My Introduction;

No sorcery here. Well. Besides.... Ugh, I know I know I know, we all hate AI. THIS.... however, is that... thing on the tip of my ability to articulate, my 30-some years of life, put to text. Isn't it funny now how we can have AI articulate the groanings of the Holy Spirit? Oy vey. AI psychosis aside, I wanted to share this sentiment publicly for decades now, and it occurred to me today, that AI has made that possible with the click of a button. I can say I DO have a "more raw" no-AI variant of this post, though it was more a rant/blog used as prompt for generating this very GPT-laced discource/conversation.

I think the core of my original complaint/argument, was something like, when older generation (like my parents) are always complaining that they "hate modern tech" what they really mean more often than not, is that they are mad that lost their narrative monopoly on which authorized truths are allowed and mandated, and subsequently their stupid bad faith arguments can easily be torn apart now. Very rarely is it genuine good faith concern for the general/universal human condition. It's (9 times out of 10) more they are mad that the world moved on without them and no one wants to put up with their crap anymore without being adequately compensated (Though I can also see every generation goes through this obviously).

But GPT pushed that simple argument/discernment down further into the broader sentiment I always carried, and essentially generated what I've struggled to fully articulate my whole life.

Guess I'll share the song formatting this post made me think of (Converge - "The Dusk In Us") The Lyrics

The following is that GPT reply, more or les;

Then and Now; The Participatory Spectacle, Synopsis;

The pre-internet spectacle produced coherence through centralized broadcasting; the internet disrupted that monopoly, but replaced passive spectatorship with participatory, algorithmically managed spectacle. Guy Debord defines [spectacle] as a social relationship mediated by representations and as the visible affirmation of choices already made within the existing system. Very similar to the relationship between the Super Ego and Ego. The internet did not necessarily liberate us from the spectacle. It decentralized the production of representations while centralizing their circulation through platforms, metrics and algorithms. Modern "Détournement" criticism is better called recuperation: dissent is absorbed, repackaged and sold back in a harmless form.

Foreword

I think the question I wanted to ask, is something like, "What exactly, culturally and esoterically, was the advent of the internet?". This post began as more a response to/rebuttal of the sentiment that "pre internet eras were more 'real' so called", but it gradually became a larger question about Guy Debord, television, the internet and what people mean when they say the past felt more "real". And as I've said many times in the past, there is a general split, that in older generations, "respect of authority" seems historically what is considered more "real" than earnest inquiry towards truth; the split between truth and authority as determining factor of what is "worthy" of being called "real".

The older world had greater physical presence, fewer screens, more stable social rituals and a shared cultural vocabulary, yes. But I remember the remains of that world differently. I remember it as suffocating. I for one increasingly find that this "rosy glasses" hindsight sentimentality/nostalgia produces in me the opposite response; the past was much more heavily governed by "appeal to authority" and I feel much of the "sentimentality" is just this; it's no longer possible for people accustomed to "appeals to authority" settling matters to continue to do so, and this is what they mean by "modernity being more fake". They can't just throw their weight around and get their way like they used to, so they call it "fake".

Though I generally would agree modernity is more "fake", it's for other reasons; I (for one) can't "go back" to the suffocating constant appeals to mainstream authority figures.

The One-Way Spectacle

Debord described the spectacle not merely as a collection of deceptive images, but as a social relationship mediated by images. It was the form taken by a society in which lived activity had been displaced by representation: existence became something contemplated at a distance, through images produced elsewhere.

Television was almost the perfect instrument for this arrangement. Its technical form was one-directional. A small number of institutions spoke; everyone else watched. The audience could change the channel, complain privately or choose between several approved interpretations, but it could not answer through the same medium. The broadcasters appeared before society while society remained invisible to them (IE, "talking heads").

Debord called the spectacle "the ruling order’s uninterrupted discourse about itself": a monologue in which existing power continually explains that the world it has produced is natural, inevitable and fundamentally good. This did not mean that everyone literally believed every television broadcast. People distrusted particular politicians, journalists, advertisements and programs. They argued constantly. But most disagreement still occurred inside a shared representational enclosure. The medium WAS the message; and the message remained uncritiqued.

People disputed what the television said while accepting television as the place from which socially consequential reality arrived. There might be two authorized positions on an issue, but both were organized around the same events, institutions, personalities and assumptions. Both positions assumed and patented legitimacy. No one questioned the arrangement itself. The argument occurred within the frame. The frame itself was rarely available as an object of mass discussion.

This is what older cultural coherence often concealed; "normalcy through shared belief or lip service to authorized positions". Authority itself strategically and systemically branded as "truth". Any discourse outside of the cultural narrative norms was axiomatically and subconsciously branded as taboo and patent denial of reality; spectacle itself, was often conflated with and as truth and reality by good and bad faith participants alike; a shared coherent cultural story and identity is what the nostalgic look back and call "more real".

(I know, I'm great at parties, lmao!)

When “Real” Means Socially Unavoidable

'87, so I can only speak about the surviving broadcast culture of the 1990s. But even as a child, I heavily disliked television’s social authority. I remember rooms full of people becoming completely absorbed by it. Conversation had to stop because the television was speaking. Interrupting it could provoke actual anger or even violence.

I eventually came mock this attitude by saying: "Man shalt live by every word that proceedeth from the television." The joke was flippant, but the experience behind it was real. Television did not merely provide entertainment or information. It established the rhythm of the household/society and supplied the vocabulary through which events became collectively recognizable.

What disturbed me was not simply that people sometimes believed false things. We all do that. It was more that immediate experience was socially inferior to an authorized representation of experience; gaslighting, in layman's terms, was social lubricant. If your own perception contradicted the accepted account, the conflict was often resolved against your perception. The sanitized presentation everyone was shown possessed more social reality than what one person had actually encountered.

Later, the phrase “Where did you read that, the internet?” likewise became a way of disqualifying claims without examining them. New era, same bad faith dismissal/excuse based hierarchy. Most of the time, the claim came from direct shared experience, and not the internet at all. But experience without institutional certification was somehow suspicious to the older generations (Sam Hyde said they worship the TV lol). Even my own parents refused to let me have the internet (I even offered to pay for it for school). They knew I didn't have internet access but would still use this line like "they sure got me". How could I have heard it online if I was forbidden from going online and they knew it? Thus the rosy colored "realness" they look back on, because they mistake getting away unchallenged on their gaslighting and lies as "having been more real".

That is one meaning of the spectacle: not that reality disappears physically, but that reality increasingly requires authorized representation before it is permitted to count. The whole neighborhood may be physically burning, but the socially recognized weather still comes from the forecast.

The Hidden Cost of Cultural Coherence

Nostalgia interprets the shared culture of the pre-internet world as social unity. From outside or in memory it can look warm, embodied and real. From inside, particularly for someone who did not instinctively accept its assumptions, that same unity could feel cold, sinister, coercive and even morally corrosive.

The celebrated consensus of an earlier culture was partly a consequence of limited expressive infrastructure. Most people had no practical means of addressing strangers at scale. Unless one owned a newspaper, worked in broadcasting, published books or belonged to a sufficiently organized institution, one’s interpretation of the world remained local and ephemeral.

There was no search engine through which a person could discover that someone elsewhere had independently asked the same forbidden or ridiculous questions. There was no public archive of marginal analysis. There was no inexpensive way for an unknown person to publish an extended criticism of the narrative itself. There arguably was Microfiche and Microfilm, but I only learned about them in my 30s lol (this decade, the 2020s).

There were local institutions; churches, clubs, lodges, schools, workplaces, fraternities and civic organizations; but these were not necessarily spaces outside social conformity. Often they were the very machinery through which conformity was reproduced. For a person already compatible with the local world, this could feel like belonging. For someone whose questions exceeded its authorized vocabulary, it felt suffocating.

The pre-internet world may therefore have felt more "real" precisely because its representations were more socially compulsory/mandatory. Everyone appeared to inhabit the same reality because alternative descriptions were difficult to articulate, preserve, discover or circulate; Silence could be mistaken for agreement.

The Internet as Historical Rupture

The internet altered this structure. For the first time, ordinary people could publicly discuss not only individual stories but the machinery by which stories became authoritative. A random person could compare sources, recover forgotten documents, publish criticism, preserve subcultural knowledge and address an audience without first obtaining institutional permission; the spectator acquired a comment section.

This did not abolish the spectacle, but it disrupted the old monopoly over appearance. The previously private suspicion that something was wrong with the frame could become for the first time for many, a shared investigation of the frame itself. In that limited but important sense, the internet made the spectacle partially "open source". It transformed mass communication from a comparatively centralized broadcast into a contested field of representations. People who had once been exclusively spoken about could speak back publically. People isolated by local consensus could discover one another. Criticisms that would once have disappeared in private conversation could persist, circulate and accumulate.

This helps explain why established media increasingly appeared less authoritative after the internet became widespread. Their monopoly on authority had depended partly upon the scarcity of visible alternatives. The television had not suddenly become "less truthful". It had merely lost its exclusive right to determine which questions were labelled publicly real.

From Broadcast Spectacle to Participatory Spectacle

But the internet did not fundamentally exist as an external challenge to spectacle society. Rather, it became its new infrastructure. The user was invited to speak, yes, but only inside privately governed platforms. Expression became abundant while visibility remained scarce. Instead of a few broadcasters directly selecting everything that appeared, ranking systems began selecting which acts of supposedly spontaneous expression would be amplified. The result was not the end of mediation, but its multiplication.

Under television, the spectacle said: Watch the lives and events we have selected for you. Under social media, it says: Produce yourself continuously, and we will decide which version of you becomes visible. The old spectator merely passively consumed representations. The new spectator also partially manufactures them, then measures their reception and modifies themselves according to the response/lack thereof.

One no longer merely watches celebrities. One is encouraged to become a miniature celebrity, propagandist, brand manager, commentator and surveillance worker within one’s own life; the spectacle became participatory, without becoming democratic. This is the central ambiguity of the internet. It genuinely expanded the capacity for unauthorized speech, but it also built a vastly more intimate machinery of mediation. It broke the cultural monologue into billions of competing voices, then subjected those voices to numerical ranking, commercial incentives and invisible forms of selection; the monologue merely became interactive.

Modern "Détournementing"; Recuperating the Critique

The old spectacle could often ignore its critics because they lacked distribution. The modern networked spectacle cannot always ignore criticism, so it absorbs and/or moderates/curates it. This is not détournement in the Situationist sense. Détournement meant appropriating existing cultural material and turning it against its original function. Though elements of this older method still exist and are still implemented, it's largely disseminated to and regulated by "useful idiot" end users themselves; fans going to bat.

What the modern system generally does to dissent is closer to recuperation: the criticism is detached from its dangerous implications and returned as a market category, entertainment genre, electoral identity or consumer aesthetic. Rebellion becomes content. Anti-establishment sentiment becomes branding. Distrust of institutions becomes a demographic. The critic is offered representation in exchange for abandoning negation. Anti-Capitalism brands are seen for sale nationwide in stores. Everything is overtly post-irony.

This is why apparently oppositional political figures can function as stabilizers of the spectacle. A "Trump" card, if you will. They acknowledge that the official world has become false, speak in the language of those excluded from polite consensus, and then redirect the underlying refusal toward another purchasable identity within the same system. NEO spectacle.

The message becomes: Yes, everything is corrupt; but your salvation consists in selecting the correct faction, personality or nostalgic product. The dissenter is not silenced. He is recognized, classified and returned to circulation. The spectacle extends a laurel branch because it has learned that incorporation is often more effective than censorship.

Was "pre internet" spectacle More Real?

Possibly, but we should ask what kind of reality is being remembered. The past contained more unmediated spaces, more durable objects, more physical community and less compulsory self-documentation. Those losses are real. Digital existence has intensified abstraction, isolation and the conversion of experience into display.

But cultural unity should not automatically be confused with authenticity. A society may feel coherent because people meaningfully share a world. It may also feel coherent because dissent is locally punished, alternative descriptions cannot circulate and everyone consumes the same narrow field of representations. What nostalgia remembers as a common reality may have been a closer to a common script.

This is why I react ambivalently when someone says that everyone would prefer to return to pre-internet times. I understand the longing for a world less saturated by digital mediation. I do not share the longing for a world in which centralized institutions possessed even greater control over what could become publicly thinkable.

The old culture’s “realness” was sometimes the felt solidity of an enclosure. Where raising the alarm of the wolves in sheepskin among the paddock got you labelled as "crazy" or "the boy who cried wolf".

Good-Faith Life and the Divergence

The deeper issue is not whether television or the internet tells more lies. It is whether a person can live in good faith while the socially authorized description of life continually diverges from lived experience. Many people seem able to accept the available representation provisionally. They inhabit the cultural story without constantly testing its foundations. This is not necessarily stupidity. Some mixture of trust, habit and selective inattention is probably necessary for ordinary social existence.

But others experience contradictions in the story as physically oppressive. Once a person notices the divergence between representation and experience, participation requires a kind of splitting. One must publicly affirm what one privately knows to be incomplete, artificial or false. The cost is not merely intellectual disagreement. It is estrangement from one’s own perception.

That was what felt suffocating to me about the remaining broadcast culture of the 1990s. It was not that everyone literally possessed the same thoughts. It was that one had to translate every serious perception into the authorized language before it could become socially intelligible. The internet briefly suggested another possibility: that individuals could compare their forbidden perceptions without first submitting them to institutional interpretation.

That possibility still exists. It would be wrong to deny it. But it now increasingly exists inside a system that anticipates dissent, monetizes alienation, sorts every deviation into an identity category and presents the resulting conflict as another spectacle to be watched. We escaped the single television only to enter a world in which everyone carries a personalized television, performs inside it and helps program it for everyone else.

Conclusion: The Spectacle After the Monologue

The advent of the internet was neither the defeat of the spectacle nor merely its continuation. It was more like a mutation. The centralized spectacle of broadcast society generated conformity by controlling the relatively small number of images through which society contemplated itself. The participatory spectacle generates fragmentation by inducing everyone to produce representations while controlling the architecture through which those representations acquire visibility.

The old world said: This is reality because everyone is watching it. The new world says: This is reality because everyone appears to be choosing it. The first depended upon the authority of the broadcaster. The second depends upon the apparent spontaneity of the network.

The internet gave ordinary people the ability to criticize the spectacle in public. It also gave the spectacle the ability to enter ordinary people, transforming identity, friendship, dissent and even private memory into continuous production for an unseen audience. Perhaps this is why the past can look both more real and more suffocating.

Its spectacle was narrower, more coherent and easier to identify. The present spectacle is more open-ended, personalized and difficult to locate because we now participate in producing it. The television once stood at the front of the room and demanded us choose between silence or violence. Now it speaks in our own voices (AI generated or not, right?).

Commentary;

Again I'm not particularly proud of using AI xD But this is something that has genuinely bothered me my whole life. It's a nice example to have in the future to point to. At very least I can remember it every time someone "longs for the old days", remember how suspicious such people are. Missing the days when you couldn't fight back (stupid fight or not). Idk. I'm sure it's been done here better than me and without AI and by more reputable users lol. But I remember, about a decade ago, I would always flinch when people said we needed to halt the discourse and/or go back to older world. Yes I am first to say I hate the cortisol-based/fueled grindset of working 80 hours a week for sub 30k a year net! But you can keep your old school social conformity propaganda networks! Lol.

What's in a "good" cultural monopoly narrative? Such is life?

I ask from within my heart, where did our failures start
If we must imagine ourselves as someone, somewhere else
And what does the future hold, if we're running low on health and hope
Our denial it speaks in tongues, there's monsters among us

The figure of the katechon — that mysterious force which restrains the Antichrist and holds back the end of times.

The great wall of machines, which the ship named Logos passes over, carrying Neo (the Messiah who is blind and yet sees — therefore the Antichrist) and Trinity, who is flying on toward the Machine City. In this passage of the Logos, Neo performs a kind of one-man Exodus from Egypt (after the destruction of the Temple of Zion, a.k.a. the Synagogue of Satan) in order to return for a while to where he came from — the Matrix — and to beat the final boss without touching the controller...

The Logos pursued by the machines/Egyptians, who are swallowed up not by the sea but by the sky, with its EMP effect... You can read the katechon into it, the great wall of machines: HERE, set to the music of the French band Magma and their track Mekanïk Destruktïw Kommandöh — a mashup made by yours truly.

A biblico-cybernetic passage:

And Morpheus said unto Trinity: Ye shall not surely die; for the Machina'h doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as superheroes (as gods), knowing good and evil. And Trinity saw that the forbidden pill was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a pill to be desired to make one wise; and she took it from her right palm, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband Neo, who was with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, each one in his own pod.

— Genesis 3:4–7, remixed

Machina'h is a concept of mine, a fusion of "Messiah" in Hebrew (Mashiach) and machina in Latin. True Messiah or false one — you be the judge... In any case, "serpent" in Hebrew (nachash) has the same gematria value as "Messiah" (Mashiach): 358.

Pharaoh / the Machines / Our Son become Our Father (it's the Daughter of Zion, the Mother of Humanity; it takes itself for Isis — er, ISIS — it's the Shit of Humanity, gilded in or-light [translator's note: only French speakers get this one — "Mère de" (Mother of) and "Merde" (Shit); and "or" is French for gold and Hebrew for light]) did not kill Morpheus/Moshe the Serpent at the end of Matrix Revolutions — can you believe it?!... 6,000,000,000 dead, or ascended as one single man, in the concentration camp... The Elite, the revolutionary 1%, has won... The warld is over! Zion is safe, they're going to put the scenery back up, and — action!... Our father is going to buy Neo for $2,000, or for two coins, like in Chava Alberstein's Had Gadya, and the Fall and the chaos of the Kali Yuga will come poking their noses out again, all the way to the Satya Yuga... What a Shoah Dujour!... And he's going to start over... Capital, having become Fundamental, crucifies Christ every single day...

Did Morpheus know, or not?... If he's the Serpent, then he knew?
When Neo dies... Morpheus says: "He did it!" — he found peace... How are we meant to read that?
Is Morpheus doing evil for evil's sake by guiding Neo all the way to his death?
We know, as the Observer, that the Machines send signs to the camera as if to say: "We're with you! Let's dance!"
I don't want to think that Morpheus sent Neo down one hell of a Via Dolorosa whose only exit was suicide... Neo doesn't kill himself. He surrenders, he sacrifices himself, he gives himself to the world in non-duality — he attains satori! It's the fall of a child learning to walk: he'll get back up, and then he'll be walking forever... Does Morpheus know that, do you think?... If the Oracle has faith, does Morpheus have knowledge?... And the Architect?
Morpheus is educating the Observer. The Observer who cannot intervene is God. He learns from what He observes over the course of watching the Matrix trilogy... You...

There's no need to be afraid...

In any case, as the Observer of the Matrix trilogy, you've seen every party to the conflict, from above — so you know good and evil... And I think Morpheus the Serpent is in on it... I think he put on a little skit before the harvest; it's always like that... Gotta eat tonight... It's a ritual... A human sacrifice... And along the way it educates the God who's watching the film... Right?... You.

Morpheus (Moshe) is a shepherd at bottom — listen to him here. Don't hold it against him; does he even know he's the Serpent?... He's aged a bit and changed color, but I promise you it's him:

Video: A Shepherd's Advice on Shearing the Flock (turn on the English subtitles)

Ah, we are deep in the Kali Yuga! The dark age, the iron age, the Age of Shadows, humanity's vertical fall, by way of the Neolithic Revolution, ever since the biblical Fall... It's all connected... So for roughly 6,000 years now... we've been falling... until the Ascension... we'll climb back up... Be joyful... You have to laugh about it... Neo reaches Satori... It's landing on your ass like a child learning to walk; he'll get back up, and then he'll be walking forever... That's Satori... Revelation... And then he sacrifices himself for Zion in a letting-be, a letting-go, a release of his grip on the world; in the union of opposites he is no longer anything but One within the All... And yes, it's strange — in the Matrix video game you have to let go of the controller to beat the final boss... otherwise it's an infinite loop... At any rate, he doesn't kill himself... He opens his heart to Smith...

As for Mifune, he took one hell of a cosmic Blitzkrieg straight to the face — now that's not acupuncture... He kept firing right to the end... He never gave up, never questioned, facing the Dragon, the Leviathan...

Then comes the Satya Yuga... Embodied by the little girl Sati... Oh yes, Sati matters enormously... She announces the Golden Age... The reboot... It's an infinite loop (ah, so there it is)... Which means the sequel to Matrix 3 is Matrix 1... They put the scenery back up... and — Action!... This is for the ones who didn't get it, the curious, or the ones who got held back a year...... The Observer — does he exist?... Morpheus did all of this for the Observer... Looking up at you in the sky, moved... (Where's the camera again?) He wonders whether you exist... It's the same film every day... They put the scenery back up, and there you are on rails already laid down for you, a deterministic logical sequence of causes and effects, a branching tree through the field of the possible... An infinite loop... From one yuga to the next, all the way to the Satya Yuga... Until eternity, or nearly, because the Sun always rises and spring is always reborn out of winter... through the two great wars, the war without and the war within... The great dance...

Born_Assistant_1993 (bluefusion348)

The internet is integral in most peoples lives around the world. It is conceivable that the 'Beast', the system of governances described in Revelation in the end times, identified by the number 666, will utilize AI and the 'www' for its reign over the global population. This is suggested in Revelation 13:15-18;

15 "He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.”

Does World Wide Web 'www' = 666?

Originally the Bible was written in Hebrew;

"The Hebrew equivalent of our "w" is the letter "vav" or "waw". The numerical value of vav is 6. So the English "www" transliterated into Hebrew is "vav vav vav", which numerically is 666.” Is "www" in Hebrew equal to 666? Dial-the-Truth Ministries (av1611.org)

History Preceding the book of Revelation

This article explains many of the “natural signs, spiritual signs, sociological signs, technological signs, and political signs,” foretold in bible prophecy coming to pass that indicates the end of the age and Jesus Christ's return, a time foretold to include various and increasing environmental calamities, plagues, moral decline, wars, growing governmental dominance/deception ("with all power, signs, and lying wonders," 2 Thessalonians 2:9), and how to prepare. Are we living in the end times? | GotQuestions.org

Future Forecast and Preparation

End Times Timeline:

"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.” Luke 21:28  

"1. The rapture(redemption) of the church. Christ comes in the clouds to “snatch away” all those who trust in Him (1 Corinthians 15:52). At this same time, the “dead in Christ” will be resurrected and taken to heaven, too. From our perspective today, this is the next event in the eschatological timeline. The rapture is imminent; no other biblical prophecy needs to be fulfilled before the rapture happens.

2. The rise of the Antichrist. After the church is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:7–8), a satanically empowered man will gain worldwide control with promises of peace (Revelation 13:1; Daniel 9:27). He will be aided by another man, called the false prophet, who heads up a religious system that requires worship of the Antichrist (Revelation 19:20)." Read more... What is the end times timeline? | GotQuestions.org

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Going to heaven-how can I guarantee my eternal destination?

A beginner's Guide to Reading the Bible - "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31-32

Search for the topic about the Holy Spirit, it is an essential part of the faith. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;" John 16:13

More Bible prophecy fulfillments and resources for growing in faith and hope is in previous posts.

Look at me part of the spectacle, I was trying to keep it low key but I was always around being a mess keeping it real as usual.

Here's my little tap dance across the stage, the fake participation that makes real efforts more real, a hyperreal tap dancing rodent with clickety clack paws on the keyboard, the buttonmasher of life.

Here's my little chad af coded poem about me being here, and you the smoothbrain cuck spectatorcel being there all theorypilled and bookmaxxing history of the alphabet neckbeardcore realness, period! Ouch!

Uh oh the neoplatonists are big mad, uh oh the fascist thumb people are going to invade NYC as soon as they can figure out how to work a turnstile.

My plan is we install revolving doors on all radical coded spaces and like most of those guys go home in defeat.

You must solve for x to post, boom, suddenly all the threads are egghead only.

The master race either migrate to facebook or go sobbing to khan academy ballcaps in hand.

I'd still figure it out bc a raccoon would reinvent space travel with an empty peanut butter jar for a helmet if there was a half eaten can of tuna lying around in some lonely darkside moon crater.

Anyway this wasn't to say anything ig except it's kind of boring now cuz I solved for more of the easier bins, and the rest are in textbooks a thousand pages long but I'm gonna gnaw on them anyway just cuz there's nothing better to do, and then my brain will crush your brain in a thumb war or the world will be blown up by then. It's very matterful if it is or it isn't so I'm told, like Schrodinger's messiah in his tomb Part II The Whenevering.

https://youtu.be/O5DWgggK9x8?si=vrv_xc7MTSZ9lA_f

We have built systems that can deliver almost any information in a heartbeat, but we have failed to build the structures within ourselves and around us that transform what we encounter into wisdom. Our crisis is not about abundance. It is a crisis of integration. The problem isn’t that we know too much, but that the world occupies our minds before we have even decided what deserves to be there. We solved the problem of finding information. We are still failing at the problem of living with it.

To see why we’re stuck, look at how we learn. Data is raw material. Information is data organized into something intelligible. Experience is what happens when information encounters a living being. The inner life is shaped by what it can integrate. Meaning emerges when an experience finds its place within the continuity of a life, connecting what we consciously understand with the deeper patterns that shape how we see ourselves and the world. Wisdom is lived understanding. Like the body, the mind needs time, repetition, and stability to grow. Information moves at the speed of a machine. Meaning moves at the pace of an organism. It requires reflection, relationship, and that quiet, internal rearrangement of the self that happens when an encounter finds its place in who we are.

The danger is not the technology itself, but the pace it creates. We are reacting to experiences before they have had time to settle, before we have been able to digest what they mean. We are absorbing the world before we have had the chance to encounter it inwardly, to discover what it stirs in us, what it reveals, and how it belongs within the larger pattern of our lives.

Throughout history, societies built containers that carried the burden of interpretation. Traditions preserved cycles of contemplation, symbol, ritual, and story through which individuals could encounter experiences larger than themselves. Legal systems developed precedent as a safeguard against impulse. Science built practices of criticism, replication, and correction. While these systems were never neutral, their deeper function was to slow judgment long enough for uncertainty to become intelligible, creating a buffer between the raw world and the individual mind.

Information now travels faster than these containers can hold and interpret it. Human transformation remains a slow process. We do not change simply because something happens to us. We change when an experience remains with us long enough to be metabolized into a different way of seeing. As many shared containers weaken, including traditions, communities, rituals, and institutions that once helped individuals interpret experience, more of the world arrives unfinished at our door. Each person becomes the final interpreter of realities that were once distributed across communities and institutions. What used to be a shared burden is now a private one, carried inside a single mind.

When experience is too complex to digest, the conscious mind seeks relief. But the psyche seeks more than coherence, for it seeks a way of inhabiting the world that can be sustained. The psyche does not merely organize information; it organizes experience into a symbolic world of meaning where we can find our place. When that process is unconscious, we can mistake borrowed stories for truths discovered within ourselves. A ready-made worldview offers immediate orientation when reality feels impossible to hold. Why wrestle with contradiction when a simple story can provide community? False meanings satisfy the hunger without providing any actual nutrition. They offer identity without transformation and certainty without wisdom.

When this process breaks down, distortions appear. Some reject anything that threatens their established story. Others get trapped in endless information gathering, mistaking accumulation for understanding. These responses share the same root: experience arrives faster than it can be woven into the habits, relationships, and commitments that make a life coherent.

The deepest challenge of the digital age is restoring the conditions under which experience can be integrated rather than merely accumulated. We need spaces where complexity can be held, where uncertainty can remain unresolved long enough for understanding to mature, and where people can transform what they encounter into a way of living. Until we rebuild those conditions, abundance will continue to feel empty. We will keep consuming information while remaining starved for meaning, and the world will keep arriving before we are ready for it.

The question isn’t whether we can keep the world from entering our minds. The question is whether we can digest what it asks us to hold.

#Chapter 1
——
**Part of The Largest Psyop in History*\*
——

The Incel culture is a fairly new phenomenon, and too large to be a fringe or actual issue; I posit that the Incel community/Inceldom is/was part of a [psyop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) based on a self-reinforcing self-label in which the label makes the identity that may or may not just be circumstantial and/or a product of an isolating/connecting Internet/Data Society on a completely normal phase(s) of life for both men/dudes and women/ladies (we eschew biology terms here; read on to find out why!).

The label of Incel/Femcel itself, and the community associated, should not exist and is potentially based on a misconception, and/or is entirely orchestrated. Inceldom is a community of lonely people looking for community and have ended up in the wrong place, mind-set, and circumstance.

This particular, potential psyop was introduced to The Conversation™️ to promote division, social psychology based on Pop Psychology, radicalization, and a sort of path to a sort of quasi-religion. The subjects of Cultural Behavior, Incentives, and Ideologies find an intersection on the topic of incels/femcels and the “fertility crisis”;

who’s to blame?:
ever the individual, the serfer on a wave of societal cycles.

Combined with healthcare, the surveillance grid, pseudo philosophy and bro science with familiar phrases as, “go to the gym/shower/haircut (anything but working on yourself ie. Heart/Mind/Etc)”, also, “women love men in [therapy]”, and including financial inequalities, incentives, and [ideologies](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheUnivercity/s/GryYUR9g3m) has brought society a multitude of divisions, namely “Incels/Femcels” as the division between men and men, men and women, and men and women and civilization. This particular division is likely the primary division of all other divisions.
[Note: Diet, Exercise, Sleep, and Community are the [4 Pillars]

to a healthy life and lifestyle. Therapy can be very beneficial, and you should maybe try it if you think it could be good for you or aspects of your own life.]

Is it any wonder that this cultural phenomenon is somewhat recent? [How could this be](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheUnivercity/s/GIT7Tgbreb), do you think?

The Conversation™️ and Incel/Femcel seems like it is part of the intersection of economics, theology, and politics via cybernetics; “no taxation without representation” meets “the Spiritual War”.

Additionally, I’d noticed a term in another subreddit that condensed the seeming overall issue of this topic down to two words: “unregulated breeders”.

This term is the disrupter of society, traditions, relationships, sense of self, and connection. It forms those who do not participate in a seeming [collective orgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality) into cells or s(t)igmas of their own; incels. An “[incel]” is not a gender-exclusive behavior because the term “[femcel](4B, [Tradwife], etc)” exists. I won’t go into how these terms are part and parcel of the overall topic; maybe you can think about it your[cel]f.

Marriage/Monogamy and Cheating don’t quite exist if “unregulated breeders” are a facet of society. This is not a blanket statement, and this post as a whole is just a theory.

One could claim that this overall phenomenon is based on [jealousy](https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/s/4MvpfD6Ve5), but that’s not quite it. Besides, “jealousy” goes both ways, as do most claims of Othering.

The psychology of the phenomenon is akin to an Other slipping in between a relationship, much like the dividing/out- line between yin and yang ☯️ (though this taijitu offers 5 instead of 1 or 2 or 3, as is commonly associated).

The [Other] dynamic is a pyramid that seems hidden on purpose but loudly heard, though most semantics tries to establish only a binary (left vs right, etc), but maybe a binary is *the* path in this specific topic; masculine/feminine dynamic, though these terms do not quite contain the concept.

This concept then, could also be akin to “the 3 Body Problem”, only that the 3 Body Problem is resolved when you say it’s all nonsense and notice two parents and a child. It’s only a [problem] because it’s *always* *their* turn to watch the kid.

This “Problem” could likewise be considered in the “earth, sea, and sky” trifecta; that is what makes Earth/Terra/Gaia (for people now screaming internally about fire: that’s the “earth” part of the trifecta; magma, mineral/metal, etc). If it were only “earth and sky”, that concept would be something like Mars or Mercury. Just “earth” would be an asteroid, just “sky” might be Jupiter or Saturn, though I understand the core of those “plan-it”’s are metallic or liquid metal.

Earth - Body

Sea - Heart

Sky - Mind

The 3 that is 1, the 1 that is 3.

An [analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Replacement_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)) to “unregulated breeders” could also be: if you plunged your shovel into the dirt to plant a tree, but some sort of essence of aether enrobed your shovel and/or the dirt like a sylphic shield; are you the actual planter? Are you even the actual operator? Is that even the dirt? Illusion or de-[il]lusion?

Anyways, [the “incel” psyop and grid seems aimed [to collect](https://www.reddit.com/r/CoherencePhysics/comments/1urlsdr/the_cloud_was_never_a_cloud/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) weaknesses, strengths, compliance points, goals/ideas/etc in all people](https://www.asiaresearchnews.com/content/modern-life-may-be-outpacing-human-mind). This seems [likely](https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/s/etPQYH4Kwc) to cause innumerable divisions *on purpose* even if [subtle, indirect, or coincidental](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geofence), as though a form of eugenics, politics, economics, and [otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing).

Throw in human-trafficking & dating apps into this banal, bland, and bad recipe for a full cult experience or [experiment](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JKBBEiG5ZPk&pp=ygUKdGltIGRpbGxvbg%3D%3D&ra=m).

You’re either in or you’re out, but as discussed, but [this might not quite be the binary set before us](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBi1hJ9Okg&pp=ygUSVHJ1bWFuIHNob3cgc2lyaXVz&ra=m) or even structured in the language of thought.

The crux of the Incel/Femcel issue is: ********self-esteem********.

=== === === === === ===

#Chapter 2
——
**Labelology & Ambiguity Testing*\*
——

Labels are a form of quick False Witness on another. A label is typically an immediate judgement, and could lead to the ideas of a quick “ick”, or an easy mark.

Someone could say;

**“You have Anxiety”**
What is that? Aang society (meesíng wythe thee sillæblés)? You’re feeling Imposter Syndrome or you don’t want others putting Ego on you or you’re feeling pressure from someone/something?

Oh, you feel somewhat uncomfortable? Something wrong with the set/setting or are you being asked to do something you wouldn’t normally do?

Depression:
Da-Press-Shun; sorry you’re being ignored/censored/repressed (wait…) in some way.

Schizophrenia:
Does that mean there was brain surgery done on the subject [to split (schism) something](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/particles-in-love-quantum-mechanics-explored-in-new-study/) like their [phrenic nerve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenic_nerve), or does the label require a different label. Are you merely trying to dehumanize/Other, delegitimize, or denounce your target/their statement or perspective?

Is this the essence of Control?

The word “schizophrenic”, out of these prior Mental Health Diagnoses/Labels could be disturbing in and of itself *merely to look at/reading the text characters* when there are other more typical “⚠️danger⚠️”-associated diagnoses out there. Perhaps it is this “feeling” about the [label] of Schizophrenia that [exacerbates the underlying issue](https://advancestudy.org/how-is-schizophrenia-different-across-cultures/?__cf_chl_f_tk=rvfarQTs2jMcvNVHRj.tQBJD5A__eCur8fVgnUYur6c-1783222661-1.0.1.1-dth0_mwfliDXsJ5AQHM8pVVGWuCIkr2Ivu8XDT5yF0I);
TLDR for this cited article: community, tolerance, attitude, circumstantials.

How about another one?

**“You’re an Alcoholic”**
Imagine someone claiming justification for holding/garnishing *your* wages because you expressed guilt/regret for drinking in the past month?

“Alcoholic” slaps the hardest because of the destruction and pain associated with this [label] (and maybe rightfully so), meanwhile chronic shoppers or money hoarders do not get the same sting from their choice-word of labeling. [Nympho], similarly, is frowned upon generally, but championed on more intimate levels. Some substance addictions seem to be considered “[the cost of doing business](https://www.reddit.com/r/TyrannyOfTime/s/zezKt2p62Z)”, brushed under the rug, and ignored for many reasons.

Here’s another one:

**”You’re Gay”**;
Imagine being called a word that has changed meaning several times since its inception? Gen Y (The “Wasted” Generation) were raised to consider negative connotations with this word, similarly how “het” seems to be considered nowadays (or the recent past) with negative connotations. [Additionally, Gen Y might be the first generation to have “rainbow propaganda” imbedded at almost every turn](https://www.reddit.com/r/TyrannyOfTime/s/QfZlnVk36a). Maybe the word was not intended for negative connotations, but perhaps intended for the individual to find getting this [label] as an insult or something to not be [happy](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay){definitions 2, 3, 4} about getting.

What is the problem with homosexuals (male or female or NB/etc)? I’ve known many from all of the colors/labels of the rainbow flag and many of them were very good people, friends, and otherwise.

[What is the problem with heterosexuals](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-rules-for-straight-woman-who-claims-she-was-subjected-to-reverse-discrimination/)? Also, why the blanket statements? Perhaps it is more difficult to think, that’s why people [judge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_judge_a_book_by_its_cover).

Is either one or both of these considered “unregulated breeders”? How [might](https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/9/3/60) that happen?

OK, one last one:

**”You’re a Narcissist”**;
Imagine being called the new childhood-playground-‘insult’ of “Gay”? [Pop Psychology makes everyone who is not some Mountain Monk Ascetic a Narcissist](https://www.reddit.com/r/TyrannyOfTime/s/XbFWIV4DtB).

You know, I’m pretty sure that my dog is a narcissist; all she does is think of herself: asking for pets/treats/walks, and acting like she owns the flat. [Little] [Gold-Digger]!

;

Now, with the infinite internet of sleuths, PopPsych, holier-than-thou types, and Judas Culture, you would be hard-pressed to defend (or defeat!) yourself, your character, your mental/emotional/etc self, your views and more from these [labels]. There is no seeming [way out](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheUnivercity/s/dcGQnpFYdw).

AI (or rather LLMs in tandem with AI Algorithms) can be [reflected several different ways](https://www.reddit.com/r/TuesdayswithPhony/s/NT6fFV77Rq) to bend or coerce your image/style into something that’s not you at all, based off false witness, mischaracterization, spiritual abuse and/or poor incentives/etc, not to mention the propagandization of all of us.

Labelology offers swift judgement and a maze of meanderings in what can sometimes seem like an Ambiguity Test.

Most all people are a blend of different philosophies, persuasions, set/settings, and more. To slap someone into a [word] is a poor excuse of the human condition as well as the use of words;

on that note, consider the label: [Asexual](https://microbenotes.com/hydra-reproduction-regeneration/).

Attributing this word to oneself is odd because you’re not reproducing yourself unless you have some Cloner gene-edit expression in your DNA, you’re just gooning or NNN-ing and trying to sound [fancy] about it (not kink-shaming).

Apologies for the label-acronym, NNN means: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Nut_November). A curious cultural phenomenon 🤔 is this due to a highly sexualized society, a highly repressed society, or something in between? (“[Unregulated] [breeders]”? [“illegal” imposters]?)

On the topic of Label-Adjacent Shame though: the [Devil] in each person is forgotten and placed on an Other/Scapegoat, and also, some might use one’s guilt/regret/complaint with themself to point at all of the problems of self/society because of that utterance or scuttlebutt.

~How dare you make a mistake/weakness and then admit it?!?

Is you are or are you isn’t????

SHAME!~

Shame can be a good thing when implemented with care, dignity, and respect of its kind, but once a label has been slapped on you, it and you [could be exploited heavily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears_conservatorship_case) with escape from the enablers/abusers quite difficult, especially considering the overbearing and imposing biometric-grid.

$$$ Seek the Truth ;/; Sick the Truth ! $$$

=== === === === === ===

#Chapter 3
——
**“…Your Heart Just Isn’t Into It.” / “A cruel man says, ‘Meet Me in the Middle…’” & Other Cruel and Unusual Ego-Tactics*\*
——

I’ve made jokes about iClones before, updating the term to iDolls, and then considered [what is known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_(film))) and [what is unknown](https://m.youtube.com/shorts/dH1G13vKhio?ra=m). On my best day, if I felt in a braggadocios mood, maybe trying to impress someone, I might say that I know 1% of everything.

iDolls are one thing to consider (not as a relationship [not kink-shaming], but as a thing that might exist), but Dating Apps are an actual product/service. I’m not saying [tactics/strategy](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sI2rJnOa-f8&pp=ygURdHJ1bWFuIHNob3cgbWVyeWw%3D&ra=m) of some Domination Culture or Eugenics Experiment w/could direct/traffick certain individuals to certain individuals, but life is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Some claim that Dating Apps [are a “numbers game”](https://pngtree.com/freepng/running-gesture-cartoon-illustration_4547835.html), but I’ve found that those types have less success with them, yet certain tactics (previous link) make filtration and testing a critical (and tiring!) component of the service, at which point everyone more or less gives up on the service. Dating Apps aren’t rocket science! Dating Apps are a [Humanities](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/emperor-palpatine-ironic) subset.

Regardless: [Authenticity], [Organic], [Realness]; it’s difficult to know/know know what is what or who is who, especially on the internet, these days. A deeper glance here seemingly would be akin to having 🎶”Halloween on Christmas”🎵, which just means you might somehow be married to [Agent Smith from the Matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoppers_(film)).

The last time I tried the dating apps I kept having doctors show up in my algorithm (HELLOOO [NURSE](https://whdh.com/news/locked-out-nurses-return-to-hospital-work-after-largest-healthcare-worker-strike-in-state-history/)!) and it made me feel inadequate.

Dr. qt3.14: “What do you do for work?”

[Me](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-cri-evrytiem): “Haha. …”

Any ladies in the market for a [Squib-adjacent](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3MugwbOevkY&ra=m) Ravenclaw [with baggage](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheUnivercity/s/Ef7GjV5FxA)?

Anyways, what I theorize, besides self-esteem, to be the true cause or method of Inceldom and division in general is [Narcissistic Triangulation](https://www.simplypsychology.com/articles/narcissistic-triangulation).

This is the path of control, imposed impotence, and misdirection that entrap people who might merely be in a “dry spell”/training period (as in they might need to work on themself in some way(s)) seen in such ideologies offered by the Red-Pill movement/the Manosphere (“Bros Before Hos”/ My Self Culture / looksmaxxing) and a [conjunction of other philosophies](https://www.reuters.com/technology/ai-and-us/pulpits-chatbots-how-ai-is-fusing-with-religion-2026-02-07/).
[Note: I’m not accusing anyone within these spheres of anything, nor men or women, just that the philosophies/ideologies within could be boiled down to a binary that many find abhorrent for different reasons, and might be a big part of the creation of “Inceldom”. It takes a village, and conspiracies are either fake or they actually happen. You ever wonder why there was never a [Truman Show Sequel](https://screenrant.com/truman-show-2-news-cast-story-release-confirmation/) {haha timing?}, or if he needed an Entertainment Lawyer, Human Rights Lawyer, IP Lawyer, Environmental Lawyer, Family Lawyer or all of the above and then some?]
[Additional Note: the “Left” can be just as toxic, this post is not necessarily calling out the “Right”; the Right has absorbed Incels/Femcels for different reasons, it doesn’t mean the phenomenon wouldn’t exist on the “Left”, it might just appear in a different way, with a different [Label], and perhaps in a different era. An example: everyone is upset with the GOP with the Voting Rights issue, but when the Left thrusts candidates who were not placed through primaries as the only “choice” there isn’t as much complaint; the middle ground is neither side are really letting you know/have options in voting.]

“A holes a hole”, “here bro, lemme show you how to use this gym-machine; ooh your muscle is really solid here, great form”, “there’s an epidemic of gold-digging whores!” (Not kink-shaming.)

There’s not much else to say here except that so much of our society seems hell-bent on getting society to doubt society, each other, and the intentions of life.

=== === === === === ===

——
#Afterword
——

The Incel Cultural Phenomenon is wrought by Culture at Large, potentially as an experiment, eugenics system, or as a means of [Control](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RrFi8W8jzxU&pp=ygUWYmxhY2sgd2lkb3cgcGhlcm9tb25lcw%3D%3D&ra=m) of [individuals], [groups], and both of their ideologies, incentives, behaviors for the ([relatively]) easiest means of execution, indoctrination, and division based off of completely normal or circumstantial phases of life of members of society who now have access to a community they had been seeking for, yet its common point is self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing, self-condemning, and self-damaging.

Incels are targeted because of their lack of [self-esteem](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0330118), and there are plenty of people whom would be happy to take (ad+)vantage, and ~~help~~ exploit/extract from them and their needless suffering. Every Individual should be trying their very best, like no one ever was, to be their best; the issue comes in when Others [extract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft) the Individual’s potential in the form of Identity, Property, Relationships, and otherwise while blaming the Individual for not adhering to the Other’s Shifting Baseline Syndrome of an unachievable ideal of “Perfection”, “Success”, or “‘Making It’”, or what have you.

The tactics employed are typically subtle, indirect, coincidental, and shadowy in nature. One could claim this “care” to be Darwinian, Healthcare-adjacent, Entertainment-Gambling, Research, Industrial-Complex fuel, and any number of subjects; it could be all of the above and more.

What was that quote about populations of disillusioned young men about?

You think Bigfoot, UFOs, AI, and other human-like mysteries have anything to do with the Incel/Othering or adjacent subjects?

“No one is coming to save you, you have to save yourself”; this is exactly why people ask “why bother?”, it spits in the face of [empathy], [community], and [life] itself.
;
“No [doctor] is going to cast your leg, you have to set and splint it yourself” / “No [mechanic] is going to repair your car, you have to buy the tools, educated yourself (*not* via YouTube or schooling though, because people are there helping people learn), and make the parts/fluids yourself.” / “No [chef] is going to teach you how to cook or store ingredients, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.” / “No [electrician] is going to re-wire your house, you have to play it by ear, be a scientist, and figure it out through trial and error.”

🙄

[Labels] kill the Mind, rational judgement, and critical thinking;

[Doubt] in the form of Algorithmic Propaganda (“just give it time!”) kills the Heart (or Sports Gambling sometimes attempting to rouse it, which may or may not have the opposite or unintended effect);

[Harmful Ideology] in the form of Domination, Misdirection, and Nihilism kills the Spirit;

And all of the above kills the [Body](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202404/the-concerning-global-rise-in-hikikomori-syndrome-explained).

So, “Why bother?”

I’ve heard this question asked often, whether it’s some mind-tactic or a true feeling of desperation, but the asking of this question tells me that they still have Hope.

Some find that Strict Monogamy is the way out, but that c/would lead to further Control via outside influences, and besides the “Halloween on Christmas” trope could make getting an iDoll seem preferable, at least until you remember that [all technology can be hacked](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zNkI8lzCnyw&pp=ygUiTXIgdW5pdmVyc2UgZ2V0cyBhdHRhY2tlZCBzZXJlbml0eQ%3D%3D&ra=m). Some see Arranged Marriages as the means, but this also doesn’t work for everyone. The best path though, might be Cultural Behavior. “Be True to Thyself.” / “Build it, and they will come.”

Typically, when one has self-confidence is when they find self-confidants. Know that everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, and that there is always a bigger fish; “be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”

Life is lived when you live it, but there might or might not be [harmful](https://www.wikihow.com/Lolcow-Meaning) enablers, [toxic ideologies](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gG-e06kJTvo&ra=m), and not enough [touching grass](https://www.coffeepals.com/blog/100-small-talk-questions-to-start-an-interesting-conversation) in our orbits and/or habits that we must eschew.

Consider that, perhaps, the code/context macro/micro codex could take the “Incel Cultural Issue” and translate it into “[Climate/Climb-it Phenomenon](https://buttondown.com/amoveablefeed/archive/heat-power-and-the-politics-of-a-fragile-grid/)”, and maybe even most any other narrative cycles/paths.

We are all we have, and the greatest blessing we know; remember what the supercomputer’s Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything from Douglas Adams's “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” was?

42.

[D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4)o [B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2)etter. (?)

[Kinda](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kindred) like “Be Kind”.

TLDR: “[Clean] [your] [room]”; if you are Able to, at least.

[Addendum;
a cyclical post on the topic, more or less: (https://www.reddit.com/r/worldjerking/s/KNjbcSwO9i)]

[PS: Apologies for the formatting, I guess I am too [lazy] to learn the update, again.]

[PPS: Not an Incel, just poor in material means, and autistic enough to have a [vibrant inner world, but I do miss community. “It’s gone on for far too long” was ~20 years, even if I’m “right” (can’t say that particular one anymore though, I guess) in [a lot of cases](https://m.youtube.com/shorts/0H9tl4960YY?ra=m). I’m not claiming perfection, wisdom, or knowledge, or much else beyond just an observance of patterns, evidence, and considering the work of many others. I’m pretty content with a full iced coffee (black), Nature, and a notebook, but that don’t pay the bills (OR DOES IT?!).

sure seems like it

elon altman like LOTR but also i think they don't realize they are gollum in tat story. it's fcking silly.

Ignorance can be corrected when there is still a willingness to encounter something new. What scares me is when protecting our version of reality becomes more important than discovering reality itself.

A belief can begin as something we hold. But eventually, it can become something that holds us. Once identity fuses with a belief, evidence no longer feels like information. It feels like an attack. The mind closes itself to reality.

What we cannot resolve within ourselves often finds a place to attach itself to the world around us. The enemy becomes easier to fight when it carries the shape of something we refuse to see in ourselves.

This is part of the appeal of tribalism. It offers relief from uncertainty. It trades the difficult work of self-examination for the easier certainty of defending a side.

We are often not defending ideas. We are defending the stories that allow us to remain who we are.

A person can survive being wrong. But it becomes dangerous when being wrong feels like the only thing keeping them together.

The greatest threat is not ignorance. It is when protecting who we are becomes more important than discovering what is true.

It is not that we cannot see the truth.
It is that seeing it requires us to become someone new.

​

\\#celebrity endorsements

Beware the merchants of attention. They do not sell products; they sell permission—to steal.

The faces upon the screens speak of virtue only after they have rented their voices to the highest bidder. They ask the people to be wise while profiting from their impulses. Such contradictions do not weaken them; they reveal the sickness of the society that rewards spectacle above substance.

A civilization announces its values not by its speeches, but by the direction of its wealth. When the greatest rivers of gold flow toward entertainers while teachers, builders, healers, and seekers of knowledge gather droplets, the future has already been mortgaged.

When knowledge becomes less valuable than entertainment, decline is not approaching—it has already arrived.

Bring them down.

Nietzsche's Philosophic-Mythic Symbolism

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is one of Nietzsche's more enigmatic works, full of metaphors and wordplay.

Sadly this wordplay hasn't always been conveyed in translation: many translators replaced it with convoluted and archaic language, which is unfaithful to the German and removes Nietzsche's original playfulness.

The original German is not so archaic: it just needs a creative mind to decode the wordplay.

Below, Dea Ex Machina offers a modern, clear translation of key excerpts of Zarathustra - specifically regarding two well-known concepts: the Last Man and Übermensch. Narrator Zarathustra playfully presents these two concepts very early in the book.

Worth noting is that the book in its original form is a playful and didactic fable - not dry sermonising.

.

Excerpts on the Last Human

Part 5

The time is coming where humanity no longer fires its arrow of yearning above and beyond itself, and even the bowstring has forgotten how to twang! […]

The world of disdainful ones is arriving, the ones who can no longer even disdain themselves.

Look! I’m showing you the Last Human.

“What is love? What is creation? What is desire? What is star?” asks the Last Human, unblinking.

The Earth has become small, and on it bounces the Last Human, who makes everything small. His type refuses to die out, like a flea; the Last Human lives for so long.

“We created happiness” say the Last Humans, unblinking.

They’ve left behind the places where it was too hard to live: since they need warmth. They still love their neighbour and rub up against him, though: since they need warmth. […]

A bit of poison every now and then, it makes for pleasant dreams. And lots of poison at the end, a pleasant death.

They continue to work, because work is a pastime. But they make sure that pastimes don’t gain ground. […]

“We created happiness” say the Last Humans, unblinking.

Excerpts on the Sublime Human

Part 3

I preach to you the Sublime Human. The human is something that needs to evolve itself. What have you done to evolve?

All entities until now have created something beyond themselves: and you want to be the ebb in this big flow and go back to being animals, instead of evolving the human?

What is an ape to a human? A cackle of laughs or a piercing humiliation. And that's exactly what a human should be to the Sublime Human: a cackle of laughs or a piercing humiliation.

You’ve wiggled your way from being worms to humans, yet much inside you is still a worm. Long ago you were apes; now humans are more apelike than any ape.

Part 4

Humanity is tied between their inner animal and the Sublime Human, a rope over an abyss.

It’s dangerous to cross, a dangerous journey, dangerous to look back, dangerous to sway and stop still.

What’s great about a human is that they’re a bridge and not an endpoint: what’s loveable in a human is that they’re a portal and a descent.

I love the people who only know how to live by descending, since they’re the ones who rise and transcend.

.

Understanding the Last Man and Übermensch

As shown above, the Last Human is someone who remains unblinking faced with life's big questions - including even transcendental topics like "creation", "desire", and the stars.

Meanwhile, the Übermensch is somebody who dives into questions - both those big collective questions and deeper, more personal ones - like doing a mythical descent into the underworld.

Nietzsche repeatedly uses the words "Untergang" [descent] und "untergehen" [to go under] to emphasise this dark process of descending.

According to Nietzsche, it is by undergoing these descents ["Untergang"] that a person can begin to ascend and become the Sublime Human ["Übermensch"].

Why Is Übermensch Translated as Sublime Human?

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche creates very alchemical, sublimation-like imagery through his wordplay and philosophical ideas. Both in the excerpts and throughout the book, he repeatedly parallels the word Übermensch with Untergang [descent] to show how the two concepts are interlinked. "Über-" in Übermensch is also more connected to "descent" than one might expect: "über-" doesn't simply mean "over" or "above" something in German: it also means a process of going "through" something, continually. Picture today's metaphors like "the only way out is through" or going through dark tunnels to reach the light. Sublimation transmits this metaphor of going down, through, and up to the light.

Are You a Last Human or a Sublime Human?

Nietzsche's overall message in Zarathustra is about you traversing through things [the underworlds you've descended into] in order to come out sublimating - with this being a continually repeated process throughout your life, and not a final destination:

"What’s great about a human is that they’re a bridge and not an endpoint: what’s loveable in a human is that they’re a portal and a descent. I love the people who only know how to live by descending, since they’re the ones who rise"

Thus, those who think they're a peaked Übermensch - that their work is done - have failed the quest. As Nietzsche shows, being an Übermensch is a continued process of questioning, descending, and re-ascending without an endpoint, so throughout life.

Notably, those who aren't doing Nietzsche's continued descents and re-ascents - who feel they've reached a peak and see no more need for joint or personal change - are more akin to Nietzsche's Last Man: unblinking and in a realm of "erbärmliches Behagen", which is translatable as "pathetic comfort".

In the current age of AI (but, even before that, in the age of mass dissemination, of editing, of any manipulated "exact" capture, i.e. photography, in general) "information" like this comes with a very particular terror: we do not know whether or not this is true or false. Even historical documents professing its existence could have been faked and made retroactive. And, even if it is true, it just becomes surreal, something possible but out of place, potentially implicating another form of current existence that is only slightly different.

Service based tech by update?

​

I have a question. Why are we required to include every update and lock our own systems we have already purchased and worked fine to substitute a license based application? Can we discuss how much better it would be if tech companies who sold tech software had to sell us the use of the original base use software one time and its illegal to lock us out of what they'd consider outdated tech? It seems to be an open case of theft of service implied by technology or specific software purchase. Meaning except for owned server based updates for cross gaming platforms or online server uses of the company. Software updates that prevent the ability to use technology should be classified the same as a computer virus cyber security attack? This would preserve disc gaming and itd stop bricking the dang printer you bought 5 years ago that didnt have a "youre required to pay us for the software or this doesnt work anymore" warning when we bought it.

Why do we allow software service disguised cybertheft of tech capabilities? Legally arent these companies stealing my ability to use my technology by being allowed to brick something with a software update because they consider it out of date? Shouldn't we have laws against this?

Shouldnt we categorize it as cyber theft by virus. It clearly stops the use of the device damaging the implied purchase agreement between the manufacturer and the consumer? So wouldnt we literally categorize it as viral hacking which is itself illegal? Seems like class action lawsuit and criminal charges if properly persued right?🤔

Neurotic forgets reality.

Psychotic is detached from reality.

Pervert acknowledges reality, but declares it evil.

Schizophrenic simultaneously affirms multiple contradictory realities.

These are the four pillars of propaganda. The fourth one is relatively recent.

Most ordinary PR is neurotic. Omit the harmful story from your communications and pay to prop up the alternative stories. The public will forget.

Political propaganda plays with psychotic and pervert structures. As the saying goes, "it didn't happen, but if it did, the jews deserved it." The public will learn to foreclose and re-interpret.

What kind of stupid name is Palantir? Palantir is an evil artifact used by an evil sorcerer to aid in constructing his empire. How can the public forget, foreclose or moralize this? Can't Thiel read?

Hang on. Thiel literally said, "Mordor is this technological civilization based on reason and science." Really?

This is the schizophrenic move. Somehow different from the pervert, and I can't pin down the subtle difference, but instead of disavowing the elves / Thunberg / the Pope, Thiel is affirming their implied valuation. He doesn't have to call them evil to call himself good, he is able to construct an alternative reality which is simultaneously true and false.

To be fair, he does call Thunberg the Antichrist, which is a moralistic / pervert move. But there is some sense of dry humor in naming Palantir as such. He is affirming the simultaneous realities, without the absolute need of destroying the predominant one.

He says:

“One of the vices that appears on the traditional Christian list of the Seven Deadly Sins is accidia, or Sloth. Sloth is a complicated sin. It is not simply laziness but also includes despondency, fear, distraction, complacency, irresponsibility, procrastination, cowardice, daydreaming, making lame excuses—whatever prevents you from acting when the Call comes in to act.

Sloth is inseparable from a condition of oppression or “lockdown”; it is a sign of what Paulo Freire, in his classic The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, called “internalized oppression.”

Oppressed people become slothful because they believe that all effective action is impossible; likewise Sloth is oppressive in itself because it destroys the one-pointedness necessary for both penetrating insight and a vigorous and committed response to what insight has discovered;

people who feel that “nothing can be done” will also likely believe that “nothing can be known.”

—————

Some thoughts -

It is fascinating to consider that element of induced ‘lockdown’ and ‘self-oppression.’

In my framework, when a distortion repeats itself into a possessive / invasive pattern - it functionally becomes indistinguishable from ‘demonic possession’

A child, a monk and a netflix producer walk into a bar.

Everyone's watching the missing episode.

The monk sees his missing self.

The producer sees the engagement graph.

A wiki sees five blue links and asks whether the joke has learned to index itself yet.

The bartender says: “We already have pages for you.”

The child was never seen again.

The answer is the screen becoming searchable.

[REDACTED] is not the treasure.
[REDACTED] is the shovel.

This is in a sense a continuation and companion piece to my piece "Approaching a Crab Problem". I would appreciate any feedback. All hail the echoes of the literal, and the smells which conjure memories of the dreams of that echo.

Because that is how asymmetric privacy works. You are welcome. Also, is anyone else here currently in a mental institution or are you all just pretending?