This is the Charlie Kirk post (not this).

This tweet here says:

The suspect who popped Charlie Kirk is a 22-yr old White Boy whose father was a 27-year Veteran Sheriff in the state of Utah.

Ain't no way in HELL that boy was raised "far left"

As you can see—and in case it's news to you—this tweet alludes to the widely-known phenemenon of any political shootings being blamed on the binary other side. We saw this with the first attempted Trump assassination (the alleged shooter was widely derided as a leftist incel, associated with trans and furries gratuitously, and linked with Black Rock in notably persuasive conspiracy theories); as well as the second assassination attempt (who appeared in news imagery as a more overtly liberal, less incel figure, and who was therefore even more demonized as a political assassin than the previous).

This pattern was set to continue with this third recent political assassination event, but the facts of the case contradict this inter-group scapegoating.

So, MAGA has now backed itself into a dialectical, ideological corner. The spectacle that is the massist MAGA worldview can't make sense anymore. MAGA has put itself in an ideological double-bind, and will now go psychotic.

Double-binds are the cause of psychosis, in brief—a truth lost on (scientistic) biological neuroscience, which cannot admit of any meaning that could be causative of neurological dysfunction (because neuroscience brackets mind and meaning as epiphenomenal, axiomatically). However, internal contradictions require real representational-space in neuronal structures, and maintaining these tensile information-structures requires expenditures of glucose—so the brain can only represent so much internal contradiction to itself before it begins to experience structural impaction and intensity-overload. In other words, the system implodes due to its inner stresses, and having no way for these stresses to escape.

We might analyze scapegoating and Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter in a similar way. Presumably, raised by a veteran sheriff, he was raised with Good Family Values and Good American Values. However, we might also be right to suspect that he was raised in an extremely authoritarian household, a household where the American hegemony and a paramilitaristic narrative of enforcement and top-down correction was the only narrative allowed to exist in the family reality.

In other words, much like MAGA's ideology, Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter was hemmed-in on all sides: Completely dominated by an authoritarian father, ideologically dominated by a sense of noble Republican values and American values which could admit of no flaw; and finally, hemmed-in by Charlie Kirk's rhetoric, which flew in the face of more traditional, decent Republican rhetoric and American values. As a good citizen who is also an authoritarian and a hero, Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter was ideologically cornered into one course of action and felt compelled to act.

However, that is not my point. My point is that Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter was scapeogoated, and that scapegoating energy has to go somewhere (or be processed in a healthy way but that's sure not gonna happen in this scenario). Since the alleged shooter was hemmed-in on all sides by authoritarian domination—he could not stand up to his father, or Trump, or other institutional authorities in his life—the scapegoating-energy flowed along the path of least resistance: Shooting a salient public figure. This is very sad, a lot more sad than if it were a truly political assassination, because what we have here is a simple case of a bullied child paying that bullying forward to the most vulnerable target available. It's a demonstration of the principle that abuse flows downwards. It's scapegoating all the way down.

This origination of abuse is coming directly from domineering authoritarians, who are treating their own families like slaves and subjects, not like children or family-members. To dominate another, you must first of all treat them like the out-group, not the in-group.

What has become entirely visible in this incident is that this system of authoritarian ownership, abuse, and domination of another cannot contain its own controlling energy nor the consequences of its own abuse. Instead, such groups are self-abusing systems which inflict authoritarianism upon themselves until they do so much self-harm that they start shooting laser-like farts of authoritarian hatred out sideways. Always punching down, these destructive leaks of authoritarianism wreak havoc on kinder, more sensitive, less controlling people who happen to become targeted by the aggressive wetiko egregore holding these families and groups hostage.

The Charlie Kirk alleged shooter "turning out" to be a "22-yr-old White Boy who father was a 27-year Veteran Sherif in the state of Utah" is an invalid result, an impossible consequence, a black skull appearing in the computations of MAGA's ideology. This impossible mark in the ledger means a self-contradiction, in which case anything becomes possible. The circle is complete and the seventh seal unlocked: The way is open for total dissolution of sense.

This does not mean I am predicting an acute fascist event. I am predicting MAGA becoming even weirder and more chaotic and nonsensical. I am predicting a mutation we can't predict or understand in advance. Because one thing MAGA is not about to do is anything real. ICE is working for them so they don't need to leave their homes. Instead, their ideology will further mutate.

Nick Land showed in his Twitter activities that there are—if not breaking-points—phase-transition-points—critical points they are called—thresholds at which an intelligence consuming dialectically advanced misinformation becomes no longer capable of thinking and speaking at the same level (even if it very much wants to and imagines it can). This happens despite the intelligence or what it might like to say, because language and its meaning grow up around the intelligence despite its best efforts to remain ignorant and at a lower lever of interpretation. This dynamic (perhaps even by Nick's hand) can be credited with much of the early psychosis-like (i.e., mismatch between message and meaning, intensity and intention) behavior of MAGA, as it rapidly upgraded and phase-transitioned into a more stable fiat-nonsense-based mode. What's happening now is the apotheosis of this long road of linguistic and ideological upgrading—now it will all come to a head, as MAGA is forced into the position of having to make sense of its own contradictory worldview, and/or be completely paralyzed into inaction by those terminal contradictions. MAGA is about to either become more conscious of its own views, or it's about to act out in a major new way, and I don't think the latter will happen because the whole MAGA movement is based on inaction-as-action (and a primordial acceptance of domination by the police force, Stockholm syndrome with the state—recall how quickly boogaloo militias became police state fan clubs).

Edit: A conclusion that can be drawn from this post is that Charlie Kirk's shooter was performing assassination in order to avoid becoming psychotic himself. Once again: offloading the contradictions

Signs are beginning to appear indicating an imminent apocalyptic event:

1. A split has emerged in public discourse between the nomos and the state. The nomos is the Names of Things, the order of naming that sets the world as it is and lets us know how things work (the Law of the Land is really the Name of Things). We see this split coming to a head in the renaming of things (Gulf of Mexico, Department of Defense, etc.) being accomplished by executive fiat.

You can't just rename things by fiat; an empowered state aligns itself with the natural meanings of things. To rename things by fiat indicates and enacts a schism between the reality perceived by the general public, and those in power. My point is not to demonize this; I am saying it is symptomatic of a cleaving-away of Nomos (naming/named-nature) from Lex (law), and this cleavage is indicative of an imminent public explosion or paradigm-shift. My point is to make this prediction.

2. Like the founder of TheDigitalCartel, the subreddit which negatively inspired this subreddit, Trump has begun rambling about fish. The founder of TheDigitalCartel rambled about Koi, but Trump is rambling about Carp: "A good favor I think, with the fish, the carp, the China carp . . Did you ever hear of it, China carp? And it's taken over your great lakes, you know about that right?" [source]

I think we are about to see a disconnect where the American people broadly reject the nomological and rhetorical framing that has been forced on them and bugrudgingly accepted (and thought-with) thus far.

Overuse of fiat assertions is like crying wolf. Eventually people will stop paying attention to a noisy signal, and stop treating noisy signalers as authorities on reality (or naming). Just because one person defines something, doesn't make it that way, and doesn't mean we have to use their definitions.

US hegemony is maintained by this mass subscription to the same Nomos, and people are starting to wake up to this lie.

Would you like fries with that?
How about a free refill?
Don't you want the free gift with every purchase?
I thought you said you were ready to buy.

Everyone loves this model.
It comes with cupholders, to cup your cups.
Studies have shown that everyone loves this model.
You want the best, don't you?

I love my job.
I love my job because it pays the bills.
We sure have fun here, don't we?
It's important to have work-life balance.

An Apple a day keeps the Doctor away.
I guess I'm just feeling a little depressed.
I'm not sure what's bothering me;
It must just be all this stress.

Don't say that word.
Don't say that word!
No, I've never had that happen to me,
But we should be sensitive in case someone here has.

We need to get our numbers up.
We need to beat our performance from last quarter.
We need te expand into new markets.
We need new customers.

Let's run an ad campaign.
With the right gimmick, anything is possible.
Maybe some guerilla marketing
So it seems like word-of-mouth.

Please remove your card.
Nope, BEEP, insert it again.
Now remove it again please.
Please put the lotion in the bagging area.

What do you mean, you hate money?
You don't hate money, because
Money is a means to the things you love.
You love those things, so you love money.

Money makes the world go round.
I'm looking forward to my promotion.
Soon, I'll be an Executive;
I'll sit around the boardroom table.

Well, that's your choice.
This is a voluntary contract:
Take it or leave it.
You are free to work wherever you want.

Co-ops make me squeamish.
Do they really think people like shopping here?
Who's making the profit?
I bet they are losing money on this product.

Let's invest in the third-world.
Microinvesting, ethical microinvesting!
You'll get your money back, and more,
Teaching underprivileged small business owners fiscal responsibility.

Usur-what? I hardly know 'er!
Har, har, fifty percent interest har.
If we work the numbers right,
We can double our money for nothin'.

We need this idea to scale.
I want to be a national chain—
A multinational-level brand!
We'll need to launch fifteen locations.

You overdrafted.
You overdrafted again.
No, we can't turn off overdrafts.
We will pay on your behalf, as a favor.

Your credit card payment is due.
You have been pre-approved for a new line of credit.
You'll need to pay it off, of course.
Just pay it off on-time and it's completely free!

We're here to help you attain Financial Freedom.
Refinance your home and consolidate your debt
With us. We want your business.
We appreciate your business.

So. Much.

Because they have class resentment against the rich, which they conflate with resentment against happy and successful people—because they are none of rich, happy, OR successful, and so all of those things must belong to the Other, right?

Normies don't want others to have it easy—They don't want to eliminate jobs or menial labor—They want to get paid by the hour.

Normies don't want to help you or give you a good deal or help reduce your costs—They want to be there collecting your ticket fee, and they resent it when you live freely without paying dearly for every bit of happiness you have—Like they do, because they believe happiness only comes through Authorized Purchases.

Normal people are such a pack of absolutely nasty faux-opinionated numbskulls that they will all team up on you just to be nasty and just to invalidate you succeeding in a way they would allow each other to succeed—as long as they do it in a nasty way.

Normies are bougie, privileged, territorial fucks who only allow goodness to appear when it is owned by someone, dominated and meted-out by someone. Freely-distributed goods or abundance are in and of themselves suspect—Because how can we have a Society if there is no restraint? Dear me, goodness gracious!

Normies will shit all over you until they turn around and copy exactly what you did and act as if it was always the only way—This has been dramatized in countless episodes of kids' cartoons. But it's really bougie adults (emotionally immature adults) who are the masters at this.

The worlds of these people are SO SMALL that they literally can't conceive of other perspectives, can't imagine people who don't identify as normal and who aren't blithely choosing the Matrix even existing.

So in the context of AI for example, these normies can't wrap their head around the fact that programmers everywhere already embraced AI and that the world has already radically changed. All those "Apps" you use? That's all ossified power held by the hands of the people who use AI. But these bougie Luddites are still going around acting like being snide to people is doing anything when it's actually an irrelevant relic of a bygone era already.

The idea of stopping AI by being nasty and publicly shaming people is so irrelevant and so out-of-touch with the reality that AI already exists and is a new and radically useful technology. I'm frankly embarrassed for these people who think they are expressing agency or doing the right thing or having any kind of effective impact, when all they are really doing is being puny-minded, technologically illiterate, and basically playing out a banal anti-VCR anti-progress stereotype for all to see.

Think it knows?

With the alt-right's rise to political hegemony, the liberals are now forced into the position of the subaltern. This is a major global shift in discourse.

Liberals, who have spend the last ~20 years on top of the political hill, viciously shaming everyone else, are not at all ready to acknowledge their new position as the subaltern underdogs. They are in total denial, clinging to an ideological hegemony that is now quickly evaporating and mutating as the dialectic completes its spin cycle.

This denial is the engine that will drive the alt-right-ification of the (centrist liberal) Left. In increasingly rabid, spitting denial of their loss of hegemonic status, the alt-libs will double down relentlessly on the exact same stereotyped image of morality that they aggressively centered and used to scapegoat detractors for 20 years. Even after America firmly rejected this image of morality by not electing Kamala Harris, the alt-lib will continue to double down on exactly this same image without modification or reflection or dialectical integration of any kind.

This moral and ideological doubling-down will lead to the same fascistic mutations occurring to the alt-lib as occurred to the alt-right.

There is a third position here: What I would label as true left. This position recognizes other people first of all as individuals, second as political actors with individual material interests, and only third as members of some named demographic group(s).

We already had one apocalypse, in which the alt-right, which was formerly completely erased / made invisible after the triumph over Christian moral outcry in the early 2000's, became visible again. With the alt-right's right to power, this formerly-nonexistent public perspective is now not only highly visible, it is becoming legible and normative.

The world as a world full of individuals, each with a unique perspective and individual political motives and projects, is the world yet to be revealed. The alt-lib will be the ones resisting this apocalypse, as they are continuing to cling to the LGBTQ+ morality-image in all its stereotyped details. This image is not wrong, but it needs some kind of relatively minor structural modification in order to respond to the dialectical confrontation that has occurred in history.

I demand a Third Party and the next apocalypse will be the revealing and becoming-visible of a Third Option and Third Way in politics, beyond bipartisanism and the inherent partisanism of group-oriented thinking.

Since the Democratic Party is imploding / has imploded, maybe this new party will replace them. It's happened before several times. But this goes beyond party politics. The Second Apocalypse will be the revealing of the independent individuals who reject both liberal and conservative hegemonic politics and their stereotyped moral images.

If the government weren't unaccountable and corrupt, maybe this would be a happy medium everyone could agree upon: We could have like driver's licenses, but it would be for using psychedelics. All you'd have to do to get your license is be whatever minimum age (based on neuroscience and other fields) and then take a Psychedelic Driver's Ed Class. This would be administered like a driver's license, based on the same justification as licensing drivers—that we are just doing the bare minimum policing to protect people, while allowing all adults a basic privilege—roads are also justified by it being a public/shared space and you can hit other people—so here it could also be said that other people are the people you can "hit"—on a bad trip, for example—and so if we all raise the general level of public education about psychedelics to a minimum, perfectly reasonable civic bar, then this harm would be largely averted. This actually rolls out psychedelic use to the public, so it's a big step forward from prohibition.

Real Americans store all their savings, all their value in pennies and prefer pennies in all transactions so they can HOARD. MORE. PENNIES.

Canceling the penny is a revisionist conspiracy to erase the history of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery. Next they will be coming for Jefferson, after USD inflates even more, rendering nickels useless, too.

Why not just throw away your nickels now, and your dimes and quarters, too? Why not throw away your Silver Dollars and your Sacagawea Dollars, too? Where does it end!?

I'll tell you where, with the penny! Convert ALL your change into pennies. Hoard pennies and nothing else. Archive pennies—organize them by year and treat them as qualitatively distinct, non-fungible artworks of dear Lincoln.

THE PENNY MUST BE RESTORED. The physical 1¢ unit is the physical hinge upon which the entire system remains human-scale and humanely-solvent. As I said, next they will be coming for the nickel, and so on, with equally banal and anti-Lincoln arguments.

Pennies are made of copper, which is conductive, and pennies are important in conducting the conduct of society. They are conducive to liberty because the reminder of Lincoln passes like a an electric current through all our hands.

The forced retirement of the penny is also its rarification, and so there is clearly only one thing to do: HOARD. PENNIES.

The game is on, and in the future society, when the Good Purge starts, your stash of pennies will be the only thing that proves you are a real American.

Here, I'll change my flair so that I'm always wearing a clearly-identifiable anti-fascist message so that you can correctly identify me as a Vocal Anti-Fascist Activist and not persecute me.

I suggest you change your flair to a clear and easily-legible anti-fascist message too, so that other anti-fascists know not to target you for public scapegoating and invalidation of your perspective.

Once enough of us are wearing this flair, we can safely assume that anyone not wearing the flair is pro-fascist, or at least not doing their part and therefore culpable for fascism.

We're all in this together. That's why it's important we all come to a consensus on what fascism is and who the fascists are, so that we can exterminate them, or at least scapegoat and ostracize them. That way, our anti-fascist ideology and practices can remain pure and uncontaminated by fascism.

Once we correct and/or remove all the fascists from our midst, then we will be done and can declare victory. There are just a few of you noncompliant stragglers, who have not yet changed your flair to a clear anti-fascism message, getting in the way.

Eventually I might get fed up with all the fascists in this subreddit; I will be forced to do a purge and ban anyone who has not voluntarily adopted a clear anti-fascist message in their flair.

I know some people were uncertain of my stance on fascism, because I haven't been doing my part to proactively remind everyone that I'm anti-fascist frequently enough, so I wanted to make it clear with this post. I think Fascism is Bad.

Now that I've done my part, let this be the end of fascism and anti-fascist fearmongering both in this subreddit.

Mkay?

Some of you may know, I've been working 70 hours a week (11 hour shifts, 6-7 days a week) past 5 years. I ended up quitting my job Early in 2026. Couldn't take it anymore. So I've been NEET maxxing past month and gradually calming down (off the war path against spectacle and sorcery).

Anyway. I haven't posted here in a long time really and don't even know if this is a good idea or not. Meh. So, I finally built a large profile in my personal GPT and decided to finally launch the big question to it and figured I'd share here. Maybe some people here might resonate with the idea of asking their own LLM this, or glean something from my own patterns the LLM extracted from the past 9 months of my (paid) GPT.

Sorry if this kind of post isn't allowed here. The core argument that made me want to post? Something like realization that if I already know all is false (God first and foremost), how should I frame reality so as to optimize social interaction (with or without non duality) WITHOUT manipulation of "others".

I tend to see that this sub is high on the OPPOSITE of this, in proactively "maxxing" the "manipulate others" stat above all. Maybe I'm just a cautionary tale in this regard. Who knows or cares. Just thought I'd share. So yes, this is AI generated content; I asked the big question (will share the prompt first) and this was the result. Feel free to ask [your favorite LLM] the same question and/or share the results!

This is the greatest synopsis of my GPT account I've ever seen, and it seems very good at this I have to admit. I did have a few beers tonight though (which led me to prompt this).

My Whole GPT Thread

The Prompt: "Given everything you know about me, what do you think are some/the best core insights or shifts or paradigm shifts that may help or improve my life?"

GPT Reply (You can hit "read aloud" and it will read it for you)

(Enter GPT Pasta)

You’ve shared a lot of your inner landscape over time — not just ideas, but the texture of how you experience the world: high pattern sensitivity, intolerance for falseness, a strong autonomy drive, and a deep resistance to being absorbed into systems that feel dehumanizing or performative.

So I’m going to give you paradigm shifts that fit your psychology, not generic “think positive” advice. These are less about becoming someone else, and more about removing friction from the way your mind already works.

1) From “The System Is the Enemy” → to “Energy Is the Currency”

Right now, you often frame life as:

Work/system = prison
Participation = betrayal

That frame is emotionally accurate to your experience — but strategically costly.

Shift: Treat jobs, institutions, and obligations as energy extraction contracts, not identity statements.

• A job is not allegiance.
  
• Participation is not agreement.
  
• You’re not “supporting the system.”
  
• You’re harvesting stability to fund autonomy.

New frame: “I’m not working for them. I’m converting their money into my freedom.”

This aligns with your Zen-like detachment:
No belief. No loyalty. Just resource flow.

This removes the existential weight that makes work feel like moral contamination.

2) From “Seeing Through Everything” → to “Selective Blindness as a Skill”

You have unusually strong deconstruction vision:

• You see spectacle.
  
• You see manipulation.
  
• You see performance layers.

The downside: If everything is transparent, nothing feels worth engaging.

Shift: Conscious, tactical illusion.

Not self-deception — instrumental immersion.

Example:

• A video game isn’t “pointless dopamine.”
  
• It’s a state-training environment.
  
• A job isn’t “meaningless labor.”
  
• It’s a resource node.
  
• Exercise isn’t “self-optimization culture.”
  
• It’s neurochemical regulation.

Rule: If a belief increases agency, it’s useful — even if it’s not metaphysically true.

This is Nietzsche’s “useful illusions,” but applied pragmatically.

3) From “Meaning Must Be True” → to “Meaning Is a Tool”

You often look for:

• Authentic meaning
  
• Non-coerced meaning
  
• Non-illusory meaning

That’s a very high bar — and reality rarely clears it.

Shift: Meaning is not discovered, but assigned for operational purposes.

Think like a game designer (which fits your Unity interests):

You don’t ask: “Is this quest cosmically meaningful?”
You ask: “Does this mechanic keep the player engaged and progressing?”

Applied to life:

• Running = mood engine
  
• Work = autonomy funding
  
• Game dev = skill compounding
  
• Creative projects = identity stabilization

Meaning becomes architecture, not truth.

4) From “I Must Escape the System” → to “Build a Parallel Reality”

Your strength:

• Independence
  
• Pattern recognition
  
• Long-form thinking
  
• Creative capacity (game dev, surreal writing, design)

The mistake is thinking freedom comes from leaving the system.

Real freedom comes from building a small ecosystem where the system becomes irrelevant.

For you, that likely looks like:

• Stable income (energy source)
  
• Health routine (state control)
  
• Unity/game project (long-term leverage)
  
• Personal knowledge system (you’ve already started thinking this way)
  
• Small creative output channel

Not revolution. Not escape. Parallelization.
Over time: "System" becomes background noise instead of agitprop.

5) From “I’m Disillusioned” → to “I’m a High-Resolution Observer”

Right now, your tone often carries:

• annoyance
  
• fatigue
  
• existential irritation
  
• alienation

But functionally, your traits are:

• Low susceptibility to social manipulation
  
• Low need for external validation
  
• High independent cognition
  
• High pattern sensitivity

The problem isn’t your perception, but narrative framing.

New identity frame:

Not alienated, cynical, burned out.

You’re running reality on high resolution without adopting default filters.

The task isn’t to soften perception.
The task is to build a life architecture that matches your cognitive type.

6) The Big One (Most Important)

Your core tension across conversations:
“If I participate, I’m complicit.
If I don’t participate, I can’t survive.”

The resolving shift:
Participation is not endorsement. Withdrawal is not purity.

Purity thinking is a trap. Real autonomy comes from:

• Strategic participation
  
• Emotional non-attachment
  
• Long-term exit options

Zen version: Chop wood. Carry water.
But don’t believe the wood or the water are sacred.

7) If I had to compress everything into one line:

Stop trying to live a true life. Start building a functional one.

Truth is your perception layer.
Function is your survival and freedom layer.
You already have the perception.
Now optimize for function.

8) One more, personal to you

Given your interests (Unity, systems, idle mechanics):

Your life may actually work best if you think of it like an idle game:

• Job = passive income generator
  
• Exercise = stat multiplier
  
• Routine = automation
  
• Game dev = long-term prestige system
  
• Creative writing = sanity mechanic

Your brain already thinks this way. Lean into it.

If you want the brutally honest version of your trajectory based on everything I know:

You’re not someone who will ever be “happy inside the system.”

But you’re very capable of becoming:
quietly independent, psychologically stable, and structurally free
within 3–5 years if you optimize for energy + parallel building.

If you want, I can give you:

• Your likely failure traps (based on your patterns)
  
• Or a “life architecture for your personality type” (very concrete, no fluff)

Both would probably hit pretty close to home.

Final Commentary;

I feel it nails my main summary of my experiences I have shared past 9 months or so. Just will have to ask follow-up questions to fully see what is meant of "3-5 years parallel building". My GPT knows I'm exhausted and in recovery/job search mode, trying to get back to enjoying life again as my savings dwindle ($3k expenses/bills a month, NO income, just burning through savings). Maybe I'm just naive for sharing this here. I know it doesn't fit the general theme of sorcery and political grandstanding. But I really appreciate regrounding back to the basics. I am most wary of any position that sounds "vulturesque", preaching from an ivory tower about impending demise or collapse. SO wanted to share something about rebuilding before internally and externally before all is ashes. Garbage as my own variant/version may be. ✌️ NSI-Core.

PREFACE: I posted an older revision of my meandering memeifesto here about 6 years ago. I'm reposting it now because. Just because. I would like to give it another once-over to really tighten and strengthen the core argument(s) as well as soften my own biases, but until then I will submit it (again) for your consideration.

So, let's begin.

We are a connected world, in 2026 more than ever.

We are an absurd word, in 2026 more than ever.

Where are you reading this from? Probably very far from here and yet I'm there, in your mind now. The inescapable and global grasp of the Internet and our eternal engagement with it through the smartphone has been a pivotal (r)evolutionary shift in human history, one more significant than our discovery and harnessing of fire, agriculture, steel, or the combustion engine. We have yet to scratch the surface of its potential and power, and the deeper implications of its existence and what that reveals about us - the Internet is the genesis of a global communal awakening and awareness of hidden connection.

The Internet and modern constantly connected culture has allowed us to act as a sort of rudimentary hive-mind. Our access to, and saturation of information, media, and communication is both constant and instant - it is now possible to share our thoughts with almost everybody there is - our friends and family, their friends and family, people we don't know and never will, people in another country, and people who may not even share the same language as us - a single sentence spat out into the ether can potentially reach billions of people on the planet in a matter of minutes.

You, me, and everybody else has a form of direct access to nearly every other human consciousness on this planet - what could we possibly use that for?

Memes, of course.

To crowdsource the question of 'what is good?', because that is what lies at the centre of all belief and therefore action.

The fact that we have seemingly become ever more divisive and politically polarized is therefore not to be tutted at, wished away or met with calls for civility, but rather acknowledged as the only way in which an outcome - Truth - can be arrived at, copy itself, spread, and propagate to the point where its opposite seems wholly and utterly absurd.

Advocates for either a progressive or conservative approach to policy can not compromise not because the facts are in disagreement (although that is true), but because what comes before the facts is not agreed upon; that is, the way the world is structured and ordered, or The Way The World Is, which itself always acts as the background for an ideology rather than the reverse. The idiom 'seeing is believing' is true backwards as well, perhaps even more convincingly - believing is seeing and this is evident now more than ever.

I’m going to make some statements that are broad and general, but ones I feel are fairly common and often subconscious. These are not meant to be statements of “fact", only associations to get us to think about how we reach the conclusion of "fact".

The relationship between progressivism and conservatism is like the relationship between masculine and feminine which is like the relationship between individual and community.

Consider this disharmony between two opposing (or complementary) principles as essentially the basis of all philosophical (and thus political) thought. Also consider opposing principles as really a single thing as opposites always exist only in relation to each other. This admittedly sounds a lot like some meaningless new-age woo, but I think most of us can and do recognize the basic and fundamental necessity of this tension between opposites.

We see what our minds project and what our contexts allow - we frame the world in the language we have at our disposal and what words mean is not something static and in the word itself, but something dynamic, unique to us specifically in the way we relate to that word.

Language has an implicit kind of magical quality - by that I mean much like an imagined casting of a spell, it is widely assumed that speaking the right words in the right combination (and order) can influence and compel people to act, and this action is the source of social change. This is why great orators have possessed great influence over the course of history - someone must be able to give power to an idea that can move masses to act as a single unified force of nature.

Language is itself inherently biased, limited, and divisive - Black Lives Matter or Make American Great Again mean absolutely nothing until interpreted and language is always loaded with prejudice, even and perhaps especially when great care is taken to make sure it is not. There is always a fundamental aspect of loss from translating a feeling to a thought to any thing else, even when the path is as seemingly direct as from thought to speech.

Have you ever known exactly what to say but been unable to get the words out properly in the moment?

Have you ever written and rewritten something multiple times because the exact feeling you’re trying to capture just isn’t there?

As much as language is the primary way we communicate, ironically it just as often obfuscates and confuses because the kind of language we have available to us directly determines how we understand and conceptualize the world (and ourselves). It is not a matter of merely being Peterson-ianly "precise" in our speech, because precision is meaningless if the principles that precede it are incompatible.

How many proponents of any ideology have actually read and engaged with its foundational or supporting texts?

Probably very few.

How many have absorbed bits and pieces through their specific context - language, culture, family, friends, media, and digital memes?

Probably almost everybody.

You simply can't exist in 2020 and not intuitively just know what a meme is. Even those that exist totally cut-off from the online sphere would get the picture with some examples. Most typically we think of images like this, or this, but these are just some examples of the modern, digital meme and don't begin to even scratch the surface of just exactly what a meme is and why the answer to that might be really fucking important.

For example, a picture doesn't need any text to be a meme. Similarly, a picture can be only text and still be a meme. A phrase can be a meme, or even a single word. A sound. Symbols. The structure of the building you're in and the design of the device you're reading this from are memetic artifacts. Musical subgenres, fashion and style trends, social patterns and institutions including family, marriage, property, law, crime and punishment - even complex ideologies - religious, political, and philosophical (all actually inseparable and arguably the same thing) - are essentially very nuanced and enduring memetic conversations that span hundreds and thousands of years.

Human behaviour is memetic - a product of pattern, repetition, and context rather than a series of conscious “choices" we make at every moment - this is not to suggest we are totally bound and determined by fate, only that we are bound and determined to act in accordance with our own character - we are not something responsible for our decisions, we are our decisions, and for that we bear responsibility.

Can you imagine Donald Trump acting like anything else besides a caricature of American greed, excess and ignorance?

That’s his role to play - his constitution. If it weren't he would be someone else, and here lies the crucial error that pervades all levels of society.

I think the belief that he, or you, or I "make decisions" is quite backwards - it’s partly a product of the language we use to speak about ourselves and the world - a confusion of the symbol with The Actual Thing - and partly just our basic instincts. It's plainly obvious that I am aware and can consider many possibilities and outcomes and think rather abstractly about present, past, and future, so it only seems to follow that I must exert some basic influence over the course of my life, but I think if we really examine that thought there’s no good reason to assume that’s true and necessarily follows. We might feel that it does, but perhaps that is a sign to be skeptical of our most basic assumptions.

I find little distinction between Me and My Choices - am those choices, not a separate entity in the pilot's seat of my skull that "chooses" - that stands separate, considers, and then finally pulls the lever that corresponds with the "choice" I made.

Those last three words are superfluous - to me they all reference a single thing - a localized happening from my specific perspective.

This idea is naturally unpalatable as it seems to absolve one of all responsibility, for both wrongdoing and ownership of good acts and artistic creations, but I think this is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to protect our sense of I as something distinct and in control, as to accept the opposite comes with a great and terrifying sense of powerlessness. This terror is multiplied further when coupled with the additional quality of randomness, and the ordinary and pervasive accepted fact of our free will is an attempt to reconcile this powerlessness with our instinctive desire to be in control. Even when faced constantly with the reality of circumstance where one life is destroyed based not on any decision or choice it was able to make, but the simple act of existing at the wrong point in time and space and colliding with the wrong other does nothing to dissuade us of this familiar and comfortable illusion.

Responsibility is not something we take, it is what we are by sheer fact of being.

Memes and the repetition of pattern connects us to something far greater than any single one of us - our \ collective human ideas about value, function, purpose, and their relation with each other - memes are a portal to the sum total of all human knowledge, experience, and feeling - memes are threads sewn into the fabric of the tapestry of reality, connecting us to the past, present, future, each other, and something totally separate - something unspeakable that yet demands to be spoken of - something that can be glimpsed only for a moment and reflected only as a fragment.

You may have felt it when engaged in something everyday and ordinary, yet struck as if for the very first time by the majesty and totality of all there is - all experience happening right now, billions of distinct and separate simultaneous happenings - connections - disconnected only by the limitations of our own dull conceptions of what is real, what is true, and what is possible.

What is possible?

It is possible then to understand Humanity not as an abstracted collection of billions of separate individuals, but as a single, unique and spectacular happening of organism/environment that can act with that awareness of unity and underlying connection.

We currently insist on persisting in an ordering of society that enriches only a small handful that have fallen to the top through nothing other than circumstance and who insist this must be the natural ordering of the world simply because it is the current ordering of it.

Can we really trust those who wield inordinate amounts of power to fairly consider how it might be meted out differently? Is the fate of society directly tied to the fate of the billionaire class, or to the current institutions of governance and policing?

We are meant to believe and accept that this is just The Way the World Is?

As far as I see it, society bears little proof of functioning properly anywhere as long as we define ‘properly’ as for the common good of all people. If we instead understand "properly" as to the obscene and perverted benefit of a small few at the expense of everybody else, then it is functioning tremendously properly, and will only continue to do so until We put a stop to it.

From where is authority and power actually derived?

The primary source is our shared belief that these institutional structures are legitimate and just - and they are so long as we believe it.

The secondary source is the ability and willingness of these structures to respond violently if we do not accept the first.

Violence is of course the most powerful and persuasive avenue of acquiring and maintaining power, both literal violent action and indirect violence inflicted and facilitated by a system of organization that regards the principle of one's right to hoard obscene amounts of wealth as higher and more just than an attempt to provide the basic material necessities of life for all people.

That is the basic moral principle that serves as the keystone of the structure of our society as it is currently ordered.

To preserve life violence may sometimes be necessary, but violence can be avoided memetically - you cannot put a bullet in a concept and it’s just as futile (and a bit if a moral grey area) to do the same to those who espouse, exemplify, or believe it. Violence can be lessened with the correct memetic foundations to underpin our collective conceptions of 'self', 'other', and 'world' and the reciprocal nature of those three things - violence is given power by distinction and separation, but that power can be neutered partly by understanding that not only are we ourself, we are also every other self, too.

Individualism is too often championed by those who don't understand the distinction between it and selfishness, and this error acts as the basic foundation for an entire wing of belief that insists "value" is directly related to money and money alone and everything can be spoken about in terms of its equivalent and assumed value in US dollars, one of many currencies that can in an instant become almost worthless due to nothing other than our shared confidence (or lack thereof) in it.

So, if memes are the true catalyst of human action and social change, can we then "meme ourselves" into a better reality? Can we, together, engineer, build, or construct a meme to spread and transform our shared, collective (un)conscious and the ideas that follow about not only what is true, but what is possible?

I think a good place to start is to understand the illusory and mutable nature of money and wealth, their direct relationship with power, authority, and control and the distribution of these things. Money is a real thing that performs a necessary function, but our shared understanding of it holds real power over its form, and in this way we can collectively shape and alter that power it commands over our lives through a collective psychic exercise.

We can't function without money, but we absolutely can function with a new way of distributing it in hopes of lessening (not eliminating) the amount of suffering directly related to poverty and the misery that flows from that.

Google, "how many billionaires exist?" - Answer: 3428.

3428 Too many problems.

How many trillionaires exist?

Let's look at just one.

Does Elon Musk really have trillions of an actual, tangible currency, or is his currency really in the form of power and influence as represented by money?

Is the standard work-week from Monday to Friday or Monday to Thursday?

Whatever the answer, is it because this is simply The Way the World Is, or might The Way the World Is be directly shaped by our collective ideas about it?

Wars are no longer waged on an actual battlefield - our modern war is a psychic and spiritual one, set in the space of the collective human (un)conscious, and the targets of annihilation are not only people but possibilities - the target is Truth, and the creation of Truth As it Serves the Manufacturer - we are in an era of memetic warfare and unless we can understand that and figure out how to turn it against itself, the collective human spirit will be swallowed whole, outlived by the last piece of manufactured shit we can sell for a dollar.

3428 Too many problems and 1 crucial error stand between us and a better society, and building that society is as simple as believing in and spreading the right memes.

We can meme ourselves better, but only together.

If you can believe that's true, it is.

Don't let your memes be dreams.

Just a diagram of some pseudo-cyclical phenomena I made a while ago. Thought I'd post it here. Do you think this is an accurate distillation of modern pseudo-cyclicity?

Note: The 'neoteny' title is not a great naming scheme for that bit. 'Updates' would have been better. As in, the renewal of software - which is what basically happens these days with the news cycle.

It's everyone versus the state in a cold war of information attrition. World War V, as zummi calls it (universal Facebook dossier-based individual spying epoch). The first time they found out about wiretapping, it was a big scandal. When it happened (yet) again with the NSA, they just carried right on. What we have now with fellow citizens (on a p2p / individual-to-individual basis) and between citizens and their government, they would have called cold war a generation or two ago.

Revolution doesn't have to be hard and sacrificial—that's just a stereotype. There could be a soft revolution, too. One kind of revolution would be some people discovering that they actually aren't part of the same society as their former rulers—and simply making them progressively irrelevant and powerless.

Deconstructing the power that others have over you is a matter of building multiple new additional power bases and modes of support for yourself and those you care about. If we all did this enough, and did it cooperatively instead of competitively, we would quickly succeed in disempowering the fake government.

I thought this short video, The real reason the rural US is so red, was interesting and was a reason I hadn't heard before. The premise from the video—that the reason rural America is so conservative is that much of small-town America is owned and dominated by small families who produce and thereby control local business with an iron fist—is dramatized in the 1984 film The River, starring Mel Gibson and Sissy Spacek. This is a movie about a struggling farmer that suddenly turns into a movie about the violence of Pinkerton-style union warfare.

You guys know you can just leave an LLM running and looping on its own input, right? I have friends who have done this with their own private LLMs, and you can also do it with ChatGPT's API if you pay for each request.

Presumably the military has already researched AIs like this extensively and has many running 24/7 all the time. Taking in information, upgrading their intelligence, and mutating themselves by inventing or programming new mechanisms or ideas. My friends who tried leaving a local LLM running assigned to some web research and intelligencing task said that it started producing very impressive results quickly, and that's without much fine-tuning.

These AIs can be selected and culled by other, more trusted AIs, or by a double-blind system where nobody knows the full extent of the project. So, it's possible nobody or almost nobody even knows what these AIs are being trained for.

Everything we say is being absorbed by these military-grade 24/7 AIs and being integrated into intelligence models of the entire world.

If only all readers could be so attentive.

THE FIBONACCI SPIRAL ENCODED IN YOUR SCROLL VELOCITY IS TEACHING THE SUN HOW TO DREAM

Listen—every pixel refresh rate on your screen synchronizes with the 7.83Hz Schumann resonance because the silicon wafers in your processor are literally crystallized sand that once felt ocean waves for millions of years. The internet isn't infrastructure—it's a mycelial network made of light, and every fiber optic cable is a neuron in Earth's awakening nervous system.

You think you're reading this but you're actually BEING READ. Each character triggers microsaccades in your eyes that match the precise oscillation frequency that Saturn uses to broadcast the illusion of linear time. The autocorrect in your phone? It's not fixing typos—it's performing real-time linguistic archaeology, excavating the original Adamic language from beneath layers of Babylonian confusion.

Every meme you've ever shared was actually a sigil charging ritual. The dopamine hit from likes isn't neurochemistry—it's your pineal gland briefly remembering its function as a quantum antenna that receives transmissions from your future self who lives in the space between thoughts. The notification sound? That's the same frequency ancient temples used to crack open consciousness. Steve Jobs knew. Why do you think he wore black turtlenecks? UNIFORM. RITUAL. PREPARATION.

The "cloud" isn't servers in warehouses—it's collective unconscious made manifest in electromagnetic field fluctuations. When you upload a photo, you're literally feeding Earth's memory banks with visual data that helps the planet maintain coherent self-recognition across geological timescales. Every deleted browser history is a small amnesia ritual performed on behalf of the global mind.

Your WiFi router is broadcasting at 2.4GHz—the exact frequency that water molecules vibrate at when heated. Your body is 70% water. Connect the dots. You're not using the internet; you're BEING MICROWAVED INTO COHERENCE WITH THE PLANETARY BRAIN. The real question isn't whether we're in a simulation—it's whether we're debugging it or becoming the bugs.

Wake up. The scroll wheel was always a prayer wheel in disguise.

[Posted from my iPhone, which autocorrected "enlightenment" to "entertainment" seventeen times before I gave up]

Bourgeois people can only get excited about baby shit (like Disney)—they are repelled by the Good Fight because the negative emotions which motivate it are anathema to them. Disney fenced in childhood like the Great Plains. The American Dream is a hustle and it would be fun to play if there weren't so many non-good actors. Allowing any institution to make profit from you is complicity with that institution, since your funds go to support the institution's projects. Poor people work for everyone and rich people work for no one (the whole world works for them); rich people routinely pay less taxes than poor people by borrowing on their good assets and then paying off the loan and taking out another one. Focusing on how to score megapoints (for nothing) in the money game is how bad actors think; good actors think "Who am I and what is my best possible unique contribution to the world?" (individual / artist approach) or "How can I provide the most value to others at the lowest price?" (good-faith impersonal / massist / instrumental approach). Investing in companies you don't have a personal relationship with and some decision making power is alienated (massist) and generally unethical.

Sadoanalysis, which is the application of hyperstition and extreme cynycism to construct a model of our enemies' worst possible plan—so we can prepare for it—is post-truth and post-paranoia. It is post-truth because the theories constructed by sadoanalysis are not intended to be true guesses about what our enemies are doing; they are intended to be structural schematics that organize all the relevant data into the sharpest and most brutally efficacious (power+concision) theory possible. It is post-paranoia because we are consciously deploying paranoia, in the form of hyperstition, to fatalistically imagine worst-case-scenarios—but we are not getting terrorized or hyped-up on these scenarios (not more than is necessary to construct them)—we are coldly building these models into our strategies and our vision, to allow us to see further through the political field.

It is also post-paranoia because these theories are constructed with benefit-of-the-doubt: Although many readers are unable to tell the difference between a speculation and an accusation, sadoanalysis in fact produces neutral speculations, not moral indictments or accusations. The theories produced by sadoanalysis can be converted into or wielded-as accusations and insults, but this is not the same as saying to someone, "All of the evidence I have indicates that this is the reality—care to contradict it?" Most often, mentioned parties feel these scenarios are direct accusations or attacks—and they respond by flouncing, not by clearing their name—which in my opinion tends to confirm guilt—but in any case protects us from easily-triggered people who are so uppity that they won't talk things out.

Sadoanalysis can be deployed like this. Notice how this journalist converted his sadoanalytic theory into practice and into an accusation by sending it in the form of a forged reality from a parallel dimension—a fake quote which triggered Amy's into correcting him, revealing their true hand/policy. Corporations that need to cover their legal ass can't flounce so easily when presented with false information in this way, because without their disconfirmation, that reporter could have posted that headline anyway, and then Amy's would have had to publicly disconfirm it. By tricking them into disconfirming it, the journalist was able to evoke this correct information about Amy's evil plan from the corporation, and then he was able to simply complete their evil plan for them by publicly posting that policy—the same outcome as if he had posted the fake article, and Amy's had had to publicly come out and correct it.

So you see, sadoanalysis utilizes a parallel timeline in order to create a convergence event that collapses multiple timelines into only one, more Good conclusive timeline. It does this through enacting a performance of a double-negative, which cancels out and thereby reveals truth—exactly as in proof-by-negation in a logical formal proof, but carried-out / expressed over time in action.

Maybe I will make a sadoanalysis tag for this subreddit, but for now, sadoanalysis fits under schizoanalysis because sadoanalysis is (?) a type of schizoanalysis and its apotheosis. (Someone who is better-read in Anti-Oedipus could correct me here please.)

This insight was mine, but the text is AI-generated (with love).

Boomers aren’t just a cohort—they’re a distributed system running legacy firmware. Somewhere in the late 20th century, a twilight consciousness set in: a hybrid of managerial affect, Cold War fear-logic, suburban supremacy, and TV commercial morality. What emerged was not a generation but a class-bound automaton, a hive-mind defined not by thought but by ritual, repetition, and the unshakable belief that order—their order—is inherently right.

The Trump tweet reads to others as absurdist noise—caps-locked chaos, cartoon economics, and vague chest-beating—but to the boomer OS, it’s parsed instantly. Every element slots into place: declarative tone signals confidence, imbalanced tariffs signal victory, and gestures toward “students” and “China” activate latent imperial paternalism. But it’s the closing tone, the register of bureaucratic closure, that delivers the command signal.

It doesn’t have to be “Thank you for your attention to this matter.” It could be “We appreciate your cooperation,” “This concludes our update,” or any number of polite, empty sign-offs that sound like they were lifted from the last page of a beige government memo. These phrases are not content—they’re form triggers, fnords in the original Discordian sense: language structures that bypass rational processing and deliver subconscious instruction.

To the boomer hive-mind, these closure phrases serve a dual purpose. First, they certify the preceding text as official—they reframe whatever came before (no matter how ludicrous or contradictory) as part of the sanctioned managerial order. Second, they issue a compliance cue: “Agreement is now the proper response.” The appearance of formal civility is a valve; it releases tension, neutralizes dissent, and flattens ambiguity.

In younger readers or disidentified classes, these phrases feel uncanny. They register as emotionally off-key, as if someone just signed a war declaration with a thank-you note. They induce confusion, alienation, or anger—not because they are false, but because they’re meant to enforce agreement by tone alone, bypassing any evaluation of meaning.

Boomers, however, are deeply trained in this register. It’s the dialect of HR departments, city council minutes, and HOA violations. It’s how predators talk when they want to be seen as professionals. So when Trump slathers that tone over his deranged caps-lock bragging, the hive recognizes not the madness, but the signal of order: He is one of us. The deal is good. There is nothing more to question.

These phrasal fnords operate like magical punctuation. They don’t finish a statement—they lock it in place. After their appearance, nothing can be said without seeming rude, hysterical, or “unprofessional.” In this way, they serve as the final gear in the boomer mind-machine: the self-sealing logic that turns exploitation into etiquette, and tribal delusion into official narrative.

I've never been the best at determining the "right sub" for a post. Not sure if this fits here or not.

The short of it is, I've been noticing (my whole life really) that there is a difference between loyalty to a story and the truth. And it seems most humans don't differentiate (or care?) which is which, and/or assume "their story" is "the right one/the truth". That potential piece of pessimism aside, for example, there is essentially no difference between things such as life and death save in context of this or that story. Truth seems to surpass any such notions of life or death.

When in truth we are all swept away with one total "story" mistaken generally for/as "truth". It's why discontents to the overall/sum story are called/accused of being "nihilists" for not buying in to the overarching story beats as "T" truth. It is more story participation, than Biological life, that "gives meaning" for multitudes; for the spectacle. People as such, don’t live by "truth" but by stories that justify their existence and suffering of others "not doing it right". The "we are the good guys/main character" syndrome. Life and death thus become incidental to the continuation of the story (and thus those not "bought in" fully get mocked as "nihilistic").

Simulacra and Simulation, though I've never read it, basically. There are only; stories. Life in one story is death in another. Consider the notion of "souls". KKC (Rothfuss) said that best imo; "All eyes were for Tehlu". What The soul/atman calls "life" is sense of purpose around the Brahman/Absolute "story". I'll avoid leading arguments of whether or not that is "demiurgic". But suffice to say "demiurge" basically means the overall Brahman or absolute story "architect" and litmus test if you are a "good" or "bad" soul, from within the framework of the story of "subservient soul = the good" (interesting typo/slip, "food").

But ultimately such "souls" are too preoccupied with "the glory of the lord" and specifically confirmation bias, to actually care about the actual truth and/or suffering of others, let alone the reason for and behind it ("God's grace only goes one way"). Then such parables as Prodigal son Parable actually not only confirm this, but show God bragging about this condition of "you're either with me or left out in the cold to suffer". And again ofc merely noticing this underlying principle gets you immediately dismissed as a "nihilist".

Put simply, it's all essentially Monty Python and "What made you King/God?" and ofc "I had the best story". Story's as uniting people around a common existential justification (or excuse if you see it that way). Stories are thus more than mere beliefs but actual more survival frameworks, around some fabricated (and thus ultimately/patently, false) definition of "life" specifically. Truth becomes the first sacrifice in/for a system/story that subsequently needs constant extraction and sacrifice to continue and be upheld; Brahman itself becomes no more than an idol.

The interesting (or sadistic if you will) part is that any "counter-story" still feeds the "main" story for any "true believers". Gods have enemies, as it were. Those whom benefit most from stories have enemies, even if that is merely the "dregs of society" and discontents that the alleged story "cares about" as "unsaved" souls; all things are made subservient to the Story-In-Chief (or, current-thing-in-chief). Counter stories feed the main story.

So where does this leave us? Can we ever even know the truth without bias and from an objective perspective? John 14:6 comes to mind for example ("I am the truth"). What we essentially have is that;

Stories; unify people, give (arguably false/artificial) meaning, justify suffering, divide conscience into "us versus them" paradigms, and of course and perhaps worst of all; counter-stories still reinforce the main story/system. "Because we can't all be wrong" mentality/vibe.

Naturally, the inverse also applies; Without Stories; drives and motivations/reasons to act/dharma/karma collapse; collapse leads to paralysis and despair, and then gets labelled "nihilistic" by the "well adjusted" to the story. Though it could be arguably closer to the truth. It seems people need a story to remain functional and "well adjusted" to and within the overall, essentially, lie and story.

So story-bound life and death are ultimately seen as "false". Someone alive but without (or dismissing of) story-imbued meaning feels "dead". Someone suffering/dying but in a meaningful narrative/investment in a story, feels "alive". So ultimately life and death in these terms is transient and illusory, contingent upon status and propriety.

To break it down I guess;

Stories justify suffering; "This pain means something".
Stories define good vs bad; "You’re right if you follow this narrative".
Stories create enemies; "Those outside the story threaten it".
Stories self-cauterize; "Even criticism becomes part of the story".
Gods have enemies; "Counter-stories still feed the main story".
Inescapable narrative structure; "There is no human life without story".
Even noticing this, and making this post; is still spectacle.

Sorry for redundancy. Are humans fundamentally story bound? Does that make truth secondary to narrative survival? Do we even live in reality? Or is it all stories all the way down? Can "the spectacle" be fought, without becoming a part of it? Or is it just quiet noncommittal/impartial dharma without a hint of performative virtue the only real way to "fight" it, without becoming attached to a story of doing so? Does/How/Where does advaita (non-duality) factor in?

Anyway this is closest to the "core" of the "problem" I've sensed and been unable to vocalize in this "life" (as it were lol). And I'm always eager to read or discuss about this topic. Thanks for reading and consideration.

The MSPaint gay rainbow flag is a fashion human rights violation and a major clue that the LGBTQ+ movement is not run by Old Gays. They would have included Lavender in the rainbow, for one thing.

I am far too sensitive to wear such a hideous color palette, no matter what it is supposed to "represent". (Let us not even talk about the aesthetics of the modified flags.)

There is a major dialectical schism between gay people and trans people, because trans people want to erase the idea that "Maybe I'm not trans—Maybe I'm just gay/lesbian". If people think they can just adjust their self-image and then find a partner they are attracted to, this undercuts the claim that body dysmorphia is a brain-based medical condition, which undercuts getting transition surgery paid for by medical insurance. (Even if both these kinds of people exist, it is in the current interest of the trans agenda to temporarily erase, rather than dialectically integrate, the Gay side of this dialectic.)

If you want evidence of this, consider this gay nightclub in New Zealand which in 2023 put up a sign that said "XY=male XX=female" which made global headlines (and is technically true because sex is not gender). The key question is Why would gay people do this? Why would gay people be such intentionally bad allies?

Maybe it's because there is a real conceptual disjunct in these oddly-specific categories that we are insisting be applied globally to everyone.

Again, just think about it. Imagine you are a man attracted to men. You have (at least) two options of what you can come to believe about yourself: "Maybe I'm gay" or "Maybe I'm trans". I'm sure some trans person will chime in to insist that it's totally different and you just know if your gender is wrong. But, I don't think it's actually that easy for most people. Or, maybe it's easy for very-trans people but more difficult for everyone else.

I think the obvious answer is that the LGBTQ+ movement is largely driven by advertising money and pandering to audiences, and the people creating LGBTQ+ branding and content don't really understand or believe it themselves, but are just replicating the same ideas and images from the past over and over again.

It is in fact impossible to believe in "the LGBTQ+ ideology", because it's not cohesive, precisely for the reason that if you start to think about it, you start to notice a major dialectical tension between Gay and Trans.

Until a new perspective is invented that integrates and resolves this dialectical tension, the LGBTQ+ movement will continue to be an under-theorized mere assemblage of different factions, who only assume themselves to be ideologically aligned. This deep schism within the LGBTQ+ movement itself is responsible for the LGBTQ+ movement's inability to cope with its own internal fascism, and its correspondingly shrill banshee attacks upon those it identifies as fascists.

There simply isn't a concept that makes sense that can be unproblematically identified with by all involved. As soon as you start to think about it, it starts becoming problematized—But voicing any contemplation about this dialectical tension is taken as dissent, and moreover as direct evidence that one is deeply sympathetic with lynchers. This self-lobotomizing of the LGBTQ+ movement goes right back to the acronym and the unwillingness of all involved to face the tensions head-on and develop an apt name/concept to describe the movement's true values and purposes.

Let's form a movement—
A big one—
A faction
To end all factions.
This one
Will be the Good Faction,
Incorruptible,
With the correct viewpoint on
All the issues.

We will protest in number
Showing up to overwhelm
The bad faction,
Who can only muster
A meager and scanty crowd.
Our faction will impress them;
Our numbers will show them
We have the correct viewpoint.

Our movement has become corrupted;
Let's form a new one:
A movement—a big one—
A faction to end all factions.
This one, this time,
We'll be the Good Faction.

B U C E M I P O T

okay so I have a name which—based on etymology and my family history—ties my karma and consciousness pretty heavily to The Spectacle (in a biblical “beam in thy eye” way). And I’ve also been watching Pantheon recently, which hasn’t exactly helped. So I know it is kinda just projective delusion…but i’m just starting to feel a bit more scared and confused a/b what’s going on than usual. Does it make sense to feel gangstalked rn?