Majic
just a patsy
He sobbed and he sighed and a gurgle he gave, then he plunged himself into the billowy wave, and an echo arose from the suicide's grave: "oh, willow, tit willow, tit willow…”
User ID: 2890
Majic
just a patsy
13d ago
True, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they drank the Kool-Aid so hard that they don’t actually think their lives are in danger; the Kennedy’s just accept the standard stories (because it’s ‘the Science’ TM), so that they become their own perfect self-propagandizers. Basically just a perfect showing of the capturing of American aristocracy for the purpose of the empire above all else. You won’t even need to be afraid!
Majic
just a patsy
13d ago
Right, but the mode in which he was regarded as the ‘crazy uncle’ was through… distrusting the government that ~ 80% of the country believes killed his family as well as wanting to recreate an idealistic version of the governance his family had when at the peak of their power in modern America, which the family has decisively rejected as a fantasy (even though JFK’s whole thing was this fantasy being possible through effort, ‘not that it’s easy, but because it’s hard’, etc.)
The entire family seems to have abandoned this desire and rejected their predecessors’ skepticism towards the institutions of this country (especially in intelligence) and traded it off for simply being a name to aim to have on your donation lists. It’s a shame.
Majic
just a patsy
13d ago
Biden has been enlisting the Kennedy family to disavow one of their own and prop up himself as the ultimate and only possible candidate for Democrats recently, to the point where Bobby Jr.’s own brother has rejected him and has said on record that he will to the best of his ability attempt to persuade his sibling to drop out of the race. This does seem pretty harsh, especially with Biden saying he will to the best of his ability attempt to attain Bobby Sr.’s dreams in his continued Presidency—essentially a shot at Bobby Jr.—given the fact that not only does the President of the United States not believe that Bobby Jr. can fulfill his own father’s hopes, but the entire Kennedy family doesn’t, and rather they believe a probable dementia-sufferer has a safer chance of doing that.
It does seem to me that Bobby Jr. might be the last one in the family to at least hope for a fulfillment of Camelot, given the rejection of such a concept by the rest of the family, to the point where King Arthur has been succeeded by the court fool after all these years of the seat being vacant. Biden as coming from the same stock (Black Irish “Catholic”) and the same era is basically an imposter adopted by the Kennedy’s, yet they would rather have him instead of their own flesh-and-blood, given their total allegiance to the modern Democratic Party (which Biden probably doesn’t really understand himself, given the fact that he, along with all the other Kennedy’s of old, would have had a probable heart attack if they were able to see where everything else is now back then—even with all of Jack Kennedy’s lapsed Catholicism and infidelity, I doubt he would have been such a phony to host pride parades at the White House).
Which raises the question: what was the ultimate act of treachery by Bobby Jr.? There’s a lot of possibilities, and as far as I know he’s the only one in the family to doubt the government-approved stories of how his family members were killed, and as Bobby Jr. would probably pardon Sirhan Sirhan (and maybe Oswald) if he ever wins, that would probably be a huge instance of disrespect in their eyes.
Majic
just a patsy
25d ago
Or more specifically, all great civilizations have a drive for the end of history, which would inevitably lead to the death of change and the resurrection of a perennial age from the ashes (which means that everything has to burn down first). A typical Marxist would say that the American and French revolutions were extensions of this in terms of being ‘revolutions of the bourgeoisie’, which ironically wasn’t the ending of history, but the starting of an entirely new era (the one of the subjugation of the proletariat in capitalism), but every new cycle thinks it’s the last.
Sharia law really isn't something you want in the modern world. The prohibitions on interest alone would destroy the economy far worse than what current elites are doing by not listening to economists/giving in to populists.
I think that if sharia were to come anyways it wouldn’t be accompanied by non-collapse in any case, I’m sure that the other person who wants shariah over the current ruling of Western elites would also be fine with a collapse in order to destroy the currently crafted elite-order; you wouldn’t want to defeat the elites and then swap out them with another set of elites with beards while keeping everything else in place.
Most interestingly the first actual imposition of shariah on the world from the 7th century onward was seen by Christians and Jews as an instance of collapse for the greater good: God was punishing them for their decadence and heresies. The Jews thought that God was rewarding them and relinquishing their punishment from under the Christians, only for the Muslims to subsequently punish the Jews again and prevent the one thing they really wanted (building the third temple) by building the dome of the rock. The Christians thought this was variably punishment for having so many schisms or having icons or whatever. In any case everyone was basically expecting the world to end in the 7th century anyways (in fact even the Muslims did, they thought that Jesus was going to come back after they took Jerusalem), and the Muhammadan caliphate was just another extension of this apocalyptic hope. Everyone was yearning for ultimate collapse, which didn’t actually happen, only regional collapse did.
We might be seeing this yearning for ultimate collapse once again come about, hence why everyone (e.g Catgirl Kulak) seems to be saying that ‘in a couple of decades the entire economy will collapse!’ at best or ‘everyone on earth will fall dead in the same second’ at worst (e.g AI doomers). The hope for shariah is probably just another element of that Western death-drive.
His Excellency Joe Biden has declared March 31st a certain ‘Transgender Day of Visibility’, which has generated derision due to its simultaneity with the Western date of Easter Sunday. If this happened outside of Holy Week, it likely would have prompted the regimented groans from the right side of the isle, and that would be that; coincidentally, however, this ‘holiday’ (which has been declared such since 2009) happened to fall on the holiest day of the year for Christians, the group which is perhaps the biggest collection of resisters against transgenderism. Naturally, this has created a lot of controversy. Trump and his team even issued a statement calling for Biden to apologize for his ‘blasphemy’, which is probably a unique event all things considered (when’s the last time you’ve heard of a politician smear another one for blasphemy? In 2000+24, no less?) Such personalities as Caitlyn Jenner and Musk have responded with similar negative attitudes.
Now, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Biden didn’t make this decision himself. It was definitely his team which did this, in order to show his support for the ‘marginalized’, even as he has declared this day one for ‘visibility’ years before in his term. It raises the question, though, on whether or not Biden actually has these thoughts of support for these people and their identities, with this support even superseding the remembrance of Christ’s resurrection (keep in mind that Biden is an 80 year old ‘devout Catholic’, allegedly). I really doubt he does, but I’m more interested in what he actually thinks about these developments. And, how would his team react to the fact that the black community would significantly oppose this, given their high rate of religiosity? Does Biden still think this is 1969, where if you were transgender you would probably lose your job and become exiled from all institutions in society? Thoughts?
Majic
just a patsy
1mo ago
What was Trump's great betrayal against "them"?
Being somewhat of a dove? Snubbing Hillary? Who knows. It’s mostly just something that could be pointed out after the fact of Trump’s opposition attempting to tear him down at every possible point ever (cf. Jan 6, which was a definitive IC job).
Aso best theory I've seen is JFK wasn't assassinated for crossing the CIA but for blocking the Israeli nuclear program... only actor who considered JFK an existential threat not just to the pensions but to their lives
It’s a good theory (insofar as they’d probably want to do that) but the main thing with the case is that there were multiple actors whose lives were threatened, not just Israel (e.g. Anti-Castro elements regarding Cuba, the Mob, etc.) It’s just that the deathbed confessions & auxiliary circumstantial evidence seem to be indicative of some sort of Cuban Exile impetus, rather than anything else. I would not surprised if some Mossad operative was in on the plot, though.
Of course, as you and some others already noted, there’s the possibility that Trump dies. Ignoring the baseline of natural causes, there’s a moderate possibility of this happening per an assassination, given that:
- The one method of removing politicians from office used by the ‘deep state’ (e.g. Watergate, which was most likely a CIA job) involving hilariously huge false-flag scandals has been lobbed at Trump so many times the way all the instances have fantastically failed is spectacular in and of itself.
- The motivations behind the previous use of the other method (e.g. the Bay of Pigs) were considerably lesser in stake compared to the betrayal Trump has committed against “them”.
The difference between then and now is that people are more willing to challenge the official narratives. If there will be magic bullets (and there will) they will be rejected, at least by the vast majority of the population. It could legitimately cause a national divorce, if it is officially decreed that the intelligence services did it, actually this time, rather than it being simply suspected.
I favour regulation that slows down the corporate and state AI programs, to the benefit of open-source and decentralized AI.
The traditional Yudkowskian rebuttal would be the fact that any given sufficiently advanced AI could operate on models of decision theory visible to other similarly-advanced AIs but not as knowable to you, so that collusion would be possible in the better interest of such AIs with probable compromises and trade-offs in order to better cement their goals per shares of the future lightcone. Such conspiracies could most probably be worse off for humanity rather than simply having one generalized-up-to-super artificial intelligence, given that such a combination of already-complex goals by multiple agencies acting as one seems notoriously harder to comprehend or predict as compared to the (already) ineffable possible future super-AI. This is the defeater to the ‘just make AIs fight each other bro’ take that LeCun et al. posit. Open-sourcing wouldn’t do anything if the alignment problem isn’t solved, and accelerating AI development through open-sourcing seems to be a bad idea, as that also increases the probability of ‘near-misses’ when it comes to alignment, which is considerably more likely to lead to s-risks rather than blatantly robust misalignment.
Yud is right in that a ‘pivotal act’ by some first actor with an aligned AGI is needed in order to safeguard humanity, but the corollary problem with this is that this actor would subsequently become the ‘conditioner’ of all possible future human societies and hence become possibly the worst tyrant ever seen in the history of mankind, especially with the moral ontologies expected of SanFran Venture Capitalists.
In all frankness I’m not sure what the best mode of action is. I doubt humans at our current state can even sufficiently wield such power with wisdom, which is why Yud’s proposal of pausing AI development, going for intelligence augmentation, then going for the gold seems wise. Otherwise I think we’re fucked (…until the parousia).
Majic
just a patsy
1mo ago
I’d be willing to entertain the notion if anyone “convinced that Gorsch is legit” had any background in the hard sciences.
There are people like that (e.g. Jacques Vallee, Eric W. Davis, Hal Puthoff, Jack Sarfatti, to a certain extent Eric Weinstein) but unfortunately they’re all pretty much ‘unhinged’ to the point where it doesn’t really matter. They all believe (besides Weinstein) in things like remote viewing and parapsychological phenomena which would disqualify any materialist from taking what they say seriously prima facie, and coincidentally, all of them besides Weinstein have worked for intelligence services (ONI, CIA, NSA, etc.) before. Weinstein is a bit of a wildcard since he doesn’t believe in things beyond the materialistic paradigm he was taught in, but he also is totally divorced from academia and many people think he’s a crank since he indicates that people like Ed Witten are intelligence operatives and String Theory is a psyop, etc.
After all, we went to the moon basically just to show off.
Right, but the ‘UFO phenomenon’ is seen by most Ufologists as mostly pertaining to involvement beyond simple scientific or recreational activities on behalf of the so-called ‘Ufonauts’, or the intelligence behind the phenomenon at large, given the fact of how intricate the deception and psychologically-based operation of this intelligence seems to be. This seems to be indicative of something beyond simple probing for the sake of another intelligence understanding a lesser one (especially since, if these things are actually aliens, and could engineer the space-time metric like no-one’s business, something like nanotechnology or ancestor-like simulations wouldn’t be too far away in the tree of technological development most likely, and having nuts-n’-bolts style data-collection would be too ‘clunky’). Jacques Vallee formulates a handful of arguments against the hypothesis that these are actual interplanetary spacecraft here if you take the data seriously. As a corollary of this, the ‘control system’ that Vallee describes the UFO phenomenon as being (some sort of atemporal ‘higher-dimensional’ memetic phenomenon attempting to manifest its existence to us through manipulation of our mental, spiritual, and physical faculties) also seems to be very hard to distinguish from some sort of intelligence operation done on behalf of the US government, as some of the first abduction experiences also seem to point to some psyops entirely. The issue is that the intelligence community also seems to have some sort of belief in these things (as shown with Grusch et al.) and also seem to consider themselves as ‘superior’ to the rest of the population due to their knowledge of such things ultimately.
So we’ve come to this weird impasse where elements of the intelligence community are attempting to manipulate phenomena like this, while also ostensibly believing in it, to the point where the so-called ‘gatekeepers’ consider themselves incumbent to manipulate the rest of humanity with this given technological advantage for the ‘greater-good’ in a mode of absolute secrecy, which coincidentally is very reminiscent of the top-AI labs and the idea of ‘pivotal acts’. Also, the whole ‘this memetic structure from a higher atemporal dimension is attempting to manifest itself through us without direct causal actions, mentally and physically’ idea is an antecedent to the Landian accelerationist idea of AI & capitalism as a basilisk which has itself been succeeded in this community by e/acc people. So it’s interesting to see how that plays out.
EDIT: some links fixed.
It was quite embarrassing and a part of me hated it. I mean honestly this whole process has been difficult internally, I find materialism and atheism a difficult mindset to shed which is why part of why I write about it on here occasionally.
I commend you on occasionally bringing up this topic because it’s really quite important at the end of the day, and obviously the scientific idea of there being something ‘beyond’ science seems to be such a taboo idea that you can even do race science and get by, but if you posit something like ‘maybe remote viewing is a thing?’ you immediately get anathematized. This is despite the fact that most humans in history have had a deeply-held belief that the material reality we experience is not all-there-is, and many many many people in the past (and today) have had direct experiences not explainable by our current models of empirical reality or even our current ideations of psychological conditioning (e.g. UFO encounters by nuke-launchers).
Also, in my opinion, once you get deeper into the idea of this non-materialized phenomenon seemingly being even intelligent, then the topic of studying this thing and utilizing it seems to be an extremely hard process compared to simply doing repeatable experiments on dumb matter — it’s most like attempting to align an AGI on the first-try without having any test-cases rather than being able to measure the acceleration of a ball dropped from a constant height, for an example that would be appreciated by this community more than others.
I also personally find the arguments for God, or at least a necessitated intelligent prime-mover, to be extremely more powerful than the arguments against such a being’s existence, so I am probably much more open to non-physical phenomena existing, as at least one thing outside of material reality exists in my mind. My own personal experiences seem to corroborate this fact, as I have also had very powerful emotional experiences & physical changes occur due to the fact of my new-found faith and also my Christian conversion from atheism. You’re definitely not alone in this, and all I can say is that you shouldn’t ever think you are.
Majic
just a patsy
1mo ago
The materialist conception doesn’t even necessarily prohibit some kind of spiritual existence, a soul of some form, a God, an all-loving, all-knowing being beyond and above us (the simulation hypothesis, which would allow for such a God, can be framed in materialist terms)… It just says that if they’re real they’re going to be systems, they’re going to function in a predictable way, they’re going to be based on laws of the universe whether we understand them yet or not.
I guess it really depends on your definition of ‘material’, because the standard conceptions of these things (like the conception of God’s omnipotence and omniscience) are very much contrary to the idea of material existence in terms of things like, ‘these are actual objects composed of materially smaller parts put together in some larger material space’. If you conceptualize materialism as just, ‘this is a paradigm that says that things will function in a way predictably subject to the axioms of existence at large’ then that’s not really something rejected by even staunch anti-materialist theists, as they see the entirety of the universe (including the things in the universe that aren’t ‘physical’) as predictably and ultimately subordinate to God’s will, and if you have knowledge of God’s will through viewing God’s essence (in terms of the Beatific vision) then you also have total knowledge about the past and future as far as a human could possibly know. In fact, the idea in Catholicism that perfect knowledge of God, who is the embodiment of all possible laws of being as God is Being, in fact makes you God (as that communicates to you the divine essence).
And obviously the classical theistic idea of ‘God’ is also much different from the post-humans attempting to capture us in ancestor simulations. They’re still, to our knowledge, ‘finite’ in terms of causality, space, time, extension, dimension, etc. If not, then they wouldn’t need to ‘simulate’ us to begin with, as there would be no distinction between their knowledge in simulating us or not simulating us, or distinctions in their indexical knowledge from ‘t1 where 1 is the second before the simulation occurs’ and ‘t2 where 2 is the second when the simulation starts’. A truly all-knowing and all-powerful deity wouldn’t be limited by computation (or hypercomputation) and would be more analogous to like, a metaphysical singularity rather than anything else. This is also quite similar to the Buddhist idea of non-duality which is pretty antithetical to materialism, to the point where basic classical laws of logic like the law of excluded middle seem to break down once you try to predicate the non-existence of the ‘self’. If I am mischaracterizing your conceptualization of materialism then I’m sorry, because I’m taking this from a very rudimentary idea of materialism as effectively conceiving reality as just being totally concrete sums of things out together in causally connected ‘space’. The traditional Aristotelian ideas of angels as being just forms beyond space and time and God as being pure actuality, as well as the Dharmic ideals of the ultimate non-existence of selfhood and the univocality of nirvana and samsara. The investments of these religious ideals are much bigger than anything extensions of materialism can supply, even the ‘out-there’ materialism of transhumanists where you can just recreate everyone who ever lived in an ancestor simulation and call that ‘heaven’, even as someone like Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t consider that as the same thing as transcending material reality, causality, and spatiality at all in union with the ultimate metaphysical principle at all.
I think this attitude probably above all proves the basic fact that the Enlightenment effort failed. This failure was despite the fact of the promulgation of the ability to manipulate our environment with its ideals, as in, we as human beings were made one with the environment that we were supposed to study (the ‘phenomenological’ world, as Kant would express) and hence the idea of conscious experience (the ‘noumenon’ representing qualitative experience, the ‘self’) was somehow shifted into the categories of the empirical world; we began to see our conscious-experience as just another ‘thing’ we should study with the mind instead of it being a top-down observer which had to enter into that world of materiality to understand it.
And consequently, as we were skeptical of that empirical, phenomenological world, we were skeptical of our own conceptions of uniqueness—we began to collapse that luster of what experience really meant as a liberated agentic ‘force’ which could impact reality as mere dumb things couldn’t, we made the sharpness of the edges of the conscious mind in comparison to the dullness of the mundane things around us analogous to those mundane things, just with added processes hitherto unknown that were compossible with those mundane things, and were probably just another mundane thing that we hadn’t categorized yet. Hence we stopped thinking of people as having ‘souls’, but just being flesh-automatons piloted by electricity. Lovecraft, or other fictional views of the world in this stead, just espouse the same basic idea of life inherently having no pattern, no uniqueness, that if we were all swept away tomorrow it wouldn’t matter—and yet this was seen as something that should be accepted unflinchingly! As just an extrapolation of the inevitable axiom of the Enlightenment project, to seek truth wherever it was, even as this truth hurt to look at.
And yet that ignores the fact that the methodology of this conclusion might be faulty on its own terms, for if we are to assume human flourishing as related to social norms is also a fact of life, a fact as true as the fact that we have evolved from single-celled organisms billions of years ago, then we aren’t to flinch from that, either. If we are to assume that the idea of the pursuit of truth is worthwhile because it pursues some ‘good’, with this good being expressed in terms of human flourishing (since the idea of ‘there’s no pattern in this world, we are alone’ would be antithetical to the idea of formulating the pursuit of truth in any way beyond a utilitarian mode), then that also would carry for those social norms being good for the same goal. For if we are to abstract truths from their ‘metaphysical’ qualities as the materialist extrapolation of the Enlightenment project says we should do, then there is no difference between these two facts after all, and if one (the pursuit of flourishing) even supersedes the fact of pursuing truth that could diminish the flourishing of the first, then we must necessarily choose the former—since, as said, the only motivation towards pursuing truth whatsoever would be to maximize the pursuit of flourishing to begin with. The latter is embedded in the former, not the other way around.
And yet, again, this is only something brought up if the Enlightenment project’s conclusions are bought on their own terms for the sake of argument. There are reasons to even reject the conclusion that materialism is well-founded, especially from the skepticism that regarded us as believing in materialism in the first place (due to being skepticism of our own skepticism, for instance—a ‘critique of pure reason’, if you will). Not to mention the fact that if the truths of this reality and the evolution of our subsequent conscious minds would be based on the materialistic framework, then accepting the naturalistic model of the world because our conscious minds (operating on a process of materialistic accidents) would similarly be irrational. Our conscious minds in totality, as a thing-in-itself, should be ‘beyond’ the phenomenology expressed and filtered through that consciously-reflected sense experience; to attempt to understand our conscious minds through that world would be an instance of relative self-reference, which could cause loads of paradoxes due to circularity and things like that.
Recommended watching of Derrick Jensen with regard to the libertine (and Sadist) currents of anarchic currents of anti-traditionalism (leftism) from pre-modernity to the present here. This video goes into how there has always been sort of an ‘antinomian’ side of society seeking to transgress all normative cultural laws since the beginning, looking from Diogenes as an example from within the Greeks and then moving further through the Enlightenment era and into modernity. Zizek’s thesis is one that is interesting, since Kant separating the spiritual from baseline reality and the causal-nexus could lead to such a ‘break’ analogous to the libertinism of the Gnostics, with the gnostic-mindset separating the spiritual from the physical thousands of years earlier, subsequently participating in such debauchery that certain named sects have just been assumed to have not existed due to how much sadism would have been involved. The distinction here is that such debauchery is obviously inherently reactionary towards the nomology of society, whereas rightism taking the status of the ‘counterculture’ is not as remotely libertine, meaning that it’s not really appropriate to say that leftism supplanted the nomology of society but instead corrupted it, as some sort of industrially-facilitated auto-immune disorder as opposed to anything else, with rightism in modern society basically being the delayed and weakened immune response.
It’s not inappropriate to say that the death machine of Auschwitz was the immune response to the libertine nature of certain communist and anarchist movements in Germany as post-enlightenment and industrial projects. The whole ‘Weimar Germany was a haven for transgender people!’ is an example—it’s just that the traditional mode of history is that once the ‘tradition’ gets corrupted by antinomian currents the entire thing gets blown up and millions of people die on average, whether by starvation or shooting or sterilization, etc. The reason why there was no morality there in order to stop Auschwitz from happening was indeed because of Kant and the Enlightenment project at large, but in spite of what they had brought even though that spiting was in its context. This same ‘antinomian’ spirit was seen in a Jewish context too, through Frankism (essentially a form of Gnosticism), which has been related to the Frankfurt school by a few people. Modern accelerationists are symptomatic of this, too.
More options
Context Copy link