/psrg/ Philosophy, spirituality, and religion general Anonymous 30-04-25 18:08:42 No. 24252
Okay, let's try this. I would try making this sort of a general threads for a few weeks, then we'd see if they became popular and maybe mods would make /psrg/ a permanent thread.
Anonymous 30-04-25 18:43:51 No. 24254
>>24253 Not the OP, but i believe not all spirituality is antithetical to the goal of communism. I think that, not the religions themselves, but some of their practices and, inevitably, some of the theoretical thoughts that circle around them, are actually beneficial and maybe even necessary for communism. I am mainly speaking of meditation, which, as a practice, implicitly entails some determinate pragmatical and theoretical structures, that are compatible with some other thoughts and practices and incompatible with some others. if done correctly, even outside of any spiritual path, meditation brings one to develop an unattachment and de-identification to the immediacy of one own's thoughts and emotions, and an association with long term decision making strategies based on a bird-eye view of its own situation. Likewise, one gains a disattachment to our own ego structure, the irrational thought that I, just because I am I (or, more accurately, just because I am AN I, because everyone is an I and nobody is special for that), I am more valuable than other Is, which is obviously something that should have some degree of general acceptance in order for communism to work. Capitalism by contrast is, deep-down, generally incompatible with the thoughts and practices that implicitly associate with the practice of meditation. It is true that, particulary, burgeois type people have repeatedly associated themselves with meditation and religions which have to do with meditation, but I believe that this is due to phenomena such a certain orientalism that leads people which percieve their lives as meaningles under the irreligious and "cold" scientific western worldwiev and, to hide from that "void", try to contain themselves into the more comfy, small world of an exotic religious oriental worldview. I also think they use it as a counterweight to the sometimes fast paced life they have to lead due to their financial profession, or to feel somehow morally acceptable by developing a peaceful ideology and being able to control unpleasent thoughts. In general, burgeoise meditation is a coping mechanism, it just reaches the surfice of the practice, and therefore, i don't think its valid to associate the full extent of the practice with the bourgeoise. On the other hand, if it is true that communism is not just a transformation of the mode of production, but also a transformation of our cognitive structure like some have theorized, i believe that the result would be similar to the mind advanced meditators. Some have theorized this before in very different strands of marxism, for example, in the otherwise (for me) uninteresting and pragmatically useless strand of freudomarxism in the frankfurt school, mainly Marcuse. I think tha the theory goes roughly like this: influenced by psychonalysis, he considers the ego to be a sort of defence mechanism against outside threat. If we consider also that mode of production shapes the social institutions we live by, for example, family, gender, identities such as being identified by the trade one works in… In a postscarcity, maybe even "post-political" (in the sense that with the abolition of the state, politics would not be defined by a conflict between opposing interest but a technical management of the interests of all because they are unified under communism), it is very likely that, even at a daily level, our way of percieving ourself and relating to one another would, with time, radically change. It is difficult for me to envision how structures such as family or gender would subsist their own economic obsolescence, since the division of labour by which they sprung as functional structures to organize society and daily life would disappear, if we follow the spirit of Engels' the origin of the family, even if its data is outdated. So, under this situation, it is possible that what we call the ego, without the arena of conflicting interests that is civil society, would actually transform into a new way of cognitive auto-perception or identification. Che Guevara's new man is also an example, and i also think that the mentioned that Engel's Origin of the Family carries these entailings. I believe that Marx and Engel's famous discourse regarding being fisherman in the morning and critic in the evening also say something about how a communist revolution entail also a cognitive one, if it is true that one's own cognition is shaped by one's own material, operational activity, and not the way around, which is a basic marxist tennet. And under such circumstance, meditation, with the mentioned operation it realices in self-cognition and that of others, would just be too useful for society not to spontanously be adopted as a general practice, it would be "naturally selected" so to say, because no other practice does that, but it would be purified from all religious content the same way that communism purifies society from its "blood and soil paradigm of identification" so to say.
Anonymous 30-04-25 18:46:29 No. 24255
>>24252 My (unoriginal) contribution to the theory of religion is that I think that there is no such thing as religion. IMO, "religion" is a bad term that originates from conflating two different things that I label as "faith" and "church".
"Faith" (also called "unorganised", "natural" or "personal" religion) is a metaphysical system (including metaphysical concepts, axioms, and teachings derived from them - "theorems", you could say) that supports and informs the worldview of a person or a group of people.
"Church" (also called "organised" religion) is a social institution or organisation whose function is standartization, advancement, and collective practice of the faith.
Christianity is a faith, Catholic Church or Mormon community are churches (although it can be argued that the faith of Mormons isn't really Christianity, more investigation is required); Buddhism is a faith, Tibetian Buddhism is a church; Islam is a faith, Nation of Islam is a church.
A lot of the problems when discussing religion (including on this site) are from people conflating the faith and the church IMO.
Anonymous 30-04-25 18:52:08 No. 24256
>>24254 AAAAAAAAA
Man… Do you have no working Enter key on your PC's keyboard?
Anonymous 30-04-25 19:24:43 No. 24261
>>24258 After researching a bit, and if you read closely my discourse, I think you'd find that it is unlike that of the bolshevik god-builders because:
I did not defend a theist position
I only referred to a specific practice, meditation
I didn't say that it would impulse revolution, but, if it is true that change of mode of production leads to change of identity, then meditation and its associated cognitive-practical entailings could be both a model for the understanding of, and an almost necessary tool for, people under communism.
I explicitly said that all these spiritual practices under communism would be purified of their religious elements, since like the etymology is implied, religio is nothing more than a pseudo-philosophical ideology. What we call today "spirituality", with the elimination of the economic necessity of religio, would end up falling into a new field of activity with a new name, that is associated rather to rationalist philosophy the same way that "spirituality" was linked to religion
Anonymous 30-04-25 20:56:58 No. 24268
>>24265 No shit, you're right. People who are most proud of their "atheism" are basically "Look at me! I am not a slave to the sky daddy! Ain't me badass?"
Like, not being a slave is not a high bar by any sane metric! (and, hilariously, these people are often slaves to something barely better than Yahweh… like Israel or shit)
Well, duh. Ask a r/atheism frequnter about Palestine and you'd probably hear that Israelis are "good guys" because they are "secular democracy defending itself against literal theocrats"
Using my own faith/church dichotomy I had outlined in
>>24255 I'd have recommended for you to answer "What's your religious beliefs?" with "Religion is a bad term. My faith is communism and I am secular (i.e. I have no church)"
Anonymous 02-05-25 20:51:52 No. 24279
>>24278 This is because the concept of god as absolute is superior to the merely folk religious concept of this or that god of this or that natural element, custom, behaviour (war, love etc…). It is not racist, a universal god is obviously far more conceptually advanced than a merely local god, that is in contradiction with itself because it pretends to be at the same time universal and particular. This is also why the muslim and the christian concept of god are superior to the jewish god, since the former is universalist, and the latter, contradictorily universalist and nationalist god. Your mistake lies in treating all gods as just gods, without any conceptual nuance, in a typical liberal abstraction where all religious concepts are of equal value just because they are in the realm of religion, which is an intimate personal private realm
Anonymous 02-05-25 20:57:17 No. 24281
>>24278 >>24279 >>24280 ultimately, though, all religions are irrational in their concept of God, even those who treat it as universal or as an absolute, because then, if God is truly the absolute being, it then follows that its truth can't be appropiated by a merely local community and set of dogmas, with merely local events, such as christ being born in palestine, mohammed being born in arabia… This is why all religions are retarded, but not all religions are in the same level of retardation due to the logical advancedment of their implicit concepts, so that a pantheon of gods of random things are more conceptually poor than a god as absolute
Anonymous 04-05-25 19:28:04 No. 24286
>>24282 I have a thread up on Siberia asking about experiences with secularized Buddhism. I'm interested in it myself. I can recommend a few books if you wish.
>>24274 >but is outright hotile to Marxism even without all of the superstitious garbage? The core message of Buddhism, even without all supernatural claptrap seems to be "You should not wish to change the world", while the core message of Marxism is "The point is to change the world". Not a single statement you typed is correct. Not a single one. Congrats on your massive ignorance. Trot flag really is a cherry on the top.
Anonymous 06-05-25 22:55:19 No. 24288
>>24274 it depends on the way you want to appropiate their concepts. If you just leave them as they are in their autoctonous context, i.e. if you consider them under the EMIC approach, this might be the case, but even still, buddhism is not a homogenous set of dogmas, there are many distinct traditions with many different believes. Pure land buddhism i think could be an example of what you are saying. without considering this essential heterogeneity of what we call buddhism, we, as outsiders, have the privilege of approaching their systems of thought in an ETIC approach (see emic etic distinction) and appropiate the concepts developed by them in the way WE see fit, accomodating them in our own more conceptually advanced western philosophical-scientific outlook. It is always easy to criticize another system, to present it as poor and underdeveloped from the coordinates of our own system, but this is a libidinal trap, a trap through which we believe that we are gaining something from that kind of activity, when as a matter of fact the most productive thing is trying to take whatever advantage we can get from them, and silently and diligently working for our own advancement and ideally that of others and the system we live in.
But in general, the focus of buddhism is awakening, and the cessation of all suffering, and for them it is the case that their "dharma" or "dhamma" is the one and only true means for those ends. So, this goal is compatible in many ways with political practice, although the principle of not increasing general suffering, if approached in a deontological/kantian sort of way, may lead to severe political inaction, but this is not necessarily the case. Nor is it necessarily the case for this principle to be taken as a sort of utilitarianism, since their concept of suffering is not merely quantitative, but qualified: suffering is due to ignorance of the true nature of reality, and this ignorance is in turn a product of the imposture of the ego-construct as our real cognitive form and identity.
I believe many buddhist, especially mahayana (i.e., as of now, east asians) and vajrayana (i.e., tibetans) buddhists, if convinced that politics was a political system that facilitates the genaral goal of enlightement, they would consider it a skillfull mean for the goal of a bodhisattva, as long as that means doesn't degenerate into not achieving the goal. I find the concept of the bodhisattva especially interesting: the bodhisattva is the person who has decided that their goal and main priority in this life (and according to them, their next ones also) is facilitating awakening to all sentient beings, going as far as to postpone their cessation of reincarnation in favor of continuing to pursue this goal in many lives. If we take into account that they are positively convinced of that (admiteddly wrong and unscientific) metaphysical structure, theirs is the ultimate attitude of diligence and hard-work, since they could in principle achieve their metaphysically absolute "summum bonum", but their will is still connected to the task of delivering it to everyone without exception.
This is why some buddhists show adherence to marxism (notable example: the dalai lama, with all the controversies of the chinese raison d'état affairs with tibet and all, i am not showing disagreement with that). This might also be the reason why the asian communist countries have historically been buddhist majority countries, and as of now we could name Sri Lanka as a recent example, due to the electoral success of their communist party. I don't mean by this that buddhism has had a causal role in the revolutions of these countries, as a marxist I am not this politically naive, but i am saying that perhaps there are signs of greater ideological compatibility, which contradicts what people say about buddhism: that it is a practice for bourgeoise western people.
Continuing with the bodhisattva theme, its utmost cooperative attitude is accused by many to translate to a naive self-sacrifice that leads to actually doing nothing and only elevate oneself morally, but this is not the case at least for buddhism, due to the concept of "skillfull means". A lama in my city i used to go listen to always stressed this point: buddhism is not just an indiscriminate good attitude towards everyone, and in a typical way he would give some analogical examples: a person that doesn't know how to swim shouldn't try to save a person that is drowining in the sea. Or another one: if a town is in need of a water supply, you can just mindlessly build a water canal, lest the city might be flooded; what is needed is a technical system of water distributon for supplying water without flooding at the same time, and this is skillful means.
However, for or these positive things I have said regarding buddhism, it is undeniable that there are still problems. First, buddhism is still a non-secular, non-scientific and conceptually underdeveloped thought system, which is still metaphysical in the modern sense, mythological in many ways, and not rational enough. Some schools and a lot of western conceptions of buddhism suffer from the vices that anon was referring to, which leads to political inaction. Nontheless, I still believe there are many things conceptually that are still not worked enough in the west, mainly, meditative practices and their cognitive and ethical practical powers and theorical consecuences, and fully compatible and contributive to communism, as i have explained here:
>>24254 Anonymous 08-05-25 03:00:19 No. 24315
First of all, if you write of religious matters, you can only use a religious framework to properly describe them. Philosophy or science might give answers telling you why religion exists, but religion is only comprehensible when it is a sphere of activity unique to itself. Every religion immediately must contend with every other religion that exists and with religion as a concept. One does not simply start a new religion based on an idea or some piece of technology they think is cool. Every religion necessarily must explain the origin not just of itself but of all things that could be of religious significance. The easiest way to do this is to recognize their origins from other religions directly. There can never be a "clean break" from religion while continuing to reference the same subject matter. So, unless Marxism is a religion for you—maybe it is—you can't speak of a "pure Marxist take" on religion, and Marxism has no real answers to that. It suggests a way religions can be destroyed by ideology, but it was tailor made for the destruction of Christianity which it opposed for reasons not difficult to figure out. Marxism and Christianity are certainly incompatible, but Marxism might be reconciled with other religions, and based on the nature of its claims it has to and attempts to reconcile with religion generally. It cannot claim neutrality, and when speaking of religious matters, there can never be neutral ground. The only "neutral ground" that might exist is the world prior to religion or that was not corrupted in any way by the practice of religion, and everything humans touch is corrupted by religion simply by virtue of humans all being members of societies where religion in one form or another was dominant and invasive. Even the invalid who as a rule are not allowed to join religion are subjected to religion, almost always victimized and shamed by it, but may themselves find in religion some explanation.
Anonymous 08-05-25 03:24:48 No. 24316
If you think I'm slagging hard on Christianity in particular, I can tell you the evils of nearly every religion that has any prominence in society, from Islam to the fruity ones like Scientology or the seemingly harmless ones like Raelianism (and our good friend Rael has blood on his hands, they don't tell you that in the brochure). The religions that get anywhere usually entail some sort of horrible sacrifice that spawned their existence and most will practice sacrifice afterwards. Christianity is bizarre in that it suggests that there will be no more sacrifices (this of course is a lie, the true goal is to maximize sacrifices and say they were all wicked sinners and Christ will dispose of them). And of course, Satanism is the oldest religion there is and they just say outright the Dark Lord is the one true god and anything else is hogwash.
Anonymous 12-05-25 05:07:45 No. 24330
>>24315 wrong: practices originating in religious contexts can be appropriated from religions, as well as concepts and anything you want, just like any other activity. The issue is making them work, of course. I doubt that a revolutionary will be worse by meditating or being interested, in its own ethical outlook, in the benefit of all sentient beings. Both are things that in this case have come through buddhism, but buddhism does not exhaust their use as items in other systems, other systems can even outcompete buddhism in the use of said items. Now, a lot of items you should not incorporate, rather, you should do an immanent critique, incorporate them as poor moments of your own system and make that work, like marx shows how liberal values are mere bourgeoise ideology. Now, when you got a communist blindly appropriating liberal values, you got a radlib, when you got a communist blindly appropriating christianity, you got a Tolstoy kind of guy. But someone that in his childhood had an interest in christianity and became a communist, but at the same time mantained an ethics that is about the redemption of humanity, or whatever, does not necessarily make his system worse: it depends on how he makes the appropriated items work. By definition, philosophy is the ultimate appropriating activity: while religion cannot take an outside concept freely because it must ideologically stand by its dogmas for x or y historical reasons, philosophy can appropriated everything freely and minmax the conceptual items that are constantly being produced in all other activities. Maybe you think that just because some ideology has configured itself in a certain way and immanently gives some hermeneutical rules to understand it, one has to play by the book and follow said rules just because they say so, but this is not true: you can extract and reconfigure any item, be it a theoretical or practical concept. Maybe you didn't know you could actually do this, but now you know: now go on and explore any system of thought you want and do whatever you want with it. Maybe you think that if this is true everything would just be a frankestein of different items but this is not true because: there are emergent properties, such as those that arise dialectically, which make so that not all configurations are functionally the same if handling the same items. So, not everything works, just like in any other activity.
Anonymous 18-06-25 17:22:01 No. 24494
>>24335 This.
People think college/university should be like some idle playground for wannabe intellectuals.
This is why I say higher education should require mandatory entrance exams.
Anonymous 20-06-25 05:49:54 No. 24506
>>24495 Why shouldn't there be entrance exams to higher education?
Most non western countries have entrance exams for all grade levels of education.
We have screening for working folk yet education is supposed to be universalised in entry?
Don't you understand this is why we are seeing a decline in academic competency in students?
This whole "muh inequality" when it comes to higher education is why it's bourgeois
It's why we have so many students wrecking their livelihoods on electives to finish a degree they may not be fully learned about on
They say that around two-thirds of college students drop out before finishing their degree.
Anyone who wants to attend college should be evaluated to see what competency level they're at
And, it should be multi faceted.
You have kids who are good at math but suck at language arts.
You have othere who are good with history but struggle with math.
The problem is, people think that all personal academic prowess is uniform in all differing disciplines.
Anonymous 28-06-25 06:43:36 No. 24522
>>24506 The entirety of your premise hinges on the contingency of entrance exams as being the most suitable proxy. This is way too fatalist.
The reason there's a 'decline in competency' has so much more to do with other factors than exams; digitization of attention spans, AI 'assisted' 'learning' as a means of bypassing all actual work both internal and external, slashing of funding of higher education for decades, cultural priorities conflicting with the objectivity of curricular materials, inconsistent quality of education across different institutions and even professors within the same institution (due to tenure basically immunizing shitty practices), I could go on.
Point is, the insinuation you're making is indistinguishable from conservatives screaming about MUH DEI LOW EYE QUEUE. This outlook is anathema to the dynamism necessarily inherent in the process of learning, and thus, education.
Anonymous 28-06-25 14:49:17 No. 24524
>>24522 >much more to do with other factors than exams; digitization of attention spans, AI 'assisted' 'learning' as a means of bypassing all actual work both internal and external, slashing of funding of higher education for decades, cultural priorities conflicting with the objectivity of curricular materials, inconsistent quality of education across different institutions and even professors within the same institution (due to tenure basically immunizing shitty practices), I could go on. Also it could be that higher education is overemphasised as mandatory for adult living?
We live in a time where most adults spend more time in school than ever before and we see a decline in industrial and social skills.
We have people who can solve algebraic equations without needing a calculator yet they cannot boil auygh or tall to the opposite sex.
Also"digitization of attention spans" is a convenient scapegoat. Irony is, in the old days, curriculum for the average student was way less before the 1970s.
Most kids didn't graduate high school then.
That all changed by the 80s.
Also there has been a recent reduction of playtime for kids.
Alot of educational figures say that playtime is the ultimate brain food.
Forcing kids to sit in class doing paperwork for longer periods of time instead of having more hands on subjects is part of the problem
>>24523 We already fund schools via taxes.
What more do you want?
Again I ask, why are aptitude tests for kids seen as bad?
Why is it ok to individualise adults but it's considered wrong to individualise kids?
If work requires aptitude tests why not education?
Anonymous 28-06-25 15:07:33 No. 24526
>>24522 Why are average adults, especially those born before the Internet, whenever they're asked about what they learned in school, their minds go blank?
But hey can remember all the dumb teenage shenanigans they committed?
Why is it that college educated folk have a harder time finding work and are often outcompeted by people who didn't go to college but did straight up labor from their youth?
I encounter more resourceful folk with no higher education and college educated people who need help in everything.
Anonymous 01-07-25 01:37:54 No. 24550
>>24524 Digitization of attention spans isn't a scapegoat. The curriculum shifting in no way relates to what I said. None of the factors you brought up are mutually exclusive with the factors I brought up.
You type like a dumb old man, to be honest.
Are you seriously so stupid that you come on a far-left forum and then utter garbage like this:
"We already fund schools via taxes.
What more do you want?"
Kill yourself.
I want you to kill yourself, first and foremost.
More importantly, I want the education system to be radically transformed. I don't give a fuck about tiny liberal concessions like 'funding' if the quality of the content being funded is garbage, and taxation has nothing to do with challenging the arrangement of production, which is part & parcel to leftism.
Aptitude tests are garbage in the context of education because you're 'testing' in relation to a fundamentally flawed system, and the concept of individualization you're referring to here is both bourgeios and essentialist, so I have no idea why you think this is somehow acceptable in either context. Again, it's like you just stumbled upon this place somehow, like you don't even know the ideological makeup or background of where you are. No idea how you even got here with this little understanding of things, given the relative obscurity of the environment. Why the fuck are you here? Piss off back to twitter you old moron.
Anonymous 01-07-25 16:19:50 No. 24553
>>24550 >Kill yourself. >I want you to kill yourself, first and foremost. More importantly, I want the education system to be radically transformed.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You guys have no tolerance for any criticism of academia.
You assume that academic skills are the only thing people need
You always wanna resort to "kill yourself" towards any opinion that doesn't align to yours.
Also, aptitude tests aren't inherently garbage. They've been a mainstay in academia even in progressive countries.
If anything, you're the one with little to no understanding
Again, why do we have so many people spending more time in school than ever before, having declining competency in life skills?
We have college graduates who whine about not being able to score with the opposite sex and still have to eat takeout because they never bothered to learn to cook.
Anonymous 01-07-25 16:22:34 No. 24554
>>24550 >Digitization of attention spans isn't a scapegoat. The curriculum shifting in no way relates to what I said. None of the factors you brought up are mutually exclusive with the factors I brought up. Irony is, before digital media, we had more people whom were illiterate.
Less people attended higher educational grades.
Nowadays, kids are learning geometry and algebra in class and online.
Kids are expected to participate in fundraisers.
Anonymous 03-07-25 12:14:08 No. 24563
>>24253 >what more do you need than 'opium of the people'? Not the OP but ,even just for political or rhetorical reasons, it's useful to be able to understand religion and metaphysics on their own terms.
The reason is you get a lot of right wingers who dont really believe in it, but instrumentalise it for their own purposes. Jordan Peterson is the most notorious case. Is sketchy whether he believes in God himself, but thinks belief in God is useful for
social control improving yourself.
Or a more obscure example, nikki the hegelian girl from the brief twitter thing a while ago,if anyone remembers her . Tweeted that all logic comes from God. It's like giving a loaded revolver to a monkey. There is a rich tradition of medieval theology, but that's not how medieval theologians ,or modern Catholic theologians ,argue. They argue it the other way around. They use logic to get to God. Not start from God and get to logic. Because they weren't just in it for clout/patreon bucks/to own the atheist libs. they wanted to convince people, get them in the community of faith, because they wanted to them not to go to Hell.
So it's a question of dividing the opposition and uniting your side. If less right wingers get away with talking about things they know nothing about, then they're more divided. Better to get people reading Aquinas and getting equipped with icons or whatever for themselves.
Anonymous 04-07-25 23:51:07 No. 24566
>>24522 >the reason there's a 'decline in competency' has so much more to do with other factors than exams; digitization of attention spans, AI 'assisted' 'learning' as a means of bypassing all actual work both internal and externa yeah heres a interesting paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools). Each completed three sessions under the same condition. In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM). A total of 54 participants took part in Sessions 1-3, with 18 completing session 4. We used electroencephalography (EEG) to assess cognitive load during essay writing, and analyzed essays using NLP, as well as scoring essays with the help from human teachers and an AI judge. Across groups, NERs, n-gram patterns, and topic ontology showed within-group homogeneity. EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Cognitive activity scaled down in relation to external tool use. In session 4, LLM-to-Brain participants showed reduced alpha and beta connectivity, indicating under-engagement. Brain-to-LLM users exhibited higher memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas, similar to Search Engine users. Self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the LLM group and the highest in the Brain-only group. LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning.
Anonymous 05-07-25 00:00:02 No. 24567
>>24565 Above all, the Germanic cannot stand the idea of pedagogy independent of their mediation. This is always what their screeching has been about. The computer does not in of itself have an essential power to warp the brain, to "negate" it. The way most of us use the computer is that it is a tool we use to carry out a rote mental task that is beneath our notice. We can, and if we program computers we must, break down this program into its steps and know what a program does. Anyone who uses a computer extensively will ask themselves what program is operating on the machine at any time, and what other computers may be active in the universe that interface with them, and what other users of these machines may do. A Germanic must terminate its thoughts, because it is a creature of forced ignorance. So, they invent the ooga booga term of "digitality", to give to the essential form of information powers and qualities the information does not possess. It's a pure charlatan's trick, and the monopoly of the school to interdict the child's thought process, to invade our lives, requires this trick. That's all it is. So, they insist that our attention spans are "retarded", because we don't believe in their "obviously correct" pedagogy, which has always been ruinous for humanity and produced nothing but what we can independently verify.
What they really cannot stand is that some children would use the computer to circumvent a monopoly on knowledge and social promotion; that we would learn from the computer program, or by reading independently of the pedagogue's orders, something that is useful for us to interface with the world. The more apparent it is to the child that they must do this to survive in a hostile world, the greater the screaming, the greater the ultraviolence to defend these institutions and their monopoly. Until very recently in human history, no more than 40 years ago, the computer had not proliferated enough for this circumvention to be effective. It could have been accomplished with writing and the printed word long before computerization, and in some ways it did proceed, which is why the Germanic thought form and institutions were ultraviolently imposed on society. Truly a monstrous race.
When their typical terror has failed, they hit upon an idea that they would shittify the computer, make it conform to their conceits about information and knowledge, and here we see the real secret to the Germanic thought-form - that it was always a way to prepare a country, any country, for envelopment into an Empire, the last Empire, the only Empire that can exist in the present era. This thought-form has been rebranded and adapted to each population it infests, each niche it inhabits. It invariably leads to the same outcome; forced ignorance for the sake of protecting a monopoly that terrorizes humanity. It will continue to adapt to new niches, until none exist that would allow someone to escape the ruinous pedagogy, escape the mind virus. By now this thought-form has become the great epidemic disease, with nothing in the world that can stop it… except, in the long run, the world itself, and the world is indeed exacting its terrible retribution on humanity for following this mind-virus. At present, there is no agency within humans that can work against this, not for the individual and not for humans working towards the same goal in any association. There is only the slow, plodding consequences the world has brought upon those who advance this ruinous thought-form. Those consequences have become apparent as a result of computerization and its proliferation, and because the intensity of the terror against us is ever-escalating to defend a rotten bad idea that shouldn't have been allowed to start, nor go on for this long, nor escalate to the measures it now undertakes.
Anonymous 05-07-25 00:12:37 No. 24568
I also have to say, if anyone is "fooled" by an LLM-written paper, it says something about the ruinous pedagogy and the mental straightjacket that is placed on university students. The higher up you go in the university, the more you see the university is like Scientology. Exactly like Scientology. We are far removed from a version of education that isn't this corrosive, thanks to decade after decade of intransigence and the monstrous thought-form's procession through the institutions. I highly doubt the education institutions will EVER be "the answer", and the answers we want will arise outside of this ruinous system, until the educational institution adapts for their own survival the methods we build apart from that ruinous institution. This will only be possible with what amounts to a new religion, and new religions don't arise because we want them and cannot be constructed out of ideology and wishes. They only arise because events in the world require them and make apparent to those who value religion the necessity of such a study. Right now the Germanic thought-form is throwing every fad, every Satanism, every excuse, in front of the people to create a million fake cults, all of them devoid of purpose or meaning, until those who seek such an answer are exhausted, for as long as they can to forestall the necessary religious transformation and revelation. I do not believe such a religion will resemble any existing world religion nor follow the precepts hitherto known for humanity, but we can see, if we are inclined to see such things, what the new religion would have to preach, and what it would have to answer about the universe and this situation humanity finds itself in. The most necessary events for a religion to arise are not going to happen by any "scheme" or "Working", nor will they happen as a consequence of the ruinous efforts of these schemers to create such a religion. They will only arise when the world has had enough, and it is no longer possible to maintain the fictions of the old religion, of the ruinous pedagogy, of this ruinous thought-form and its terrible effect on the world. We are still far removed from the time where this can happen, but not so far removed that it cannot be foreseen. I expect that 50 years ago, the worst of Eugenics and the ruinous thought-form will have done its duty and the reversal against it will begin, and 50 to 100 years after that, those who survive will see this come to pass. I warn you though that those who survive the present onslaught will be a denuded humanity, without hope or any aspiration that you might believe natural today. Even the best of humanity that survive this won't be much. That was how the last big religious transformations happened, after all. Humanity reached an end to its ability to investigate the world and any purpose it might have moving forward, had degraded considerably from its peak, and the slow process of transformation begun with a few thinkers, only to be largely terminated as humanity settled into its familiar habit of internecine violence and cruelty. Sometimes the new religion comes with a great wave of terror and violence emanating from the religion itself, exemplifying the very malice and cruelty that is the human spirit.
Anonymous 05-07-25 00:39:54 No. 24569
>>24568 >>24567 was going to write a response but then realized this was probable bait.
If its not then seek mental health. Because while a few parts of it make sense, the majority of it is just schizophrenic nonsense
Anonymous 05-07-25 00:48:44 No. 24570
>>24569 This is always the excuse, the snark, the dismissal, so that the same ruinous course will continue unabated, so long as you have your "goodies". I've heard it all of my life, and it's always the same simpering when tasked with doing anything of consequence or even suggesting there can be anything else in the world. All you people want to hear is recapitulations of the same talking points. You're autistic. You're retarded. You helped bring this about in the world for nothing but your own vanity.
We down here have always seen the problem, asked where it came from, and eventually arrive at answers that are not difficult to find. But, if we dare speak too plainly about these things, that's "extremist", yet the ultraviolent program insists we must "respect" it.
Anonymous 05-07-25 00:55:56 No. 24571
Of course, what humans usually do with their jabbering is a futile effort to seek power, status, and influence over other humans, for dubious and petty purposes. They don't use this invention of language for much else, and their language remains that of retarded apes. Some tried to make something of this, mostly because we see we cannot go on like this, but then "Those People" come along, always "correcting history" to make sure the worst of all worlds is realized. We continue doing what we do, knowing it is futile to "change the world". You cannot "change the world", that is infantile. What you can change is some small part of human behvaior, for yourself and by giving to others something to emulate besides death and torture, so that there is at least something in the world that can care about what happens to it. I think of those who will be made like me in the future, and those who have already been through this and are suffering now, because I do not need to see this continue for the same Satanic rot. I saw enough of the Satanic rot, for as long as I can remember, and it will always produce the same result. It never makes anyone particularly happy. Certain humans, Satanics, never really think about anything else. They are just vessels for this rot and proud of everything they did. Those people will never change their behavior, and so we are well within reason to violently suppress them. We never had to, and no credible theory of society ever suggested we should, grant them sanction to exist or continue with their rampant Lying. Most of humanity would be far better off without these disgusting excuses, and they know it. So many have, for entirely selfish and local reasons, acted against this disgusting impulse to make the world conform to a disgusting world-historical mission. Those who follow that mission can only retreat into the same lockstep formation that they have always found natural, until they cannot think or do anything but that. If you want to keep up this collective insanity for no real purpose and no outcome except more torture and death, you can, but it really is retarded. They are retarded. You are retarded. You will always insist we are retarded, that we "hold back history" by refusing to go along with this stupid and pointless torture cult, by not showing enough enthusiasm for something entirely alien to what we would want or anything we should want. Some day, hopefully soon, the full folly of this cult will be on public display, so future generations can at least not have to repeat and relitigate THIS. History has judged.
schizo number 2 05-07-25 01:02:14 No. 24573
>>24570 (edited)
MEDS NOW
But if I were to treat you seriously, then I think you are failing to see your arguments own inherent problem. I would argue that computerization is the ultumate form of thought control.
Yes in the beginning the computer offers access to new means of information. Which would break the preexisting monoply of education by the state institutions. however over time computerization offers new forms of control. New forms of group think.
After all as computers end up automating more and more tasks, then the list of what we dont want to bother to do will increase. Or rather the things we are incentivized to not do will increase since machines will do it better. This will include research, examination, thinking and etc. Lots and lots of mental activity that was formerly the territory of humanity.
Once this is achieved then the supposed intellectual freedom ends up being chained. Those who control the machine that thinks for you would modify those machines to ensure control. Control the machine output so to turn you into the perfect slave.
And while a few with their own ai or machines will resist it. The majority of people will not own their own ai but rather use the corporate or elite controlled ai. Especially since it seems technofeudalism is around the corner.
So no, the computer which you call a form of liberation will end up introducting new forms of control. New forms of mind control. New forms of mental enslavement.
Anonymous 05-07-25 01:16:26 No. 24576
>>24574 >The computer does not "think" in the manner the knowledge of a living entity knows things, must operate for knowledge to exist in the world. Does it need too? If I ask for the computer x y and z is it not automating away my "thoughts"? Is it not depending on the machines for answers? And if these answers were to say provide me an answer that appeals to the ruling states ideology, then wouldnt that brainwash me? Especially if the answers consistently follows the ruling states and elites ideology instead of going against it?
Lets say in a technofeudal state or a neoliberal high tech state, if all my questions were answered with things that dont go against the ruling class ideology, then why wouldnt that be mind control?
<Mario Except we are not talking about mario. We are talking about information dependency.
Yes you could turn it off but why would you? If relying on ai and machines are seen as the norm, then why would a lot of people go against it? Why wouldnt the majority of people not become dependent or rely on it? And then people become enslaved through it?
Anonymous 05-07-25 01:48:55 No. 24578
>>24576 If you are dumb enough to depend on a machine to tell you what to think, that is on you or whatever pedagogy you received that insisted on turning off your own sense and reason. Computers don't "make" you do that simply by existing or carrying out their instructions. That behavior, that mindset, is entrained, and it requires a specific rejection of any thought that allows genuine science to be conducted. Unless that type of stupidity is specifically trained, human beings would, even with the crudest intelligence and capabilities, fashion whatever understanding of the world is suitable for their genuine wants. Human beings, for themselves, have to maintain some fidelity to the actual world we live in, rather than the one ideology mandates we MUST follow by some legalistic rendering of the universe. The thought-form you are suggesting is a very artificial one, and it only existed in recent times as the "religion of science", and can only exist for specific outcomes that are learned very early and enforced very violently. Such a "religion of science" is neither science or religion; it requires termination of the thought process that would allow someone to know what religion pertained to, or what anything at all is. In other words, it is forced ignorance.
The simple truth is that we aren't actually "dependent" on information in the way you describe. We are made dependent because we are forced to follow a highly alien political thought-form that says if we don't follow, we are to be killed and tortured and humiliated and not allowed to do anything with our lives. Before that, most people did not need to know much, and their knowledge was suitable for the needs of producing and extracting from their environment. The lives of people were primarily local and centered around whatever community they interacted with, rather than an ideology or corporate institution. For so many people, they remain basically that; we wake up, do whatever obligatory work we do so we are paid, so we can purchase food, then go home and mostly not interact with the rest of the world. All of the stuff that insists on regulating what other people do in society is an onerous burden on the majority of humanity. That insinuation, that habit of injecting themselves into others' private lives, has always been an aristocratic mind-virus, and it is most unwelcome. The same conditions that allowed modern society, where humans could speak to each other and hold a dialogue like this for the first time ever, allowed the instigators, the insinuators, to insist we had to "respect" them, and that we weren't allowed to say what they did or what they intended to do with the world. Nothing about nature or the universe itself required us to do any of this. We could have averted this entire ruinous course of events, or at least not allowed it to become this. We didn't need to constantly return to the ideas of 1914, those ruinous and retarded ideas that brought nothing but damnation to this Earth.
Anonymous 05-07-25 01:59:43 No. 24581
A human, or any living entity that "knows", such as an animal, doesn't need to be anything "special" or possess a unique substance to have any say in its existence. We can also demonstrate, very trivially, the qualities humans possess which are, to our knowledge, particular to humans. No other animal we know of employs technology or language to produce civilization or the types of societies we see among humans. We are very certain that nothing handed down from Heaven anything to humanity to "make" it civilized, and that all of the human's knowledge, this society where it is shared, grew in fits and starts and never so perfectly as an ideology would imperiously declare. That is not how history works. What we can tell about the human brain and this process we call "knowledge" is that it is an interesting machine for us, and if we try to analyze it, we are analyzing the thing that is analyzing itself. Some imperious mind built up a conceit that the humans they studied were "alien" and devoid of "real thought" like their own, because that was suitable to their conceits rather than something that reflected reality. Humans, or any entity like us, would form a symbiotic relationship with their tools. We did this when humans first honed tool use and fashioned pointy sticks and arrows, and in turn, humans' use of the tools honed their bodies to adapt to the tool. That doesn't require any "special knowledge" or treat the computer or any other information as if it were magic and essential. The advance of the computer, what makes the computer a remarkable invention, is that it opened us to the possibility of a much more effective general theory of technology, that if developed would bring an end to the ruinous pedagogy I describe. Since the officers of that ruinous pedagogy cannot tolerate losing their monopoly, they have insisted, and then imposed by ultraviolence, the ruinous world order around us, that I have briefly described. We have had past "general theories of technology", or ways we understood tools and knowledge generally. We have always been aware on some level that the parts of the body, the mind and intelligence itself are just other tools, and no one tool can be declared imperiously to be the "center" or "master key". Yet, this scam persists throughout the ages.
Anonymous 05-07-25 02:45:38 No. 24582
In my inquiry regarding "mind control", I found three methods that appear viable and readily comprehensible, at least in their basic forms. One is to take advantage of naturally occurring objects and behaviors, out of which more sophisticated tools are fashioned, and the faculty of tool use and the relationship tool-users form with their tools can do its work. This approach is limited since it relies on the agency of the tool-user to be assumed or judged after thorough analysis to ensure the "correct" result. Very likely, human beings being what they are, efforts to control the environment would require depriving the human being of any meaning to their tools, any purpose; or, they would remain imperfect, because humans do not want to be controlled by something that has shown its hostility to their existence. If the tool were truly friendly and brought no harm to anyone, and a human being were willing to invite this type of control into their lives (and there are many who are more than happy to allow this), it could only control so much. It would not be possible, without malevolent influence, to corral the human into something that degrades it or destroys it, without countermeasures inevitably arising or the human afflicted by this lamenting on their sorry condition in the universe.
Anonymous 05-07-25 02:51:14 No. 24583
>>24578 >machine to tell you what to think, that is on you or whatever pedagogy you received that insisted on turning off your own sense and reason. Computers don't "make" you do that simply by existing or carrying out their instructions. It can if it affects the information that our sense and reason depends on. For what we call sense and reason are heavily dependent on information that we previously know of. Communism was developed on the understanding of past economic events and history. Adam smith capitalism was based on his analysis on britain history and other things.
The ruling class can simply just modify the computers ai and etc to promote answers that can modify such information. Make it so that this information is biased or in favor of the ruling class ideology. And when the internet, computer or ai is made in such a way to be pro ruling ideology information. Then how can a lot of people be able to use sense, logic and reason to see the truth, if the information that the logic and reasoning uses is mainly pro ruling ideology?
And yes people in the past didnt need to know much. But the information that they did know affect their sense and reasoning. It still affected their plans, their decision making and etc. And we can know this since the ruling ideologies of the past, christianity, confucianism and etc did affect the populations thinking. It shaped how they viewed the world.
Anonymous 05-07-25 04:37:23 No. 24584
>>24578 >Human beings, for themselves, have to maintain some fidelity to the actual world we live in, Also theres a severe issue with this. Yes humans have to maintain some connection to the actual world. However that connection is quite limited.
Humans, just like in the past, are mostly going to be connected to their local communties. Human also are mainly limited in knowing about things happening in their life span. Thus human viewpoints will be very limited
As such this leaves numerous blank spots which would require exterior sources of information. And this is where the propaganda thing I mentioned here comes in.
>>24583 This situation would give a lot of power to the ruling class to use ai computers and etc to shape human viewpoints. For in these blank spots, the ruling class would mainly have monopoly of information. Information which would shape the sense and reason of human beings.
Anonymous 05-07-25 04:51:34 No. 24585
>>24583 Every computer, every algorithmic program, is predictable and can be understood in principle by the user. We expect programs to do particular things, and can ask what the machine is doing even if we don't have a disassembled source code and full knowledge. We never once believe the computer is actually magic, and that is what the ruinous pedagogy insists we HAVE to do. The computer is a machine, and not a particularly complicated machine. So too is the network of these computers fairly simple to understand, even if the number of agents and the command and control of superior users is not immediately known.
I write more about this in The Retarded Ideology. I'm re-reading the first book and I find it remarkable just how well I set up these arguments for the future books, looking specifically at the mechanism-vitalism "debate".
If you're talking about censorship and total control of information, that is handled ultimately by a very human source that insists on forced ignorance. There are many people who are partisans of this forced ignorance, who have resorted to terror and torture to insist information works in the way you believe. All of those people are not made of magic nor possess any special power. They are made of flesh and blood, possessing the same basic knowledge process as any human, and for any of their plans to be realized they can only operate with machinery much as we do. They do not receive any "super-science" or "super-technology" that allows them alone this power, or grants to their machines special power.
The method of information control deployed today is not inscrutable or "unknowable". It is actually painfully predictable. Its "secret" is that it can deploy in any arena an unbearable degree of shrieking and humiliation, so that the public of any and all countries will be cowed into submission. This is the standard Germanic pattern of behavior, because they insist people need to "respect" their disgusting race and their stupid warmongering habit.
Anonymous 05-07-25 05:00:42 No. 24586
>>24584 Humans maintain enough connection to the actual world when their life and future depend on it. If the ruling elite did not invade our homes, break up our families, brag about exterminating and humiliating us openly every day, I doubt the people would care at all if the world is ruled by an oligarchy of rich people or a despot, or hold any particular notion of what society should be in the abstract. The people never valued freedom or a republic, and given the history of those claims, why would they ever value a thing that has only demanded they sacrifice something new every so often? The only thing that kept the peace in the older society is that governments largely did leave the common people to live their life, and delegating slavery and exploitation to private owners.
The great event that brings about "real modernity" is the American Civil War and the end of chattel slavery. The slave power and its allies sought a new way to hold slaves, and the outcome of the war effectively established state slavery and the power of institutions to do what the slave trade did before. The rewritten narrative of history, the one being imposed on reality now, is that immediately after 1865, the corporate state immediately imposed state slavery and this was automatically and "naturally" accepted, and no one could actually have opposed slavery in principle or held any other value regarding exploitation. The true history of the war and the wars that would come after is much larger, involving many competing factions that wanted the future to be things that were all irreconcilable with each other, and could not be agreed upon by any polity. Some wanted world peace, some wanted the great revelation and for Jesus to come down so the Kingdom of Heaven starts, a lot just wanted to go home for food, and quite a few wanted to end the entire social experiment of modernity as it had been conducted up to then. Then of course there were those who saw the future had a long way to go, and the world could very easily be something far more compatible with life and something we would want than what we lived in.
The short of it is that the entire history of the world after 1865 is ultimately traced to the abolition of chattel slavery in America, and the aims of those who want the slave power to be fully restored and want to justify and glorify the slave system. This has less to do with Southern revisionism, since the Southerners never had an ideology or doctrine that openly and proudly glorified slavery as an institution or proclaimed it to be an eternal good. That is a Germanic conceit, and there is a straight line from Hegel to Hitler, which the slave power of the world glommed onto during the war as part of a greater project of exalting slavery as a moral right. The Germans are a demonic race, a monstrous race, and I am a proud and unapologetic racist regarding them.
Unique IPs: 43