Taking a break from fiction, and contemplating

29/05/25 Points of philosophical inquiry

the shock war (transition or resurrection?)

For the last two millennia, we the readers of this text have been bombarded, quite murderously, with the following message: “believe that death is not permanent”. Alas! We perceive! And what do we perceive?

That there is life. That there is death. That there is man. That there is woman. For every damaged human trapped in a coma, there was born another damaged human with dysfunctional chromosomes, rendering them harder to appropriately gender without careful examination. Sounds may come out of their mouth, yet those sounds are quite useless to the pursuit of the biological truth.

Yet here we are, as a species: that we look at these two subject matters, the spectrum of mortality and the spectrum of gender, as the most important of our lives, with no regard for their obvious fabricated nature. Why is it perpetrated upon us?

Quite simply, because these two social phenomenons are feeding upon the sacrifice of the Truth Speaker. As a fox being smoked out of its lair, the Truth Speaker feels this irresistible urge to correct an obvious mistake, perhaps an evolutionary mechanism intended to protect the tribe from horrible tragedy ... and so he improvises himself a beacon, out in the open, easier to find ... easier to annihilate, to make an example out of; as a consequence, the fearful sheep rally around the wielders of power, making them even stronger than before.

The sacrifices continue as long as this “genetic flaw”, as it appears to be understood by the human species, continues to perpetuate itself with any level of visibility.

Why do these two distinct social phenomenons - let’s call them “proselytizations” - appear to fundamentally reject the other? It does not seem, at first glance, that someone who rejects reality should somehow discriminate against their brothers in delusion; yet they do.

Because they identify as rivals.

What will be the next shock? The requirements are somehow minimal, yet involve the clause of absolute absence of the potential for evidence. I suggest here the construction of the Synthetic Man, as it has provoked a great disenfranchisement of disbelievers across the world.

the synthetic man

We now live in the post-natural human civilization. It was sudden, and it was wrong. There are fundamentally three quantities currently living in the Western World: an elite made out of greedy, inept bankers with absolutely horrible priorities as individuals, and as a group. Their flock of sheep, whom will follow their orders, regardless of ideals or principles, because they are capable of levying violence towards them in total impunity. The last category is what is left behind at every turn: those who care about truth.

What was it, exactly, that made man into a pale reflection of himself? Was it industrialization, and being forced to identify as a cog in a machine? Was it the ubiquity of consumer grade technological equipment, and the resulting half-lived life of instantaneous self-gratification? Surely we may find a benefit to the invention of the calculator, and the sacrifice of the men who brought this useful tool without our grasp. Or was it to force the entire population of the western world to receive compulsive gene therapy, under the guise of protecting them from a bad flu?

We have received a very clear signal: We Do Not Own Ourselves. Whenever that signal originated, it may vary for different people I am sure, the result is always the same: we, as a civilization, are moving away from intuition and respect for the legitimate grievances of the independent thinker.

Remember! Remember! There was never a debate; there was never a referendum; there was never honesty. There is only the crippled husk that goes to bed every night, incapable of formulating into words the exact nature of its enslavement. And an elite that is as misguided as it is outrageously rich.

analogic reasoning

What is like a picture? Analogies.

Analogies possess one clear purpose: to expediently convey an idea in a general sense. Many ideas map unto each other in similar patterns, as such, within a reductive context, “Left” can be comprehended as “West”, “Home” as “Country”, “Sheep” as “Man”, and countless others.

We say that a man is a sheep, not because he has wool, or because he has limited language, or because he is quadrupedal, or because he wears a bell around his neck. Rather, sheep organize unto easily maneuvered flocks, to be exploited by a superior life form. A sheep might complain if the shepard exchanges his dogs for wolves, yet it would not have any reasonable means of defending itself; and so it is clear that they are only allowed to live because their exploitation generates a profit.

This analogy, of course, falls flat on its face if some unspoken variable that is missing in the sheep but present in the human produces some radically different outcome. What applies to a sheep, and what action can be perpetrated towards it, is strictly distinct from what applies to a human because they ultimately are not the same type of life form. We perceive the difference between the two, and this understanding lends itself to separate rational groupings.

Analogies do not speak to some consistent moral or philosophical framework, and can easily be employed to convince some third party to do or not do something, regardless of what context is being provided: do (not?) seek vengeance. “Trust me, I will tell you the story that will make you submit to my favored outcome”, they might as well say.

It is as a flip of a coin; and so we understand each picture comes in pairs.

the drug trade

We know, ever since the Opium Wars, that the only purpose of drugs is to deplete the capital in the hands of the exploited class. First make them work to the bones. Second sell them an artificial escape from their pain. Reap the entirety of the profits.

That is the full extent of the meaning of drugs, and nowhere was it more obvious than when the Chinese were expected to accept to be literally paid in such a currency, bypassing any notion of mutually beneficial colonization.

* I feel compelled to revisit this point, because it seems a bit rough; yet if I could speak to my younger self, I would definitely emphasize to him that he should not poison his own body; he should not mutilate himself; his body is a temple to his mind, and, being that he his male, he has to solve his own problems, and no one will ever help. No one cares about your problems, your situation, or your feelings. Drugs are an escape from perseverance, they have the power to make any man weak rather than strong. That being said, alcohol instigated sedentarism, and can be used as an emergency water supply (killing microbes); coffee, cocaine, steroids and other ‘enhancers’ may alter the outcome of a competition, etc. The word ‘trade’ in the title doesn’t quite indicate clearly enough that this point is about the transaction of drugs between two rational entities seeking their own best self-interest. In that context, drugs are a horrible currency that can only be worthwhile if they are somehow pushed unto some third party.

the social, or feminine, laughter

All jokes were not created equal; yet they might as well be, when you hear this very distinct sound. Far from an admission of pleasure, surprise, or admiration, it is, much above anything else, a signal of prospective or assuaging friendship. Is it wrong? At the very least, it is a manner of a lie inhabiting a dimension of social ambition.

the nature of the internet

Proponents of the “dead internet” might agree that the internet as now reached a stage at which, while there might be human-made digital trails still present, it can be said, at the very least, that collective attention and consensus are heavily skewed towards a specific ideology, namely the ever-morphing judeo-feminist progressive global corporation ideology - let’s call them “globalists” - compelling the individualized, atomized viewer into expecting that he should perceive reality a certain way. This viewer is influenced by what he believes to be the majority of people - yet what is actually influencing him is algorithms. And so it is that some people do better than others in a rigged competition with ever-changing rules and arbitrary incentives (what actual regular person believes in NFTs?), becoming nodes in an ever-larger tree of superficial scammers.

As the internet outlived its usefulness? When was the last time anyone actually used the Google search engine, except to type “covid” and receive a million identical results from a million different “official” news websites? They could at least tweak their titles!

In its first generation, the purpose of the internet was to facilitate access to information through the availability of data transfer.

In its second generation, it served to connect people virtually rather than physically.

In its third generation, five or six bloated hyper-corporations take any opportunity you offer them to play AI-induced mind games to get you to buy ideas, product, a lifestyle, or any other variation of subjection. In a post-truth world, consensus is whatever benefits the wealthy, and the “official” media is subsidized by the monopoly on violence ... which ... is ... in the hands of the wealthy.

We may, surely, only dread what comes next.

benevolent corporation

Some corporations enslave children to make their shoes - and give the resulting profits to some minority athlete so they may look good. Some corporations make coffee baristas handle trash bags filled with the biohazard of junkie needles without any special protection of any kind.

Corporations love to look good. Yet, truthfully, we must ask the question: is it possible for a corporation to be benevolent? What does it actually entail?

For my part, I imagine a manner of a subscription scheme in which the corporation ensures that it is providing the consumer with the highest possible quality of product - given the particular subscription rank under which it is operating - with the possibility of maintenance and replacement.

As such, individual products are intended to be good, lasting for as long as possible, and above all a choice in commitment rather than a choice in aesthetics.

A given consumer might be willing to only buy things when he needs them; another might want to pay as little as possible, and receive the typical trash we are used to, and yet another might be willing to pay more given the production chain is exclusively local, or carbon neutral, or some other feature.

The corporation must operate on one of a few specified models, a luxury corporation being distinct from a “poor” one.

Depending on the subscription, the consumer subsidizes different innovation and expansion capabilities.

Resale of products is dependent on the scheme of acquisition, and might not be permitted; someone caught illegally reselling might be forced to pay the full, non-subscription value of the lost item.

Let’s take the example of a corporation, which, amongst other things, sells shovels. Ideally, the default corporation provides its subscriber a sturdy shovel for free. At the expiration date, the subscriber will be refurbished his allocation in fresh shovels. If the shovel breaks before its expiration date, it can be repaired at that corporation physical location; maybe only the handle must be fixed, and they have spares. The subscriber might have to pay the subscriber price for a shovel handle. If it is lost or irreparably damaged (ideally, the corporation would be offering recycling on all its products, thus entering a given rank, possibly exposing itself to tax breaks, etc.) then he pays the subscriber price for an extra shovel.

Different subscription schemes might allow the subscriber to get more than one shovel for free at any given iteration. The corporation is competing with other corporations, and might allow non-subscribers to buy their shovels for a higher price. If a subscriber is somehow deliberately sabotaging the corporation, it is allowed to break the subscription, and ban the individual from accessing their facilities (they should probably need some legally valid offense as their pretext). In turn, nothing holds the individual to a subscription - most likely, however, they would pay an advance when joining.

Considering the shovel corporation is successful, it might either invest more in shovel research (not all research fields were created equal), or shovel manufacturing, or diversify, and try some new product to add to their collection. Let’s say hammers. These hammers may not be immediately available for free to the subscribers - whom does have access to the subscriber price. The corporation still benefits from making high quality hammers, because subscribers may leave, and it is more attractive to hand out as few free items as possible - thus extending the expiration date to its furthest possible extent.

Expiration date is determined through in-depth testing. Expiration testing is monitored by some quality control government agency.

A different dynamic might be necessary for highly sophisticated technological products relying on complex copyrights, or generally corporations that are not oriented towards providing objects to individual humans. Farmers should be able to repair their tractor engine; however in this model the services offered by the corporation are not monetized, they are perks. The only regular exchange of money occurs at a predictable rate through membership. Overall the subscriber loses more money than the value of the items he acquires; but he as some freedom in the matter. He also would lose more if he purchased every item outside of subscription.

You have been contemplating

Points of philosophical inquiry