Heart of Space

I don't remember doing that, but I'm glad I did. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. This message really helped me.

They recently voted on decreasing Pentagon funding by 10 percent. Put one and one together, it's fairly obvious what they're trying to do.

"Don't cut our funding, PLEASE, LoooOOooOOooOoOook AaaalLLllliIEEENNSS" -Pentagon 2020

Thanks everyone. I feel like I've recovered quite a bit. I was in a really bad place. Your kindness helped me when I was in a dark place, it is very much appreciated and I love you all.

I revert back to stage brown in spiral dynamics every time Abby Martin is on the screen if you know what I'm sayin'

Damn it, that is actually racist. I always thought that was catchy, now I can't look at it the same.

Thank you, everyone.

I've spent a fair amount of time understanding bitcoin and monetary economics. Bitcoin is an interesting technology, but in my opinion a decentralized deflationary currency is inferior to centralized currency. If people in an economic system choose to hoard their bitcoin, it can cause what's called a deflationary spiral. The value of bitcoin goes up due the increased demand due to hoarding, but this pressures the prices of everything else in the economy downwards making an extremely volatile economic environment. On top of that an increase in the value of bitcoin means that while your the numerical value of your debt stays the same, the relative value of the debt increases, increasing your debt load. So, what you end up having is an economy that is at the whim of the perceptions of the extremely irrational public. A temporary irrational wave of fear which causes hoarding could lead to a great depression scenario. A centralized currency if done properly can be controlled by leading economists to serve the interests of economic prosperity for everyone. Most people who talk bad about centralized banking you'll notice will also have anti-semitic conspiratorial beliefs.

Thank you for your kindness. I feel a bit better right now.

I apologize for my tone yesterday, I was a bit irritable. I see others have answered a lot of your questions and did a hood job explaining. I'll add that the concept of toxic masculinity is not to shame men. Quite the opposite, it is used to LIBERATE men and women from unhealthy thinking and behaviors. Do yourself a favor and try to understand the concept and apply it to contemplation of yourself and your behavior. It may end up freeing you from the harmful limits that culture puts on you.

40 day fast is crazy and probably somewhat dangerous. I did 8 days on a retreat once and had to stop because I started to become ill. Sorry to be negative. Good for him, that takes serious discipline.

I can confirm something like this is very possible. Although, I wouldn't personally use the word "Aura." I have experienced someone helping me through similar methods.

You literally left out the parts that were explicitly relating to toxic masculinity and then clipped the parts you wanted to criticize out to take them out of context. Watch I can do it too. No, what are you talking about. I never brought up cops at all. Why are you bringing up cops? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I wasn't bringing up the Christian thing as an example of toxic masculinity more as a general descriptor of Peterson. But it's all tied together. Not sure why you're not addressing my post as a whole, because the way you criticize it you take my entire point and perspective out of context. Sounds like you're just ignorant of the concept of toxic masculinity in general and how it effects individuals within a culture and society in which it operates. I'd recommend doing your own research and reading before commenting in here because no one person can sit and spend the time to educate you on something that requires your own effort to learn and understand. If you want to pay me a tuition fee I'll put together a course for you, if not, I'd recommend google search.

Firstly, I clearly said that I liked Jordan Peterson. So, it has absolutely nothing to do with personal distaste. I think he has a lot of positive things to say. To give a few of the top of my head, he vaguely ascribes certain negative attributes to women (Chaos) and positive to men (Order), he justifies the discrepancy of men to women in policy making, and refuses to acknowledge unique gender identity on the basis of his cringey over dramatic assertion that it apparently devolves into Marxism. Every commentary he makes about the foundation of western society is to push and justify a patriarchal viewpoint. He has sexist very traditional conservative beliefs and disguises them in a bunch of Deepak Chopra style intellectual word salad. Kind of in a similar way he justifies his religion. Which is why if you ask him a straight forward question about his religion he'll spend 15 minutes talking around the question and tell you that it would take four days to begin to answer it. He uses a lot of misdirection, flowery language, and distracts you with his crazy hand movements. At the end of the day he's a conservative Christian who has some solid suggestions for self help and personal improvement. Yes, he's different from the low IQ 40 year old frat boy who's having a mid life crisis that is Dan Bilzerian. But they both fall under the umbrella of toxic masculinity, they are just different flavors.

I actually like Jordan Peterson, but he's definitely got some of the toxic masculinity in a more subtle intellectual way.

The sound of his coughing is enough to give me mild anxiety.

Billionaires are money monarchs. The whole justification for the existence of billionaires usually relies on invoking the concept of a meritocracy. My issue is that billionaires completely break the concept of meritocracy, because they end up having so much money they no longer have to play the game, they end up making the rules. No one is so special that they should be able to bend the policy system to their will, or escape the normal bounds and limits of the law. I'm perfectly okay at this stage and time with having various classes and a certain level of income inequality. But the upper bound of wealth needs to be brought down significantly.

Wow, that's truly a shame, I'm sorry you have had to deal with that. Learning to undo the damaging conditioning of culture to arbitrarily see certain things as beautiful or ugly is an important part of the spiritual process. Personally, I know that I perceive people far different than I used to when I was younger. All the colors of skin are wonderful including yours.

Youre right, but in a sense, the problem still remains and was not solved. The same conflict exists just in a different form. We've done everything to continually escalate with Iran. We've committed actual acts of war against them even assassinating their lead general as he waged a war against ISIS in Iraq. The show continues on even today top officials still constantly push regime change in Iran. And it all of this all started back from the coup in 1953.

That's kind of what I figured. I don't necessarily disagree with you in that regard. I just wanted to point out how the US has played its role in the situation. I know you didn't intend it, but the statement seemed to justify the US's decisions based on the idea that they were acting in society's that are more primitive in their development. To me that feels like a perspective that mirrors hawkish Neoconservatives, albeit your reasons for what you believe are intellectual in nature rather than prejudicial. It reminded me of when Sam Harris made his infamous "nuclear option" statement regarding middle eastern Islamic cultures. I believe we have to be very careful and sensitive when analyzing this topic.

I disagree with your interpretation. The event in 1953 began a shift on the previously mostly positive perception of the west. It was the catalyst for many of the events that followed and lead to the current environment today. Even if you're right in some sense, the theocratic take over in Iran had a distinctly anti-western flavor that was developed specifically because of the pro-American installed Shah in Iran. It's also a contributor to the tensions between Iraq and Iran because Saddam was seen as an American puppet by the Iranians. I think you greatly underestimate how big of the role the US played in the destabilization of the region. I'm not saying it was an evil mustache twirling plot by the US. A more accurate description would be that it was a series of geopolitical blunders with far reaching long term negative consequences which were motivated by everything from fear of communism to the quest for global economic hegemony.

I somehow missed this sentence, I'd like to add a point. Edit: And also reading more conversation in the thread, I think there is a huge underestimation of the negative role that the US has played in the region. I'm very surprised to see some of the perspectives of US involvement in the region. The US played a major role in the long term destabilization of the region. The US overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran during the 1953 Iranian coup and installed an American friendly dictator who then signed a large fraction of Iranian oil fields over the Americans. That planted the beginnings of the now well known hatred west, which festered for 25 years until it lead to civil war where the American installed Shah was overthrown by a theocratic regime. It's interesting because the country was generally fairly prosperous and in fact was largely being westernized in the 20 years after the 1953 Coup. In this case, a CIA coup, worked to create a sort of Islamic conservative backlash which led to the Iranian Revolution 25 years later. The dominoes kept falling as the Iranian Revolution lead directly into the Iran-Iraq war with our buddy at the time Saddam. Whom I might add, since Iran's new theocratic government hated the west so much the US was happy to push Saddam to invade Iran, which he then did. What happened then was a long and destructive war which destroyed both countries economically. Now begins the tensions between an economically desperate Iraq and the US. The result of the destructive Iran-Iraq war made Saddam desperate, which led to him invade Kuwait, which lead to the Gulf War. Then blah blah blah escalation to the Iraq war in the early 2000's. Obviously, I vastly simplified a long and complex history into a short post, but you get the idea well enough. Yes, it's true that we got rid of Saddam who was a mean and nasty guy, but the long term potentially negative effects are yet to be seen. And now the US is draining its resources with a permanent occupation of the region in an attempt to maintain some form of stability. All this for geopolitical power and the most important economic resource in oil. The problem is, I think, that forcing change upon a country through the barrel of the gun can have long term destabilizing effects. The US played a major role in the shit show that is now the modern Middle East. The sad part is that you STILL have war hawks in the US government pushing for more war with more countries in the region. It will be a never ending cycle of war and death.

I always knew Dave Rubin and Stephan Molyneux were enlightened interdimensional entities.

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to cartoonishly vilify the US. It's the consequence of the actions of many governments. The US just enjoys the most benefit from all the conflict.