The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
I do suspect that the internet was never meant to be free to begin with. That it was a trap from the very beginning. Smartphones as well. Piracy is also probably just a government psyop. They have lured people in with various goodies, free stuff, endless entertainment, shopping and whatnot else, but the real purpose of the internet (and smartphones) was digital slavery from the very start.
I'm old enough to remember life without internet. I'm getting ready for that life to return. The internet will still be there, of course, but it'll be so restricted and controlled as to be essentially useless. Kind of like google has already become. Sterile, prepackaged truth, government propaganda and nothing much else.
People should really wake up and see this for what it is... instead of constantly getting distracted with bullshit story of the week that doesn't matter anyway.
They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
If you place personal liberty above everything...
I mean this as a general direction. Not an absolute law. I'm against any power solution by default, which then can be evaluated on case by case basis. For example, of course murder is bad and to some extent should be suppressed, so in this particular case I'm in agreement that some kind of regulation is needed, but that absolutely does not mean that I trust said regulators or that I would allow them regulate something else. That, whatever that may be, on it's turn should be evaluated separately. Case by case basis is a key here.
Currently society has given elites kind of a carte blanche in regards to regulation and that is its gravest mistake. To trust and to give power to someone else. Trust in authority, belief that there even exists such a thing as authority, is the main reason of current downfall of our civilization.
It's radical liberalism...
No, it's not. It's voluntaryism.
...regardless of the moral character of the agent doing it...
Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
A very simple example: Your have to hire a babysitter for, say, a few hours. There are two proposals. One comes from known child abuser and the second one comes from a person without such history. Of course you'd choose the second option. You'd be absolutely mad to do otherwise. Or, in case other options are not possible, you wouldn't hire them at all and simply cancel whatever errands you had previously.
Is this ad hominem by your logic? Yes, of course it is! Absolutely justified and necessary ad hominem at that!
So, going back to our world, it is absolutely a must to reject anything coming from the likes of WEF, WHO, EU and all the rest of those abominations. Whatever coming from that side of ballpark is rotten from the very get-go and you are absolutely mad to think otherwise. Their real intention is the most important thing in this case and we both know that it is not what it says on a tin.
Could be. I haven't looked into this subject a lot, but you could be right. General idea of New Testament seems to be not that bad, honestly, but I can see how it could be used in order to gain power and control. I've no illusions in that sense. Old Testament, on the other hand, really is quite frightening. I completely agree on that. I wouldn't want to live in a world where OT is the arbiter of truth, morality and all the rest of that.
Absolutely. And that is precisely why I'd be very wary to support any power solution whatsoever. Especially when you know who does it come from and what ends does it serve.
Basically, all we need to do is ask ourselves a simple question: does it [insert any proposal, policy, rule or even daily habit here] serves my freedom as an individual or does it suppresses it? Answer to this question usually is all you need to determine whether it is worth supporting something or not.
People (even here of all places) very often are too happy to jump on various distractions, rage baits and hype trains at the same time loosing sight of bigger picture almost entirely. And the bigger picture is that all of this is about power and control. Mass control and power over individual in particular. Their goal is to create completely controlled world. Predictable, without free speech, without individuality, with masses serving only as a kind of a natural resource or a cattle for the elites and nothing much more.
I absolutely agree with you: People need to wake the fuck up until it's too late. Digital ID, CBDC (or whatever new name for it they'll come up with), AI etc. All of those are building blocks of planned digital concentration camp without any individual freedom to speak of.
While even conspiracy minded people are all too happy to invest their time and energy into something that won't matter in two weeks time, a literal hell on earth is slowly being constructed in the background all around us.
Haha, yes, this thread is starting to get out of hand a bit.
It's a very interesting thought about this backwards reasoning. Instead of honest evaluation and reaching honest conclusion, normie mind starts with the assumption "I'm a good person" and then goes through simple programmed motions "obey authority, listen to the experts" in order to justify it.
Other interesting thing to observe and which I've had first hand experience with is that some normies seem to trade obedience with morality. I won't go into details, but one of the most ardent covid cult follower I happen to have acquaintance with is also quite immoral in their personal life. So, it seems that at least some normies feel to have already justified by their obedience to authority and no longer feel the obligation for moral actions in their personal life.
I'm afraid I don't quite share your optimism regarding Trump though... Not to bash him or anything, but it seems he's also just a part of the establishment. Sure, decorations might change, their tactics also might change, they might even have some in-fighting going on, but I think he's one of them. Possibly always have been. There is no hope in political solution. Especially not in a person of a single man. That's all kabuki theater and psyops within psyops within psyops peppered with constant distractions in order to get public eye off the stuff that really matters.
There is a logic in what you're saying. I'm just not as optimistic as you, I guess... Also, Q is one of the most finely executed psyops in human history. I, for one, would definitely not seek truth in that direction.
Well, there you go. It's already here. I guess one of the main problems is that masses somehow still assume that government works for their benefit. No, it does not! Fuck me! How many more proof do they actually need? Oh, yes, covid and all the rest of that stuff was bad, but now suddenly government cares about us and our children!
When the masses will finally wake up to the reality that anything government does is for entirely different purposes than those stated, then we'll probably have some glimmer of hope appearing.
I absolutely agree with you. Of course they do not want free internet. Of course they want it totally controlled with ID only access eventually. They start with adult sites and adult content. Then they'll move to social media (it's harming children! won't anyone think of the children?!). By that point 80-90% of users will already be ID identified at all times and that's basically their goal.
How can anyone with half a brain not see that this has nothing to do with protecting anyone is beyond me.
His point is that this is not really about gaming or protecting anyone. I actually agree with him. This is certainly about creeping tyranny. Of course it is. And, no, I do not have Steam or Itch.io accounts, so at this point it is not affecting me directly.
Part of the Big Program and the reason this is a Big Secret is to keep people from developing to their highest level.
That's for sure. For example, one of the main tasks of general education is not to make people smarter, more capable or more independent, but more uniform, manageable and predictable. Predictability bit is also one of the main reasons why it's compulsory.
Mark describes three basic human operating modes as "service to self", "service to others", and "service to the truth".
This is interesting. Haven't thought about it that way. It seems that most normies usually operate under either "service to self" or "service to others" modes. The elites, of course, operate almost exclusively under "service to self" with some occasional and very limited "service to others" ("others" in regards to their in-group whatever that may be).
To go back to the previous example of Bill Maher and the mid-level consciousness, he believes he's fighting the brave crusade of progressivism, freeing all the oppressed masses or some such thing.
This got me thinking about covid thing again. The system was quite invested into duping normies that they are some kind of brave fighters and life savers. All they have to do is just wear a mask and stay home. There were even ads portraying them as some kind of superheroes and whatnot. When being confronted about this, usual normie reaction was very similar to what you described Maher's reaction was: "Don't you know we are the good guys? We don't have time for all these conspiracy theories! We are too busy saving lives and larping as superheroes here!"
See how--with precision--we can deconstruct the morality here?
I've seen Firefly. A very long time ago. In any case, it's a good example. Yep, doing the right thing does not guarantee a favourable result. Or, one might say, you'll never know what the actual result will be. It might be favourable in a long run (as in my previous comment). It also might be not so favourable.
Probably the best way to say it is that if you look around, none of the problems we see are by their design.
Yep. I've also used this argument. Usual counterargument is that the masses have allowed it to happen. They have allowed the elites to lure them into consumerism, laziness, selfishness, believing the lies etc. My reply to that is that the masses have been conditioned to be this way. They've been conditioned for all their lives almost on a daily basis. It's no wonder they've turned out as they have. Besides, the elites are more to blame in any case, because it is they who are doing this and not the masses. Even if we do place some blame on the masses as well, I'd say it's about 70/30 or 80/20 with the elites being the most guilty part.
If you read the Book of Ecclesiastes...
Haven't read it, but I'm familiar with the general outline of it. The king in question was Solomon, if I remember correctly.
Yep, it is what it is. I agree.
The horror and disgust of the Western society is that everybody is truly believe in capitalism and all that shit about democracy and freedom regardless of political color.
Yes, and that's kind of an issue. Soviets were not that good at lies and deception. People went along with it, but only publicly. In private few of them did. Current regime is different in that regard. Most normies will defend it even in private.
You really should. Mark Twain was in soviet school schedule...
I do actually have Huckleburry Finn and Tom Saywer books on the shelves. Just checked. It's a Soviet edition from 1970. Imagine that! I guess I'll check it out some of these days. In fact, I do not recall reading anything by Twain. Might as well pick up Sawyer or Finn.
...there are caveats like wealthy people who are public figures who are also dependent on the system (entertainment, media, sports, politics, etc). Or wealthy intelligent people in STEM who are also dependent and have to tow the line.
Well, that's why most of the stars and media people fell in line quite nicely and told us to stay home, wear a mask and take a jab. Only those who could afford it or simply didn't give a fuck went against the system. That goes for doctors as well. Most of the big name doctors who exposed the scam were already retired or soon to be retired.
Your third category applies to the 1% businessmen and moguls...
Not only those. Moderately well off are less dependent on the system as well. There's a big difference between having a property and some savings which would allow to live without a job for a while (or to relocate somewhere else, as an option) and living paycheck to paycheck while being constantly hooked on mortgage and various other loans.
The system strives for totalitarian control and fights people who are not dependent on it on any level...
Yep, that's for sure. I was referring to the level we have as of right now. In the future they indeed plan to completely eliminate middle class and create only two classes: ultra rich technocratic elite at the very top and everyone else - unwashed masses completely dependent on the system at the bottom.
I think it's both. "I'll just believe in what was told by MSM to make my life easier".
Yeah, but that wouldn't be a real belief. You can't simply tell yourself to believe in something. You either believe or you don't. It is not entirely voluntary process. If you simply tell yourself to believe in something, that's just make believe.
It's from famous Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, chapter 23
That's a nice one! I haven't read Huckleberry Finn. Didn't know about this.
Ah, but you see, all of them have already been arrested and those you see on the screen are just clones! It's simple, really. Besides, all those bombs falling around the world are just cleaning operations. They are cleaning out those damn tunnels! White hats have already won! MAGA!1!1!
Yeah, I remember that bell curve. It was an interesting phenomena to observe. Additionally we can analyze this from perspective of relationship to the system and income levels as well:
-
Mainstream normies can be seen as most dependent on the system. They have quite a lot to loose. They have mortgages and other loans. Their jobs are dependent on their social standing which in turn is dependent on their ability to keep consumption level on par with their peers.
-
Those at the lower end, as you mentioned, have much less to feel grateful for, so they are already kind of opposed to the system by default. Also, they have less to loose than mainstream normies and they are not so dependent on their social standing either.
-
Higher ups, however, are less dependent on the system because of their wealth and/or intelligence. They might have a lot to loose, but their gain or loss ir more due to other factors, not their relationship to the system. In short they are more free to choose what to think, what opinions to have as well as their lifestyle and location.
Although we both kind of conflate intelligence with wealth, which is probably not entirely correct... There are lots and lots of dumb rich people as well as intelligent but not that well off ones.
That's a good breakdown on human thought process. In particular states of human consciousness: NPC, mid, awake. I guess this whole thread is about the middle one. How many of them are out there and what exactly keeps them sticking to the mainstream. Also, is it something outside their control or is it more like calculated effort.
That page assumes that for the important task of determining objective reality, every human being follows a rational process. That is unstated on the page and unconscious in whoever wrote it. And it's wrong on every point.
Absolutely. It's almost automatic to assume that everone else's thought process is similar to your own. Which, of course, is not necessarily so.
So from that we find that for them, there is no objective reality or--for that matter--objective morality either. Things are true because they need to be true at that point in time. Even the concept that reality needs to be real has no inherent importance.
This is a very good point. Regardless voluntary or not, conscious or uncionscious, this is one of the things that separate normie mindset from what we could call critical one. Bendability of reality and morality. Sure, I can pretend for a while to believe that reality is not objective, but innately I will still stick to the idea that truth is objective and it simply cannot be otherwise.
Another interesting thing to ponder (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this choice is clear cut and voluntary) would be: Which strategy is better? Is it better to live your life as if there is no objective reality, morality and truth or to live it as if there is? Hmm... At first sight it might seem that normie strategy is better. They can bend whatever current situation requires which supposedly gives them huge advantage, but is that really so? Human mind is simply incapable to calculate all possible future paths. Constantly switching and bending to supposedly winning strategy puts not only huge pressure on an individual, it also opens the mind for various outside manipulations. It is much less stable mind state than always sticking to objective reality no matter what. A very simple example could be the same old covid and vax. Sure, from normie viewpoint it is much easier to just follow the rules, get the poke and recieve priviledges. However, in the long run it is of course a gravely disadvantageous strategy. For each individual on their own as well as for humanity collectively.
It's like being angry at an engine for malfunctioning after some a-hole intentionally put the wrong kind of fuel in it. The anger is not going to help and you're angry at the wrong thing anyway.
I think I agree with you on this one. Even if they do technically have a choice, their mindset is still a result of lifelong conditioning, brainwashing and whatnot else. Although there might be some degree of blame on the mainstream part as well it is still the perpetuator who is the actual guilty party and not the victim.
Besides, it is a very slippery slope. For example, just recently I read a post the idea of which was essentially that the masses deserve what is coming for them. That they themselves have invited it all with their dumbness, consumerism, selfishness, laziness etc, etc. At the end of the post it was even assumed that TPTB are doing almost a good job of sorting wheat from chaff and stuff like that... Damn, this line of thinking really does stink of being a psyop. I could totally imagine elites injecting this kind of gaslighting into the masses in order to demoralize them and put said elites on some kind of moral high ground or something.
I think one of the main differences is that back then it was mostly external thing while now it is external as well as internal. It's inside the heads just as much as outside of them. Also, current regime is better at keeping good public image. Soviets were not that great at such levels of deception and lies as we see today. Yep, it seems they've made considerable progress indeed.
That too is a factor, but probably not a major one. At least not yet. No one will know if some normie, say, criticizes vaccines in private conversation. We are not quite there yet... but we might be at some point in the future.
Free assembly and association are powerful means for people to realize they're not alone, and that's what those in power fear most.
That's why they're working hard on dividing everyone as much as possible. Ideally they would like a population that does not have any direct communication between people at all. A society where only communication occurs exclusively through the system, to the system, or mediated by the system. Sadly, to a large degree, they have already succeeded...
I agree with you on digital censorship, but I do have some doubts whether this is a correct way to go about this. Suppose some lawyer really does achieve some tangible result. Ok, that would be good... for a while... but the system as a whole still remains under their control and besides direct censorshipo they have many, many other ways to control the narrative. General task for them currently is to get everyone on their smartphones and dependent on the system as much as possible. When most of the people will no longer be able to exist without digital communication on a physical level, well, that's when they'll make their final move. I might be mistaken, but as of now it seems that any purely digital solution is a lost case from the get go.
Ah, I see. Good post. It is hard to imagine it's really possible to reduce everything to simple biochemical process, but who knows... at least partially it really is possible. I think emotions have already been simplified for large part of population. They are still there, but more bland, shallower than they used to be. Simpler, less complex.
I think the real question here is this: How large part of the normies (goyim) really are not sapient and how large part of them kind of are, but have chosen to participate in the circus willingly? They can't all be biochemical automatons, can they?
Well, I don't know, man... I think you're idealising it. You state it like it was some kind of paradise, but was it? Was it that good? (Not that I'm huge believer in official history, but for the sake of the argument, let's go with that.) I suppose it is possible that for average peasant life back then probably was more meaningful and morally/spiritually better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Monarchy/Christianity itself is an engineered power structure with a specific goal to rule over the masses. You say yourself that people strongly believed in power of monarch. In short, it worked. And that is precisely why rulers went with it. If it wouldn't work I can assure you that not me nor you would have even heard of such things as Christianity or the Bible.
Similarly to you idealising Middle Age feodalism, you seem to conflate Monarchy/Christianity with natural order of things. In my opinion it is not quite so. If we really want to look at natural order we should probably turn to paganism... or even hunter-gatherer societies for that matter. Why specifically Christianity/Monarchy with all it's institutions, churches, priests and whatnot? Have you read Old Testament? It is about the jews, by the jews and for the jews. It is thoroughly jewish. It's full of atrocities and quite frankly a bit terrfiying read. New Testament takes a step back from all that and is much more coherent and personal, something one could actually get behind to... Still, I don't know... All those Abrahamic religions seem a bit like a can of worms, honestly... Real belief in God should probably not be institutionalised and/or politicised.
I agree that people did not liberate themselves. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that due to various reasons fairytale of hereditary rulership did not work anymore and had to be replaced with another fairytale: democracy. No one liberated anyone. They just exchanged one fairytale with another. It's all about justification (which would be believable enough for the peasants) of why existing power exists.
In any case, my suggestion is that we look at the root cause of all of them (without singling out some in particular) which is belief and submission to authority. Any ruler (a king, elected official, whatever) could be dumber, weaker and less capable than average peasant (which they probably are in most cases). What gives them power though is the belief of said peasant that the ruler indeed has power over them. You see, it's almost like an Ouroboros eating its own tail. There is no power as such, it doesn't exist, but it becomes so, because those that submit believes it exists.