/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

You

>>91173
my personal belief is that you should trust others until you have reason not to. If you don't give them the benefit of the doubt at the very least to start off, you never get any allies or friends. However, one shouldn't be too trusting except with those who have demonstrated they're worthy of it for risks that should be fairly obvious.
Just my two cents.

>>91175
Are we in a world where objective truth still exists? And if we trust someone, are we just trusting what they beLIEve?

>>91174
e-stalker

>>91176
Objective truth will exist so long as there are things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, such as the fundamental laws of the universe. Those can be proved by yourself, given you know how to go about testing it. However, that second bit is simply up to your discretion. You never know the full truth of what someone else says unless you have the ability to validate it, or they present you with enough steadfast and non-falsified information to prove their point, and where you draw that line is up to you.

>>91178
Except for physics. Research does not clarify, and the vast majority of human organised effort is devoted to deception. Whilst we might be able to trust someone close, beyond that is deception. Why seek?
Fantasy > Reality

All posts need an emo pony, these are ghastly glorious.

>>91177
Whatever, senpai. I'll answer you more in depth soon.

>>91179
research may not clarify, but it provides a perspective should it not be manipulated for ulterior motives. People deceive to try to gain an advantage, but others band together in truth and friendship so that they may overcome those same evils used by the deceivers. Seek for the hope of one day finding the truth, or at the very least for leaving progress for someone else to do so.
I don't have any emo ponies, but then again I'm not some angsty fag, so here's a happy one.

>>91182
Information entropy -> Perspective entropy.

>>91180
I'll keep you in the closet for later.

>>91183
if the information's validity changes, then find a new perspective that fits the model. Humans aren't static creatures, almost everything we encounter we end up changing through our own will of bringing order to a place where there otherwise wouldn't be any. Thus would stand that whatever truths we found about ourselves would be just as willful and dynamic as those who discovered it. However, the changes we undergo are still gradual. Should you find such a discrepancy, the new answer shouldn't be far off.
>tfw one-fingered typing

Trust, like truth, is similar to that of a scientific method few wish to pursue. Hegel makes a worthy effort of making this method; also, I will tell you that I only quickly researched this minutes ago because I trust you and I want you to trust me; continuing, with this quote, ""What is rational is real; And what is real is rational." In rationality, implying and asserting that truth does not live in a vacuum. Truth, like trust, needs to be tested to its limits, 'till it almost shatters in sublation (when an antithesis meets a thesis.) Hegel tested this in threes (I like 3s, they're a truth in themselves); "An-sich, Anderssein, An-und-für-sich." Translate this or see where I'm taking this from, and you'll learn the process. Summed up as truth is either not or is. Existent or nothing. This in itself showing how delicate truth is, since it is all too human. Or, maybe are we? Perhaps humans are like geists perceiving what they are pursuing are geists they are; all in the head of truth. But, then we would typically have to go by Descartes and say, "I think, therefore I am." However, didn't Heidegger go against him? Did Heidegger kill the Descartes? If I'm losing you, then I am intellectually masturbating in my ramblings. Which is a problem with truth; no; actually the humans all too human. Because, the pursuit itself drives a man into a world of insanity and delusion in its own right. Mentioning Hegel, this is far too true since Hegel is the unwitting grandfather of Marxism. A tale too horrifying to tell. Even if Marxism has merits in itself. Hopefully even typing that doesn't bring pitchforks to my throat. I think that's what I have to say until you spur more thoughts from me, senpai. ~

>>91173
There is no trusting anyone anymore. Everyone is trying to sell you something these days and there is no escaping it. Reality is collapsing.

>>91193
A saying comes to mind: "If you can't explain something in simple terms you don't understand it." Intellectual masturbation is a big problem. Memes are the reduction of complexity down into core understanding. Normies, everyone, needs simple explanations. Things that a true have a core. It is unshakeable, from this core position all that comes after makes sense, even things that before made no sense.

There is truths and then there is all the texts humanity has typed to such a degree that we are lost in the forest of words. And now we have the internet to accelerate the masturbation of words and the edifices of information hierarchies failing. Because the elite need to stay elite.

Having an informed public, also informs the enemy, therefore NEVER inform the public, deceive them as you would your enemies.

>>91219
Are you not masturbating right now, Vril?

>>91212
I would adjust this slightly. Delusion is collapsing. The problem I am concerned with is it gets replaced with nothing or apathy or confusion. Truth, when you were never there or can never replicate, is indistinguishable from deception. The vast majority of our assumptions were never tested. I am what I think, I think in delusions given to me. We have culture not truths.

3 by 3

>>91220
Yes depending on definition. I was thinking mental masturbation was thought without focus or meaning. Intellect for intellects sake.

My larger, pointed concern is, as "reality" perception collapses as the evil comes to light. What replaces the happy delusion we used to have?

Also stop intellectually cybering me, stalker! ;)

>>91224
>depending on definition
I see the fragility of truth again, but I'll let it slide. That would be masturbation again. It's never a shame to admit to it. I get your point, but what is the extent of the yolk of knowledge? If the evil is revealed, how do we not become evil in the process of vanquishing it or succumb to it before then?

No, the instrumentality will begin.

>>91225
The only knowledge is physics, everything else is a perception to be fought over and kill for.

"They reason about legitimate ends—what they ought to do—and about efficient means—how they ought to achieve their ends."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_and_value_rationality

Thought is deception. Since thought can vary thought is choosing a side in conflict. Since we are conflicted the population should be subjugated.

>>91230
I always had been astounded by the existence of cultural truths that only ever existed in one and only one alone. If truths are to be fought and killed over, would man become one under a single truth in instrumentality. This is what they want, don't they?

>>91232
Can all remaining minds hold one ideal if enough countering minds are genocided? Can one religion rule the world? If Hitler won, would we all be united?

What if the underpinning of the universe, the quantum chaos, means no-thing can stay in order but continuous falls to entropy?

The cake is a lie.

>>91234
The ego is foothold to this worldly plane. If were to all lose self in order to achieve one. If not, then none. Embrace entropy.

>>91239
We are the entropy incarnate. Having a continuous existence is a struggle against physics itself. The centre cannot hold. Die all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDcP-_i32fc

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

>>91239
I always found the Law of One intriguing not because it is factual but it offers a interesting philosophy:

>Questioner: Well, in yesterday’s material you stated “we offer the Law of One, the solving of paradoxes.” You also mentioned earlier that the first paradox, or the first distortion I meant, was the distortion of free will. Could you tell me if there’s a sequence? Is there a first, second, third, fourth distortion of the Law of One?

>Ra: I am Ra. Only up to a very short point. After this point, the many-ness of distortions are equal one to another. The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love. This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these three distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions, each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being more important than another.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=15#21

For a thing to exist it is inherently a distortion, a bend from its former undistorted shape, and so open to opposing, that is the creation of it opposition.

We must not lose sight of the fact that objective truth must exist. Reality can adhere to only one structure although our perceptions of it can differ. It is my view that truth is like a painting or carving covered by sand. There is a distinct reality or message to be found but it is often obscured by distortion, noise, or misinformation. We can brush away the sand and obtain a greater grasp of the truth, although it is unlikely for all the sand to be removed. Others may try to pour additional sand on the image to obscure our image. However, the winds of time will blow; some sand would be removed and some added. Parts of the picture at any time would be uncovered while others would remain hidden, and so it is with civilization.

There is no denying that our impressions of the world as well as ourselves are incomplete, similar how you cannot completely understand a 3-dimensional object from one angle. Others can assist with a more complete comprehension, but conflict of interest or unintentional obfuscations brings about difficulties.

>>91234

Bingo. The universe is a worn cloak eventually becoming ragged. Humanity cannot form utopia or even unite itself.

Let's pursue your train of thought. Suppose Hitler succeeded and he–or his ideological successor–eradicated all of the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Jesuits, disabled, homosexuals, etc.–basically everyone that National Socialists object to. Putting aside the obvious ethical and societal ramifications, would this create an ideal society?

The answer is no. The fact is that humanity naturally organizes itself into exclusive cadres of insiders (read: http://www.lewissociety.org/innerring.php) Throughout history there have been secret societies that have sprang up and faded away, yet left tangible marks on their host societies: ancient pagan priesthoods, mystery religions of ancient Rome, the Gnostics, the Hashasheen, the Cathars, the Templars (though whether these qualify as a true secret society is debatable), Rosicrucians, Freemasons, the Illuminati, Skull & Bones, Fabians, the Bilderberg group, and Opus Dei. These were established by radically different people with often opposing worldviews. It would not be any different in a uniform, fascist world. People would establish special clubs, either in support or opposition to the regime, and eventually these "clubs" would develop their own hierarchies, traditions, and subculture. Because non-tangential lines either diverge or cross, such societies would naturally undermine a universal State, even if the government itself remained "pure" (which is extremely unlikely over time). Over centuries or even mere decades, conflict would develop again and what would come to be perceived as the "old order" would fall like its countless predecessors.

I ought to point out that secret societies are not in themselves good or bad. 4Chan, in my view, counts as sort of a secret society: it is a collection of people with similar ideology, it has a very unique culture, it has certainly made its mark on the world, and it even has traditions (such as the 4Chan Cup and raiding Habbo Hotel). The only difference between us and other secret societies is the lack of physical location and a low barrier of entry (which has, sadly, doomed the main board to infiltration). We've met on an obscure corner of the internet because the alternatives are either isolation or censure and harassment by the larger society. 4Chan has done its share of mischief but it's by and large a benevolent entity because it opposes the larger corruption the only way it can. Most other secret societies, however, tend to be nefarious because of their passion, exclusivity, and connectedness: they often are misfits who disagree with conventional morality (look at the pedophile rings), they will shun outsiders and form echo-chambers, and they are practically cultish in the pursuit of their cause and the development of heterodox beliefs. If you believe in demonic influence, it's easier to steer a small group of ambitious people than the diverse currents of larger society. However, the Right and Christians are increasingly pushed into secret hideaways like 4Chan while the Globalists are slowly unveiling their control over broader society. If/when we destroy the menace their ideological successors will regroup in secret once more.

The only way to completely keep secret societies from forming would be to shackle the entire populace in fear and poverty, similar to North Korea. It is probably better to acknowledge that Earth will be a perpetual war between good and evil and that our best hope is to stay virtuous and hope for something better after death.

>>91223
I failed to Understand this before. Now I do.

Can we trust ourselves?

>21. It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State: from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.

>>91409
Yes I can trust myself, if I listed to my conscience, which for the most part I do.
>The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.

There would be no Mob without collectivist.
Obedience to society is discordance to one's inner angle. Meaning we need rule over our selves. If we were in our full power the world would be a much better place.

>>91409
We can't trust anything, not even our selves. However, we can rationally predict things. An example we can generally expect that when we walk on solid ground we will not fall through. You can generally trust through that the things we see are there when things that we touch are also there. What "things" and "there" is are a whole different question, but we can reasonably assume they exist in some capacity.

That being said, a person is an intelligent creature while people are stupid panicky animals. In a group a person becomes people, and is no longer themselves. It is best to understand how a singular part of people (you) act and reasonably predict from there.

>>91455
No should be Man given power over another, but rather let him achieves great skills which will earn him respect.

>>91464
Damn it, sorry about that.
No man should be given power over another, but rather let him achieve great skills which will earn him respect.

The Internet's Impact On Humanity Is Just Getting Started
…
>All of a sudden, there’s this insistence that social media is especially dangerous because it fosters the creation of echo chambers rife with tribal confirmation bias. Spaces where people with the same views simply talk to one another, and whoever’s willing to be the loudest and most aggressive at signaling to their tribe becomes the most popular. I don’t deny that this phenomenon exists, but like with anything else, you have to accept the bad with the good, and in the long-run the good far outweighs the bad. The main reason so many are having a panic attack right now is because the internet and social media allowed the public to talk to one another directly without being force-fed corporate media narratives and they decided to reject the chosen one, Hillary Clinton.

>As such, the “very smart people” and “experts” have concluded the problem is with the voter, as opposed to the terrible candidates on offer or the corrupt system itself. This is the real reason for the current obsession with “fake news” and dangerous social media echo chambers. The elites are simply frustrated that their methods of propaganda no longer work as more and more people talk to each other online.
…
> > I want to really think differently than the very consistent liberal-media line of, Well if they just knew better they would vote differently. They’re under-informed, they’re under-educated. I think it really misunderstands something, which is that, just because people are not acting rationally in accordance with what you think is rational, doesn’t mean that they’re not acting rationally. And I think there’s perfectly rational voter behavior in voting for Trump. For economic reasons and social reasons.
> >Life is getting worse. You are less comfortable in your own house, in your own town, in your own skin. Your outlook for the future is worse with every passing year. And you conscientiously voted for people through this entire time. So it is actually an established fact that the system did not work for you. This representative democracy thing. And so you go and lob a grenade at it, when the grenade becomes available. And that is rational.
…
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/11/29/the-internets-impact-on-humanity-is-just-getting-started/

>>91504
>social media
They're just talking about chonspace and leddit without saying it, right? Fuckerburg, Jack, and Pisschai are all playing into the political narrative, that's a long established fact.
I'm personally opposed to real name online networks because it encourages an always-on mentality, helping companies ensure there is no separation between the personal and professional life. I don't trust anyone that pushes for that much homogenization of society, or the accompanying witch hunts.
But there's really no solid justification for attacking false name and no name online networks like here, except that (((they're))) scared. Just makes me want to listen to these places all the more, especially if I can verify what comes out.