?

Log in

No account? Create an account
LiveJournal for inhahe.

View:User Info.
View:Friends.
View:Calendar.
View:Website (STUFF ET CETERA).
View:Memories.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Time:1:13 pm.
Having an okay time up here in Michigan on vacation. bbl.
Comments: Read 3 orAdd Your Own.

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Time:3:51 am.
I'm frustrated because I'm finding out these new amazing things (such as the previous crop circles post) and i have few or no peers to share them with. I'm used to sharing these things.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Time:3:04 am.
http://www.ascendpress.org/LoOne-main.html

note: the web page contains some recommendations for preparation before focusing on these symbols. i don't fully understand why, but i know that it's easy to try and devour information on the web without much pause - but just because it's on the web doesn't make it not serious. to the degree that you're bothering to read it, it should be esteemed enough to heed their preface..
Comments: Read 3 orAdd Your Own.

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

Time:12:20 pm.
I'm really confused here. Who the *fuck* spends hours and hours writing up the constant onslaught of aimless verbal diarrhea that are children's cartoons?

I mean I know there's a lot of sociopaths in advertizing, executive positions, etc., but these are *solid hours* of pathological bunk, and aimed at children, no less!

I mean how does one spend *that* much time being a total creep and pulling shit out of his ass aimed absolutely nowhere, just to patronize kids for a paycheck, and continue to live? I mean why don't they just drop dead or stop breathing?

And how the *hell* am I the only sensible adult who notices this stuff? Where are all the parents? For God's sakes, have a backbone and save your children!

Cartoons weren't always this way, you know. I watched a lot of them when I was a kid. They even had morals. And when they didn't, at least they were sound and sane.

Something is dreadfully wrong with the world.. it's always been the case, but even in that context this plethora of new cartoons is alarming. Something's wrong here, and somebody's going to hell in a handbasket. I'm just not sure whether it's the children, or the adults.
Comments: Read 5 orAdd Your Own.

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Time:5:12 pm.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Time:10:20 pm.
My new year's resolution is 1920x1080.
Comments: Read 3 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Time:6:37 am.
[snip]
<tommjames> i always new anarchy was workable
<AirCastle> what's really pissing me off is that the media and the un is pushing for a government to form there and ruin what they have
<tommjames> same old stupidity
<AirCastle> because they can only envision that only a government with formal laws can give an orderly society
<tommjames> nod
<tommjames> lack of vision
Comments: Add Your Own.

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Subject:nice stuff!
Time:4:24 pm.
Holy ****

Reading this text makes me realize that it's been *years* since I've read any text nearly this long while being so interested in it that i didn't have to force my way through it.

http://shii.org/knows/American_Intellectual_Declaration_of_Independence
Comments: Add Your Own.

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

Time:3:43 am.
http://poeticfusion.com/id5.html
Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, November 13th, 2009

Subject:NWO, capitalism and the gov'ment
Time:8:51 am.
Mood: annoyed.

For as long as recorded history, the human condition has been frought with discord, strife and suffering. The basic reasons behind this are anybody's guess. Some might blame the development of the neocortex. Some blame the emergence of language. Some believe argiculture was humanity's biggest mistake. I've even heard the theory that species who live on planets far away from their galactic cores that become intelligent tend to go apeshit in general. Even syllogistic logic has been indicted. And of course, the Scientologists have their own theories..;P

Of course, the above considerations are pretty abstract in comparison to the nature of this strife and the suffering that we experience in our own personal lives. And that's what I want to focus on here. You can take war, for example - it's more symptomatic of course than the general problem in-itself, but it's certainly paramount. I think war shows a lack an understanding of unity and brotherhood...it's hard to wage war on one's blood brothers. Obviously not everybody in the world is your physical brother, but on a global scale, the 'blood' there is our sprit. Yes, it would be somewhat naive just to blame it all on lack of brotherhood and leave it at that. It's a complex scenario, and there are other factors at play here.

Humans have been suppressing themselves and oppressing each other for literally ages. We suppress ourselves for fear of judgement, hatred, or not being loved; while meanwhile we issue the same judgement to other people - judgement about different issues that *someone else* lives through and that *you* don't understand. We oppress others for fear...we fear they might rob us, we make laws and the penal system and incarceration. We fear someone might expose us for our insecurities, we ridicule or silence them. Some beaurocrats fear liability, they issue building codes and don't let you live in anything that doesn't cost you a lifetime's amount of work - before you've even lived long enough to earn it. People fear others won't allow them to do what they want with property, so all property is legally allocated and monetarily exchanged, and none is left over for anybody who just wants to Live Simply; not even being homeless and starving is legal - there's nowhere you're allowed to sleep.

It seems a lot of people take suffering to be a permanent fact of life - just the way things are in the universe. Yet I don't think this is the case -- just look at the broader field of nature on Earth..it's a fairly different animal.

Now I think the *proof* of something being seriously wrong with the way we're doing things is our systematically progressive devastation of the environment. That just isn't the way an animal behaves - except for human beings of course. This has been going on since the industrial revolution, if not for longer. The thing is, you and I both participate in the systematic destruction of the environment. Every time you buy something that's not decomposable, every time you put gas in your car, every time you turn on the light switch, and truthfully any time you buy anything at all that takes the consumption of resources, the dispelling of waste, the using of electricity and the issuing of carbon dioxide in its making -- which is just about anything you buy. The companies that provide these things are satisfying a need in the market; we make up the market, and hence we are not without responsibility.

My point is that suffering indicates something is wrong, the proof of something being seriously wrong is our devastation of the environment, and you and I are responsible for the devastation of the environment; this seems to indicate that the afflictions we face in life are due to things reflected in every individual, and are hence primary to anything circumstantial such as large corporations, the government, the "new world order," the Illuminati, the Bilderberg group, the GOP or the dems, for the most part. Governments themselves arise naturally in a vacuum; that's why they exist in every nation in the world, and it takes more than just a few people to run a government. They're hence created by The People.)

So if one feels the need to change things, I think things can be changed, but I would implore one not to look up to mysterious vague notions such as the "NWO," or even the evil, sinister, conspiring government that we all learned about through watching X-Files. Even large corporations, which I do believe are basically sociopathic and rather cancerous to society, are not the fundamental causes of society's oppression in the way that people seem to be starting to almost paranoically take them to be. Instead I would implore that people "look down" and delve deeply into their emotions, qua the emotions of humanity, and into the historical and developing nature of the human condition. This is all dark territory since it borders on the subconscious and we're largely unconscious of these behaviors and emotions. So what we're fundamentally dealing with here are endemic beliefs and unconscious societal behavior patterns, and I really don't think they're majorly deliberately conscious evils like this nebulous notion of an NWO. I think going down such an ideological path would only serve to *divide* us and make us fight maniacally against things we don't even understand, somewhat like in the L.A. riots of 1992. Even the CEOs of large corporations principally want *money* more than anything else, and in all likelihood have some fucktarded philosophy on life to justify their actions; altogether they exhibit an aspect of humanity and they're a reflection of you.

Everything in its rightful place..










Comments: Read 8 orAdd Your Own.

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Subject:The Face of Patriotism
Time:6:38 pm.
'— Obama says that “instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God."'




Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Time:1:04 am.
Here is the latest discussion activity from your Shelfari groups:
  • What Does Anarchism Mean to You? (Anarchism in the Library)

    Josiah L said:

    First, an apology for taking so long to accept the invitation to this group! I haven't been to active on Shelfari in a while and had overlooked my invite for a long, long time. That said, on to the response:

    Sadly, it seems just as important to discuss what anarchism is not as what it is. I think most people in America just equate it with breaking windows and destroying things, and insist that anarchists just want a world with no rules where they can do whatever they want. This world, of course, is envisioned as a violent, dystopian nightmare. People can't be blamed for this view, as this is what we have been taught to believe, and all we hear of anarchists in the media is when they (and others claiming to be anarchists) break stuff at WTO protests.

    Well, it's not about breaking stuff--it's about building stuff. It's not about hurting people, it's about people working together to achieve their collective potential, without someone making them do it. It is not about a lack of rules, but the absence of rulers. Anarchists believe that the natural state of human society is to be working together for the mutual benefit of all involved, not one group working against another or one group working so that another group can profit. With this in mind, anarchists are generally against wars and bosses. Anarchism is also not about a lack of organization. Anarchists choose to organize themselves as they see fit to achieve their goals. While many anarchists do talk about "the revolution", overthrowing the government is not the prime goal of anarchists as a whole. Many feel that any violent revolution is in and of itself coercive and therefore un-anarchist. It is much more common to see anarchists feeding the homeless, sharing their personal skills without asking for payment, supporting prisoners, growing food, and discussing books. I have a lot of other thoughts on the subject but there's a start.

Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Time:4:49 am.
"If a friend or relative makes a racist or homophobic remark, do you tend to confront them or let it slide? Are you more likely to confront them if it offends you directly or someone else who seems reluctant to speak up?"

It doesn't have to be confrontation per se.  There are other ways of .. i don't know.. enlightening the person (i know, it's really convenient to assume you're the enlightener and the one who says something you disagree with is in the relative dark, but I'm not making any assumptions here that the original question isn't.)  For example, the native americans have been known to coach by teasing. not mocking teasing, loving teasing.  of course this teasing can be subtle.. it doesn't have to be semantically direct.  it doesn't even have to be teasing per se. just the right grunt or whatever can often be one's way of getting across their perspective.  if there is such a thing as general objective truth (this assumption being implied by the fact that it's what we're trying to bring the racist toward by by confronting them with our superior ideology) , then it shouldn't take much to impress someone with it.. as it would necessarily be something we're all already immersed in.  i guess it seems that just by exchanging impressions and grunts it can take anywhere between slow and forever to change one's behavior.  but you can't always change someone.  and if you really love them, you don't need to.

i think if you're "confronting" them, you're taknig the wrong approach.  that's antagonistic or oppositional.  if they're a friend, and not an enemy, then why be antagonistic?  perhaps you could just say what they mean or feel about the issue, and leave it at that?  but I suppose this begs the question of what the word "confronting" really means.  99% of relationships are immersed in superficiality and  niceties.. it's like you break the ice once to start a conversation, but if you want to say anything real then you have to break the ice again on a second level.    But still, the point I wanted to make is that you should be clear why you're doing it -- because you find it distasteful and you want them to behave in ways that are more pleasing to you or that agree with what you believe to be "right", or *primarily* because you feel that it would benefit *them* to gain perspective and love for humanity and hence to adjust their racist attitude.  it may seem like a subtle difference, but I think the approaches and results that they respectively engender are likely very, very different.

then of course when it comes to how we might act differently if it's offending someone else at the time, the question gets a little more complicated because it involves the best thing for two or more people.    i would guess that if your behaviour wouldn't be any different those two cases then you're acting more on the "i'm going to confront you because you're *wrong* and I find that irritating" level of interaction.




 


Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Time:4:04 pm.
 http://www.ellenhartson.com/147/
Comments: Add Your Own.

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

Subject:Enjoy anus (dot com)!
Time:2:17 pm.
Damn, this is a great article.   It's only one random article I just now picked from this site -- i already knew this site has great articles from years ago -- so the rest of the articles on this site, of which there are many, are likely just as good.
 


 
Comments: Add Your Own.

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Time:10:15 pm.
 TOO funny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-carman/kanye-west-interrupts-oba_b_286560.html


Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Time:1:33 am.
 "God sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals, and thinks in man."
-ancient sanskrit proverb

http://www.guba.com/watch/2000953776



Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

Subject:Wtf!?
Time:6:54 am.

"In several medical marijuana cases, the patients' physician has been willing to state to the court that the patient's condition requires this medicine and thus that the Court should not interfere. However, the Supreme Court of United States has outrightly rejected this defense in the landmark case United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, in which the Court ruled that there was no medical necessity exception to drug laws, and federal government is free to raidarrestprosecute, and imprison patients who are using medical marijuana no matter if the medicine is crucially necessary to them. On the other hand, in Gonzales v. Raich, the court told a sufferer in extreme pain that they could not rely on state law allowing medical use, but if arrested they could seek to use medical necessity as a defence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_necessity#Medical_use_of_marijuana


Comments: Add Your Own.

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Time:11:55 pm.
"Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful."
Buddha

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html
Comments: Add Your Own.

Time:12:42 am.
Omg, party like it's 9-9-9!

Comments: Add Your Own.

LiveJournal for inhahe.

View:User Info.
View:Friends.
View:Calendar.
View:Website (STUFF ET CETERA).
View:Memories.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.