top of page
Search

~ Think for Yourself ~

Updated: Jan 19, 2022



Individuate. Grow the Heck Up. Take responsibility.


Socialism - Democracy NOT Communism - Oligarchy - Totalitarianism


(Lots of cursing in some of these videos). Cursing in the video but it's a great one in my humble opinion:


Just having doubts about my own politics and political stances - worry or questioning, is perfectly legitimate and fine and good (can and has lead me to much knowledge) - "Is it perfect enough?" "What will it effectively go towards if everything actually came to be (by like some miracle)" Worry about the future direction of the actual real world - with all the technology, etc., and the development (of character, etc.,) of the youth within this matrix of hyper technology and disconnectedness. Negativity and negative self righteousness I see, so much imperfection within my self, but I know, now anyway, am aware, at least to a degree or degrees and at times, and action is best...(Don't get angry, don't get angry, don't get angry, be humble, do good, be great).



Video I did:


-----------------------------------------------





Some cursing and lewd stuff in this as well:



More news-type content:




Terry Doud 1 day ago

I'm sick of all of these hearings. Arrest some people. Why is it OK that these people get just questioned and then get to continue their lives like nothing has ever happened yet a normal citizen would be sent to Chateau D'if (Count of Monte Cristo) for far far less? These people need to be held accountable.

Lil 1 day ago

Good question Ryan at 11:22. "What else is going on?" Did science created a real dinosaur yet? Are they making new stronger humans? How much do tax payer pay for scientist to act like God's? 👍

Alecia Sawyers 5 days ago

The irony of the times is that insurmountable evidence no longer guarantees justice. Now that's the saddest reality.


-> Right. What is our Supreme Court doing right now on these types of issues and others? Off smoking weed?


-------------------------------

The Future? : I see technology as a sword, it can be good or bad depending on its use.



--------------

Goodness:


This is a great video especially relating to parts about the above first video on this blog post and how to better deal with relations -

Amazing

Friday Khutbah:


Another great one by Omar Suleiman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdmuPPqpkE&t=972s




-------------------

Norway...huh...they do things that seem to make a lot of sense:




--------------------


Interesting:


https://hegel.net/en/e0.htm

"

System (from the Encyclopedia)

Hegel's philosophical system as such, as it is described in his "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Science" (1817/1827/1830) and further expanded especially in his many lectures (and is illustrated in our Hegel triangles with more then 2000 topics in as structured way), is divided into three parts (that correspond to the three volumes of his Encyclopedia):

  • Logic: Neither a formal logic, nor linguistic, nor a psychology or neurology, this area discusses the categories of thinking, so it explores what we do when we think when we thereby try to find out the truth, so in this area we think about thinking. As this also includes to reflect what is scientific in what we do when we do science, you could also call it the science of science. The order of the logic, like any other parts of the system, is in itself ordered logically, starting with the most basic/abstract items, presuming nothing (except the will to think and to find the truth). This part of Hegel's system is subject of an own book, his "Science of Logic" (vol.1 1812, vol. 2 1813, vol. 3 1816, with the revised 1st volume published in 1831), also called the "Great Logic", in contrast to the smaller first volume of the Encyclopedia, nicknamed the "Short Logic".

  • Nature: This area is about the philosophy of nature, dicussing the terms, concepts, axioms and methods we use when we practice science of nature. While Hegel had a good overview of the science of nature of his time, this area is the one that needs most work in order to include the findings of modern science. Still, especially the first part ("mechanics") and the last part ("life") are still found worth to investigate by modern Hegelians. Like in other parts of the system, where we have expanded the Hegelian system to include new areas/discoveries, we have marked them in brackets "[]" (e.g. in the areas classification single-cell organisms, classification plant kingdom, classification animal kingdom, chemical substances, and sun/light)

  • [Human] Spirit/Mind (in German "Geist"): This area of philosophy deals with the subject that in modern universities is called "humanities", "society" and/or "culture" (in ancient philosophical systems, this part is called "Ethics"). It enters into greatly expanded detail concerning the mind, as follows:

  • The subjective spirit (mind) - deals with human mind as such, especially the individual (subjective) mind, so it deals among others with anthropology and psychology

  • The objective spirit (mind) - deals with the human spirit transforming/shaping nature/the "objective" world according to its concepts/goals/ideas, thereby expressing itself. It is subject of an own book of Hegel, "The Philosophy of Right" (1821). Among others it deals with law/jurisprudence ("abstract right"), morality and ethical life (German "Sittlichkeit"), which in itself consists of the subjects of familiy, society and political philosophy (including world history),

  • The absolute spirit (mind) - deals with those areas where we reflect our thoughts and actions, especially our reasons, values and goals behind them. Such basic values and concepts govern our lives at the most basic level and by reflecting them, we can come to a greater level of understanding and freedom. (The absolute spirit is "absolute" in so far that it not limited in this area by anything else other than itself and its own stage of development). This area explores fine arts, religion and philosophy itself, as the science of science (the later including therefor also the complete Hegelian System, insofar having a circular structure, as you will discover yourself when you continue to click the uppermost triangle).

"



https://hegel.net/en/kaufmann1959.htm

"

8 The State.

...


He believes in a rational world order and in his ability to understand it. For him, life is not “a tale told by an idiot”; and history, not merely, although also, a succession of tragedies. There is an ultimate purpose — freedom — and this furnishes a standard of judgment.


A few quotations from the Philosophy of Right may illustrate this. “One may be able to show how a law is completely founded in, and consistent with, both circumstances and existing legal institutions, and yet is truly illegitimate and irrational” (§3). Hegel also speaks of “unalienable” rights and condemns, without qualification, slavery, serfdom, the disqualification from holding property or the prevention of its use or the like, and the deprivation of intelligent rationality, of morality, ethics, and religion, which is encountered in superstition and the concession to others of the authority and full power to determine and prescribe for me what actions I am to perform .. or what duties my conscience is to demand from me, or what is to be religious truth for me [§66].


According to the addition of Gans, the editor, Hegel remarked in his lectures in this connection that “the slave has an absolute right to liberate himself” (cf. also §77).

Hegel is not inconsistent when he writes: “the State cannot recognize conscience [Gewissen] in its peculiar form, i.e., as subjectiveknowledge [Wissen], just as in science, too, subjective opinion, assurance, and the appeal to subjective opinion have no validity” (§137). Conscience is fallible; and, while no government or church has the right to dictate to our conscience, no government can afford to recognize conscience as a legal standard. As several of his interpreters have pointed out, Hegel, when he wrote the Philosophy of Right, was concerned about the recent assassination of the poet Kotzebue by a student who was convinced that the poet was a Russian spy and deserved death.


We are bound to misunderstand Hegel when we apply his remarks about conscience within the framework of the Nazi state. It would be more pertinent if we thought of the German Republic before 1933 and of the conscience of Hitler. For by “the State” Hegel means one in which freedom is realized and “a human being counts because he is a human being, not because he is a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, German, Italian, or the like” — and this “is of infinite importance” (§209; cf. §270 n.). Hegel would consider rational the conscience of an opponent of Hitler who recognized his own absolute right to make himself free and to realize his unalienable rights — but not the conscience of a fanatic impelled by personal motives or perhaps by an equally objectionable ideology.


It is no wonder that the Nazis found small comfort in a book that is based on the conviction that “the hatred of law, of right made determinate by law, is the shibboleth which reveals, and permits us to recognize infallibly, fanaticism, feeble-mindedness, and the hypocrisy of good intentions, however they may disguise themselves” (§258 n.). In his Preface, too, Hegel called the law “the best shibboleth to distinguish the false brothers and friends of the so-called people.” One may agree with Herbert Marcuse when he says in Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory: “There is no concept less compatible with Fascist ideology than that which founds the state on a universal and rational law that safeguards the interests of every individual, whatever the contingencies of his natural and social status” (pp. 180 f.).


In sum: Popper is mistaken when he says, like many another critic, that, according to Hegel, “the only possible standard of judgment upon the state is the world historical success of its actions” (p. 260 ). Success is not the standard invoked in the Philosophy of Right when Hegel speaks of “bad states.” “The State” does not refer to one of “the things in flux,” but to an Idea and a standard of judgment, to what states would be like if they lived up fully to their raison d’être. This reason is to be found partly “in a higher sphere” (§270) for which Hegel himself refers the reader to his system as outlined in his Encyclopaedia. The whole realm of Objective Spirit and human institutions that culminates in the State is but the foundation of a higher realm of Absolute Spirit that comprises art, religion, and philosophy.


The discussion of “the State” in the Philosophy of Right opens with the pronouncement: “The State is the actuality of the ethical idea.” If he were a Platonist, he would mean justice; but Hegel means freedom: not that freedom from all restraints which, at its worst, culminates in anarchy, license, and bestiality, but, rather, man’s freedom to develop his humanity and to cultivate art, religion, and philosophy. He considers the State supreme among human institutions because he would subordinate all such institutions to the highest spiritual pursuits and because he believes that these are possible only in “the State.” He himself says: “To be sure, all great human beings have formed themselves in solitude — but only by assimilating what had already been created in the State.”1 One might nevertheless insist, as Hegel does not, that conformity should be discouraged beyond the necessary minimum, and one might dwell, as Nietzsche did half a century later, on the dangers of the State.


It would be absurd to represent Hegel as a radical individualist; but it is equally absurd to claim, as Popper does (p. 258 ), that Hegel’s State is “totalitarian, that is to say, its might must permeate and control the whole life of the people in all its functions: ‘The State is therefore the basis and center of all the concrete elements in the life of a people: of Art, Law, Morals, Religion, and Science.’” Popper’s claim simply ignores Hegel’s emphatic insistence on the sphere of “subjective freedom,” which he himself considered a decisive advance over Plato. The quotation from Hegel, of course, does not at all prove the preceding contention: it means — and the context in the lectures on the Philosophy of History (Preface) makes this quite clear — that the State alone makes possible the development of art, law, morals, religion, and science. And Hegel’s formulation here shows less the influence of Plato, whom Popper represents as a terrible totalitarian, than the impact of Pericles, whom Popper admires. The sentence Popper quotes could almost come from Thucydides’ version of Pericles’ most famous speech.


Hegel’s philosophy is open to many objections, but to confound it with totalitarianism means to misunderstand it. Ernst Cassirer puts the matter very clearly in The Myth of the State (1946), a book dealing with much the same material as Popper’s, but in a much more scholarly manner. His Hegel chapter ends: “Hegel could extol and glorify the state, he could even apotheosize it. There is, however, a clear and unmistakable difference between his idealization of the power of the state and that sort of idolization that is the characteristic of our modern totalitarian systems.”

"


Another seemingly interesting site: https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/index.php/


--------------- - At the same time, with my personal religious views, I see too much thinking and reliance upon one's own limited mind (confined in time and by our weaknesses, especially today) and logic - can lead to obviously, narcissism and ego, but more than that, as going in loops (personally) - arriving back at the same conclusion (which circles in my opinion, are natural and would be a great way to think in terms of many realities - such as the economy and moving towards a circular economy), which leads me or one to arrive at a conclusion and take action, or go forward. - > Especially without the external. But then again, we also have to use our minds to differentiate and to go forward or else we can get stuck (keep striving).




------------

Interesting: What It Means to Be on the Left

BY PETER FRASE https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/socialism-liberalism-left-frase


Obviously I'm on the left, but have religious morals that are on the right, and I've ditched traditional labels. I'm actually for, as an ideal, a small uncorrupt government, people in control (socialism and democracy, and power over business and businesses), Religiously I've come to know and see that what is haram (forbidden) is good for society and ourselves - Homosexuality for instance. In my opinion, it really does or can cause people to be like pawns to the consumer culture and materialism (Allah SWT know's best and all) and becoming narcissists or weak (succumbing to low desires - which are many, such as drinking - which people know is bad for health and can be dangerous to ourselves and others, but they still do it, and am not with enslaving people to worldly desires - just watch commercials during a football game for instance or see how the left demonizes people and all these people addicted to drugs without any guilt or recompense of their actions - blaming the world and others for their problems - that is not the way - is leading to destruction of self instead of turning things around (learning) and gaining strength and confidence in oneself and humility and piety - but the West wants to indoctrinate and criminalize anything that goes against the consumer and slave culture - obfuscate and redirect, point the finger, divide and conquer, keep the people asleep and not to question (the pen is mightier than the sword).


I'm definitely not great, I'm definitely not perfect.....


Great posts and discussion:


https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/s4xdss/as_of_last_year_the_blackwhite_economic_divide_is/



Love this:

level 1 timmg ·13 hr. ago

I was thinking about this the other day and something occurred to me. Mississippi, as a state, has the lowest GDP per capita in the US. It seems like it has been that way for a while. A quick Google landed on this. In 1970, Mississippi was also the lowest GDP per capita in the US. What does this mean?

I'm not 100% sure. But it feels like, if a group is "behind" they may just naturally "stay behind". Doesn't mean there is a conspiracy against that group. Doesn't mean there's something innately different or bad or wrong with that group. Just that, if you are born into a poor household, you are going to have a harder time. That's all. And that repeats. How do we fix the racial wealth gap?

I don't know. We've been trying for decades. But I think it would be an interesting "thought exercise" to try to figure out a policy that would fix the Mississippi wealth gap. There's a part of me that thinks there might be parallels.

And, honestly, is it any more fair to have a tougher life just because you were born in Mississippi than if you were born black? Vote level 1somanyroads ·4 hr. ago Ideally a solution that isn't color-coded, because income-inquality is affecting all races very severely right now, it's more an issue of class than skin color. People making the bottom 20% of income in the US are seeing their wealth shrink while the top 1% have made like bandits during the pandemic. That has to stop and that can only begin to happen with a cogent tax policy, one that stops rewarding anti-labor behavior (i.e. like having no union members on the board of directors).


-----------


Oh wow, one of the links led me to this: https://www.lianeon.org/p/we-can-do-better-than-ubi?justPublished=true


That's actually what I come up with as well - I guess is not actually a UBI but only a negative bottom level of support that supplants all other welfare programs etc., (phases them out, in my mind) but I differentiate with children and minors receiving a UBI/NIT and think it should be integrated into like how the current tax credits for children are as of now (bonuses for children and if making less than a certain amount of income - but the level of the UBI/income is what is really interesting to think about in terms of encouraging work, caring for the elderly and disabled, providing income to young adults going to college, and actual adults who should or could be working IMHO - especially dangerous when we have such media and technology (and drugs etc. too, especially in our society and in certain neighborhoods and environments where people can just "be happy" getting by on little...(question it!, I definitely do - how much of top down federal socialism vs. capitalism is actually good...very good question and balance to maintain IMO that could go awry easily...). That is why, I definitely believe, especially for governments, to have high moral standards. The highest. Transparency. Actual caring about what happens to people, families, the future....not just washing the terms over and then, you know, doing whatever, and then trying to get elected again once the time comes. Having real concern and trying to do what's best for the population/people.


Good video here on the history of Russia (very long, is a series) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0Wmc8C0Eq0&t=2301s Really shows just how tumultuous human history has really been and how in the lives of human's that suffering has always been a part of life and we have it so good now, we have to keep pushing forward and striving to be better.


Also a good/great video - (lots of cursing though):



Sheena Rea

5 months ago


There was a time when life really had joy. The "old days" as I'll call them. Quieter days, with social interaction consisting of real conversations with people and true interactions. When sending someone a letter took 5 days for them to receive it; and their response was just as delayed. Yet we could hold in our hands their words, and the slowness of the conversation actually had value. Enough time to ponder, to think, to appreciate, and yes, to communicate with each other. "Progress" today means everything sped up. We now have warp speeds of communication. Humans carry in their hands little screens to which they're (happily) enslaved. I went out to dinner with a friend, and during the course of dinner she texted ten different people. Photos of our drinks. Pics of our dinner plates. I sat there with my antiquated flip-phone silent in my purse. She was with me but carried on convos with invisible friends far off. I felt lonely as hell. "We're too close to each other," you say, Richard. Damn skippy, dude. We're way too fucking close to each other. We choke each other out. We close each other off. Through what we call "social media" we're drowning together in a cesspool of gibberish. It's gotten noisy but nothing much is being said. Where is the meaning anymore? We have become puppets, and the Puppet Masters keep us in line, telling us when we are good, and when we're "bad." This is some scary shit, for which I don't have an answer. Thanks for this very excellent video, Richard. I hope you'll get better sleep soon.

191

REPLY

View 21 replies


A P

5 months ago


Definitely good to know I’m sane… as a nurse working in healthcare this whole anti-science agenda is baffling to me silencing healthy debate and all the other things that are currently occurring💔

69

REPLY

View 4 replies



Paul Quirie

5 months ago


Respect for speaking the truth Richard, the vast majority at the moment are either in denial or completely ignorant


delectar

5 months ago


Loving this. Truth telling so important and let’s start telling ourselves the truth. So glad I decided to watch you tonight.


61

Maritza Kruger

5 months ago


We lost the middle ground. It’s all extremes now. Pretty dangerous place to be.


49


Peter R

5 months ago


“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalms 11:3


42


Astro Aware

5 months ago


thank you for being such a real human being ! We, the people MUST hold the line!


37



Runar Maskin

5 months ago


Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a colloquialism for a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is successful in having the target question their own reality, memory or perceptions. There is often a power dynamic in gaslighting where the target is vulnerable because they are fearful of losses associated with challenging the manipulator.


VS


Integrity

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions



Coastal Walker / Jeanie,

5 months ago


I'm almost glad i went through what i did in my life , and had the counselling i had over the years and read the self help books i read( before the internet ,) i sensed things were going wrong since about the year 2000, how life was changing ( for the worst ) how we were starting to be ignored , i used to write letter to MPs, departments of work and pensions, The queen, etc got the same old response back until eventually i got NO response back , and i knew we were being ignored , so i sent letters that had to be signed for , still no response , good tactic , ignore them and they will go away, the government are ignoring the protests, letting them fight amongst each other , because they know the next day or weeks it will be over and forgotten, they have been taught applied psychology and have literally brainwashed a majority of the population, i now stand alone because i have lost friends and family over my strong view of what's going on and my belief that genocide is now taking place , but i stand proud and strong, my parents ( no longer here) fought for our freedom, lets not let them down. Our children need us to keep fighting for their future too, we cannot let this be " the new normal" .


Someone,

Beautifully put. WHERE IS THE JOY!!! I was thinking this yesterday!!! Thank you! 💖🌍



2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Peace

bottom of page