose to do with it.

Which I think is actually the fact of the matter, but then it just becomes a case of, well if we’re already instituting bandage on each other, where should we stop?

In fact, I would say total bondage equals total freedom is looking at it through the lens of, well we’re going to have bondage anyway, and then freedom is us having a bondage that is enough that nobody has bondage at all. When in case of what it is, I think it’s that we always have freedom, and then whether we promote bandage on each other is either how we look at it or whether we do or not. Because you could have a free society where Attila the Hun comes through, and then you could say that’s bondage, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as saying we’re going to instead establish a group of people that will stay here all the time and just be Attila the Hun everywhere.

I.e., if you have a law against murder, that’s one step towards totalitarianism, because that’s someone going to murder you if you murder someone lol.

I guess it’s nonviolence meets nonrestriction, and that’s the way to get out. No restriction against violence, but then also not doing violence, and then you have a good world. Otherwise, you’re either going to consider more and more stuff violence and then get into a case where you’re killing people for supposed crimes that are actually just your opinion, or you’re going to have no protection at all and then it’s actually just potentially people killing each other, but then no government at all behind it, but then if the people get together, you could consider that a government.

Institutionalized violence versus violence by proxy of people just possibly being violent to one another. Institutionalized stealing from people versus the idea that if someone steals from you or treats you in a mean way, we can’t do anything about it.

The ultimate extreme of the right is government, and the ultimate extreme of the left is government. But the right just gets there by way of dismantling the government and then people putting it together anyway because that’s what they’re choosing to do with the no rules.

Ultimately, I think it’s just every single person making the choice not to impose their own kind of “government” on anyone else. But then again, that’s also to say that you as a person would let anyone do anything that they want to. Although I guess you could protect yourself. Or protect someone else from someone else. I guess

Anyway, that’s it. Sorry for all this.

I should say, the ultimate of the right-wing extreme may be government, but it may not be, depending on if the people in this anarchic society choose to do government or not. And that’s it.

But then again, we are at the ultimate extreme of the right.wing, because we can all choose to do for ourselves what we do. And that’s the results we get

*right wing

Then maybe the answer is do the left wing like a right-winger

If you’re going to do the left-wing at all

Addendum to Natalie’s statement(s)

Let go of all of it, is the answer

The Ultimate Extreme is that there is no left and there is no right, just like there are no Parents

To an adult

The left is the mother, the Right is the father

Let them Free

Sent from my iPhone

[astralbrojection-blog]

“Said next time you blog,

Try to spit a flow.”

–Eminem

"I've done my best

To give you nothing less than perfectness."

Eminem is perfect.

[astralbrojection-blog]

[astralbrojection-blog]

Best ALBUM ever

“I see some off-brand ni**as on the corner, flagging me down,

Sayin’, ‘Yo’, Daz, what’s up with the pound?’”