trenton

I continued to research institutional corruption. I previously explored institutional capture of the government and various forms of propaganda designed to legitimize geopolitical goals. As I continued questioning the government, I ultimately hit the bottom of the entire structure which demonstrates that all governments are inherently illegitimate. The core problem is the problem of authority. When trying to legitimize who should and should not have power, it creates an infinite regress which ultimately leads to circular logic or a groundless assertion. For example, imagine a government where the King has power because he was appointed by the church. Then the church has authority because they follow the Bible. Then the Bible has authority because the church says so. The infinite regress problem of legitimate authority applies to all governments including today's governments. In the case of America, we are not actually a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. This is an important distinction because our system is inherently anti-democratic and it is designed to function without majority consent due to representatives and disproportionate voting power for rural Americans. In theory the federal government is designed to operate even if nobody votes for the next president and the electoral college does not have to follow popular vote anyway. Even so, our government pretends that it has authority due to the people's consent, when really the system is designed to operate without our consent. On top of that there appears to be a hierarchy of rights with some rights having stronger protections than others, but who gets to say what is and is not a right? If you try to use any system of logic or rationality to determine these things, then who gets to say what is and is not rational? Once again, there is an infinite regress problem. If you follow the logic of the American government all the way down, it is fundamentally groundless and arbitrary. The government supposedly is able to operate this way because of the Constitution it is supposed to uphold. However, we can ask the question, "why does the Constitution of the United States have any authority whatsoever?" Ultimately, the Constitution has authority because the founding fathers said so. But, who elected the founding fathers and gave them the authority to make the constitution? In the end the founding fathers didn't have any legitimate authority. They were largely wealthy white men who just inserted themselves and decided they had the authority to make all of these decisions that would affect all of these people even though they only cared about a small percentage of the population anyway. From a certain point of view, the American government like all governments were never legitimate to begin with because the formation of the government always involves somebody just asserting they have the authority to make these decisions. I thought about how I would form a government, and ran into a problem. Even if my intentions are pure and I want what is best for the maximum number of people, then what would give me the right to implement such a system even though I would never get unanimous consent? Why would I have the right to make these decisions for hundreds of millions of people? If it is impossible to get everyone to agree, then in a sense any governmental system must be coercive in some way and without the consent of all of the people it claims to serve. The implications are that if all governments are fundamentally groundless, then there is no moral obligation to follow the laws they made. Future generations can't possibly consent to the system they were born into. Ultimately, all laws must boil down to coercion through threats or violence designed to control people who never agreed to the system. Operating within governmental structures becomes purely pragmatic, but this never solves the inherent problem of illegitimate governance. There seems to be no amount of reform within the system that could change this inherent contradiction, which might be why political attempts at solutions often fail as those making the decisions fundamentally have no ground for their authority. The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is Anarchism. Unanimous consent is practically impossible, thus governance must be coercive. All governments begin through arbitrary assertions of authority. Nobody can legitimately speak for millions of people without their explicit consent. In fact almost everybody operating under any system of government never gave their consent to begin with, they were just born into it. From a certain point of view, government itself can't be truthful because it is inherently dishonest and must be pragmatic just like our participation within it. All governments must operate under the lie that they are legitimate and have the right to make decisions for millions of people who never agreed to it. Seeing as pragmatically, a society might need some form of law and order, how can we design a system with minimal illegitimate authority? Perhaps in theory it would be like a cooperative system with everybody having an equal say. However, this might carry its own problems like adjudicating what we should do when not everybody can agree. If we do a voting system, then that is still tyranny of the majority and it can be used to oppress minorities, although this still might be better than tyranny of the minority. I don't know how advanced humanity would have to be in order to transcend the need for a government altogether and what the resulting system might look like. This is a difficult problem that I don't know how to solve and there may not be any possible solution.

@Yeah Yeah I've spoken with coworkers about these deeper problems. What I discovered is that most of them are afraid to even think about these realities. They know that just like me, they had their dreams taken away from them and now they are doing menial labor and it all feels meaningless. We are just working dead end jobs until we die and being miserable all the way through. There is no reward for any of this and it is existentially terrifying when we think about how meaningless our suffering and our life is in all of this. We are not doing what makes us happy and we are just a tool to make someone else rich while we live our entire lives in a system that created artificial scarcity so we have to struggle to survive in a meaningless life. From a certain point of view we would be better off dead because we are essentially slaves, we have been deprived of the pursuit of happiness, and we are now living a life devoid of any passion or dream as if it is somehow noble. This moral front is ultimately hollow because deep down none of this is even acceptable and the moral appeals are just to make our suffering feel noble so we will tolerate it.

This is how the devil works. The very tools we use to distinguish good and evil gets co-opted in order to obscure the injustice. This is why moral persuasion is often futile. It creates an epistemic corruption which renders our sense of morality useless. The same applies to all of logic and reason. These tools are not inherently truth seeking and depend on an assumed agenda. You can use reasoning for things other than truth and this is why truth can lose a debate. The devil corrupts our very tools for understanding goodness and truth, thereby maintaining the injustice through obscuring it with all the obfuscations and pseudo moral appeals. Morality literally is the devil's favorite tool.

My family continues to teach me wrong, but now I simply reject their teachings. They are now telling me that I can't let things go again. I don't fall for these antics because the narcissistic traits and behaviors have never gone away. On top of that they clearly don't understand autism because people with autism are more sensitive to emotional abuse and are more likely to develop symptoms of PTSD which they dismiss as character flaws. To me this is not about holding grudges. I am going to protect myself from people who cause me PTSD and drive me to suicidal behavior. Furthermore, they are trying to discredit my understanding of psychology claiming that my assertion of being self-taught is somehow arrogant. They claim they understand abuse better than me because they lived it and had it worse than me. I refuse to engage with people who project their motives onto me. I am not the person they say I am and I will not let them guilt trip me and I will not fall for their lies.

I come from a deeply dysfunctional family, and I have internalized a lot of messages that were taught to me. Part of this is due to some of my family members being narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, or all three simultaneously. I ended up being taught a lot of lies in the process and they proved to be damaging. These were not just lies they explicitly told me, but also lies I internalized based on the environment that was created. 1. Sexual boundaries are obvious: As a child I was given a lot of mixed messages around sexual boundaries. Sometimes the girls would get undressed in the living room which annoyed. Sometimes my Grandpa would look at porn. Meanwhile I was exposed to environments at school where boys were looking up girl's skirts and crossing various sexual boundaries. The resulting environment created deep confusion in me around what sexual boundaries are acceptable because I wasn't given any consistent framework. 2. I am sexual predator: As a result of these confused boundaries I started having dreams that children should not have. This included dreams of my uncle molesting me and my sister. When I was six I repeated the behavior I was exposed to with my four year old sister. Once my mother discovered this, she held me to the standards of an adult. This became a severe form of psychological abuse with sexual themes that created many of the same psychological problems of religious trauma and CSA. I became deeply conflicted with any sexual feelings which I came to view as predatory. The chaotic internal state made me feel like I could not trust my impulses and I might become a predator. This event led to an entire belief system that was based on lies. 3. I can't be trusted with kids: When I was three my father fled the State to avoid paying child support. Without any other reference point, I believed that this was how the world works. Therefore, I became avoidant of romantic relationships and raising kids. I would imagine scenarios like me manipulating a woman and then abandoning her like Dad did to Mom. I'm not actually like this, but due to my fear of abandoning my kids I decided to avoid having kids altogether. I would then generate rational sounding reasons as to why I would want to avoid romantic relationships. 4. Being the bigger person: Due to the deep shame I carried, I became easy to manipulate through weaponized morality. Being the bigger person would translate into tolerating abuse while taking on undue blame. I went through a dramatic change once I became wise to the narcissistic tactics and now the family is confused by my new behaviors. They can project all day telling me to let go of the past or be forgiving, but ultimately I am protecting myself from bad faith actors who want to capitalize on my moral instincts. It is obvious that they care more about power and control than they do genuine goodness, and the proof is how much they start bashing in the aftermath of an argument when they win. 5. My grandpa was evil: As a child my grandpa and I loved each other deeply. We had a close bond because he filled the void my father left behind through abandonment. I was distraught when my grandpa died, and was clear that it was worse than most people at the funeral when I collapsed. My father recognized this and he used it as a tool to manipulate me. He would make up various stories about my grandpa while positioning himself as someone who could protect me from the abusive situation at home. He showed textbook grooming behaviors by isolating me from others in the family while mixing love bombing with threats of abandonment. The stories he made up about grandpa included things he said on his death bed that didn't happen. He created a narrative of redemption from criminal behavior throughout the history of the family and framed me as the one to break the cycle. I was vulnerable to this kind of manipulation because of the deep shame I held and the need to prove my worth through purpose. My father seemed to be studying me as he organized his manipulative behavior around what my triggers were. He would then undermine my trust in my grandpa by telling stories about how he was a gangster that gave him guns and enabled his criminal behavior. In order for this to be true, my grandpa would have had to have gotten out of jail, reformed, become a police informant, and then encourage his son to coerce people with his guns while actively working to take down those gangs as a police informant. The stories he made up about his father served his manipulation. My grandpa was the only one in the family who had offered me genuine love and my father hijacked this love for his own purposes. 6. Family values: Typically healthy advice about relationships simply do not apply to families like mine. Open communication will only give them more tools to manipulate you. There is this pseudo moral appeal about love and family values, but they are frequently applied in ways to make me tolerate abuse. If you are dealing with narcissists, then they could easily hijack any typically healthy value system like these and weaponize it against you. Healthy relationships are not possible with people just because you were born to them. You need to find people at a high enough level of development in order for any healthy relationship to be possible. I simply am not compatible with my family. 7. I deserved harsh treatment: I remember when my Mom hit me and yelled that she had been going too easy on me for being the only boy. This message seemed to stick with me as I isolated myself in my room. I inwardly became increasingly harsh on myself. Seeing as my mother never had any consistent moral standards, this was likely a problem with her and her narcissistic behaviors. 8. My sisters deserved empathy and understanding: My father had no interest in his daughters and only wanted to see me on my own to make his manipulation easier. My sisters were jealous of this sexism. My mother and grandmother wanted me to be understanding of them, which led to me feeling guilty for my father's favoritism while feeling sorry for them. However, my sisters still learned various narcissistic behaviors from my mother. Once they learned about everything my father had done to me, they started weaponizing this trauma against me and failed to extend the same love and empathy. It is because of this behavior that I refuse to see my older sister. Under normal circumstances it is good to love and have empathy for others who suffer, however if they are narcissists then they will use the vulnerability this creates against you. This led to a strong sense of betrayal and my sister continue to act like this to this day while keeping it hidden from other family members so they can all gaslight me. This is common in covert narcissism which is often the result of adverse childhood experiences and learned behaviors from dysfunctional parents. 9. I was a hero: As a child I was afraid of my stepfather and I was afraid for my younger siblings as my mother was blowing money on drugs. Seeing as the parents had failed I developed parentification in which I felt it was my responsibility to protect my younger siblings from them. My father saw this in me and knew that my heroism could ultimately be used for his own purposes. He took the information I gave him about Mom and then started using it against her in court to get out of paying child support. All of this was done under a fabricated purpose of redemption by freeing the family from the criminal cycle which my father was part of. Although I was ultimately successful in saving my mother's life, protecting my siblings, and getting my stepfather evicted, I still felt hollow inside. Ultimately, I never was the one who needed redemption. I was operating under a false purpose that was never mine because I was struggling with things like depression and I was trying to justify my existence through meaningful action. Although my actions were genuinely heroic, it came from a purpose that was never mine as it was my family who needed to redeem themselves and not me. 10. Learned racism: Some of my family members were racist and I went on to repeat their racist beliefs in school. It helped that later I did my own research into history in order to debunk various myths about black people for example. I also came to believe racist beliefs about Muslims which I no longer follow. Some of the racist myths included things like selective breeding and why segregation persists. I probably do have some unconscious bias against black people that is very difficult to overcome even though I logically understand these racist beliefs are not true. There are some sociologists who argue that deep down most people are unconsciously racist on some level and it is hard to eliminate entirely. I may also have some unconscious sexism as well. Although I never accepted the sexist narratives my father taught me because they contradicted what I learned in school, I could still be sexist in some other way. I think it has to do with things like race and gender stereotypes. There are probably many more things my family taught me that was not true. I'm curious to see what others come up with. Maybe you will be able to identify common parenting mistakes in the process.

@Yeah Yeah You are seeing what I am seeing. Society is full of weaponized morality and victim blaming. The reason this happens is because society must blame the victim, otherwise it has to admit dysfunction which would require changes that hurt those in power such as the wealthy. This is not just society, but this is the same pattern across any abusive system. For example, in an abusive family if a child tells her family that her Uncle is molesting her, then the little girl will be blamed for making up stories because nobody wants to admit that the Uncle could be someone deeply cruel and deceptive because they love him. All abusive and unjust systems depend on victim blaming. Can't get a promotion? Then just work harder like the son of the CEO! It is all complete bullshit. You need to train yourself to see through this victim blaming so you do not internalize all the shame. Learn to place the blame where it belongs and it will help you find peace within yourself.

I am going to deny that I match your evaluation. I have changed a lot over the past several months and I'm no longer the same as before. I am much more peaceful and don't feel depressed at all. However, circumstances could change that bring back the sense of feeling hopeless, trapped, and better off dead, so I need to protect myself still. The main thing that has changed is that I now see through the psychological abuse of my narcissistic family. This includes my mother who convinced me I was a sexual predator when I was six and it was one of the root causes of the suicidal thoughts as I felt unworthy of life. Rather than internalizing blame and shame, I learned to place the blame where it belongs and it is very liberating. This includes institutions that are full of victim blaming, not just my family. Therefore, by extension I am deconstructing government systems. I don't really care about controlling the government. I have already accepted that it is impossible long ago. I can't even get my narcissistic family to stop blaming and gaslighting me. I just accept that they are full of shit and it has nothing to do with my actual worth as a human being. Attempts to control the government would likely be just as futile. Instead I prefer to understand systems and then look for how I can use this understanding to navigating them and build a better life for myself. I don't have to worry about changing the system because the entire American government is designed to resist change anyway and it has only become worse through institutional capture. The American government will probably just have to collapse through debt and geopolitical disaster if the government keeps putting people like Trump in power. My opinion matters very little in stopping the institutional capture of the government that might destroy our country in the next 5-10 years. Currently I'm largely just following my interests and I seem to gravitate toward deconstructing propaganda and lies that I was taught. I'm not sure what you mean by me needing institutions to ensure my integrity. There are institutions that actively undermine my intellectual integrity such as indoctrination in schools that prevents critical thinking. There are institutions that undermine my moral integrity by teaching me obedience to authority which can be bad in some contexts. Maybe you mean I need institutions to ensure that a crazy fucker doesn't rape and murder me. In order to survive those situations I would need to change my character dramatically or have institutions that prevent this. In practice we still need some kind of law and order to prevent bad faith actors from harming others, but this still does not solve the legitimacy problems which philosophers seem to have no clear answer for.

@Never_give_up for me, I dealt with these unachievable desires by accepting that I am good enough without them. For example, I wanted to be a professional chess player. However, I discovered systemic barriers which could not be overcome through effort alone. I tried and tried only to be met with frustration. I had practiced for thousands of hours and beat a national master. I wanted this to be my career. What changed is that I recognized that the grandmaster title to me was nothing more than another label for self worth. It is ultimately hollow to me. In addition to that by recognizing the privilege that professional players often had over me, I was able to accept the outcome of my circumstances. In a sense you could say I gave up the dream, but on the other hand when I accepted I was good enough without making this career, I no longer felt the need to keep exhausting myself with tournaments. I occasionally look at board games when they interest me but I don't need to study them obsessively to be the best and prove worth when effort alone does not change the outcome. In the case of something like University, it is true that those people may have more career opportunities than you. On the other hand, often times college boils down to credentials over deep understanding. Society sets up the illusion that people are superior to you because of a degree, but that does not actually make them more intelligent. In the case of University, maybe you will find a way to complete and maybe you won't. Regardless, you do not need the degree itself to prove your worth relative to others. This entire game is independent of worth and you are good enough whether you get the degree or not. Ask yourself, is the degree mainly more external proof of your worth? If so, then achieving the degree likely will not solve the problem because low self worth is internal and cannot be changed by any attained titles or credentials. Of course you can still try to get the degree if you want, it just won't be held as proof of your value as a human being.

@Sugarcoat when you describe the deep emptiness with nothing positive about it when taking things like DMT you sound like you are describing the void. In trauma and depression survivors consciousness work often leads to this deep empty void with no love. What would normally be an experience of God's overwhelming love often gets deteriorated by the present trauma and can turn this love into pure terror or in your case possibly deep sadness. What you are describing is one of the limits people with depression and trauma might have when trying spirituality. I have experienced that as well. For me it was terrifying and not loving. The way I work through this is to accept that I am the abyss. I do not reject it and I do not try to sugar coat it. I don't fight this deep emptiness as it is not something that you can simply will yourself out of. It is a state that has been created by the perpetual absence of love, but it is not as permanent as it may seem. Love is still possible, but it will not be easy with these kinds of struggles.

@Sugarcoat I see you are comparing yourself to people who have it worse than you. This is a common perception in things like survivors guilt. The entire framework of treating others as having it worse than you is designed to invalidate your own feelings and pers perspective. I know that these thoughts patterns rooted in depression can be very fucking stubborn and hard to break, but it is possible. It requires being mindful of when your mind is following a belief that is familiar independent of what is true. You will need to separate your identity from the story being told. It is easier said than done, but it is possible to break out of these kinds of self defeating frameworks. Don't worry if others have it worse than you. Your perspective is still unique and valid regardless of any such comparisons.these comparisons do not actually help the people who have it worse than you get better. It is actually self punishment disguised as nobility and humility. I want you to one day find love. It will be when these comparisons are no longer needed at all and you can operate as your deepest self beyond this torture you are describing.

@Sugarcoat for me I was unable to die by suicide for lack of access to a fire arm. In mental health facilities there are lots of people like me who agree that they would be dead if they had a gun. Without an easy method of suicide, my survival instincts foil most of my plans. It could be cutting myself or jumping off a bridge. This is psychologically more difficult to do then putting a gun to head and killing yourself. Survival instincts are likely the reason why most suicide attempts fail. Beyond that if you want to stop your suicidal thoughts, then I my experience you need to do deeper work than mere affirmations. You need to deconstruct the entire framework that has taken over and step outside of it entirely. In my case I find that self love is possible once I stop operating within a framework that my abusive family taught me. For you it probably is something different, but at least in some cases it is possible to stop suicidal thoughts with deep enough inner work. Beneath these dysfunctional frameworks is ultimately natural, unconditional, and present love. I don't know if your situation is beyond something like how trauma hijacks the entire psychological system. You mention your situation is bad. I might need to look through this thread and find what is happening to you to make you feel this way. I will not judge you for reacting this way as I often felt that way myself.

I have a question about the implications of the Kennedy assassination. Is it fair to say that the military industrial complex gained more control and influence over the government following the assassination, and that this influence continues to this day regardless of which party is in power? If so, then it indicates that there is not much that can be accomplished through the democratic process as this institutional capture is very deep and ingrained in our system. It creates a policy lock in situation which is nearly impossible to change even when American foreign policy is clearly disastrous and self-destructive.

I did some further research on this matter. It seems to have led to even more uncertainty and questions rather than clear answers. What I found was that the only other nation that did its own investigation into the assassination was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union concluded that there was likely a right wing conspiracy to assassinate the President and put Johnson in power. Although the Soviet conclusions seem to align with my analysis of the evidence, they still have credibility problems. First of all, the Soviet Union spread disinformation campaigns all the time. They were constantly looking for ways to sabotage the US and become the sole superpower. Concluding that Johnson was behind the assassination of the previous President would delegitimize him, break the unity of the American people, and set the seeds for a revolution, destabilizing the US further. Furthermore, they have not released the specific evidence for their conclusions or their methods of investigating the matter. The implications are that the Soviet Union may have been the original source of the conspiracy theory that the deep state was responsible for killing Kennedy. I can't take the Soviet Union's word for it without seeing the specific proof. They might be right that there was foul play by a rogue faction in the CIA, but they have strategic interests served by their conclusions. Secondly, all other nations did not weigh in on the matter. They did not release any evidence at all. It would make sense that allies would not release information that would contradict the US narrative as it might destabilize the relationship. The official narrative has serious credibility problems because of the repeated lies and systematic destruction of evidence. However, from this point of view it looks like neither source can really be trusted. I require specific evidence and methods, but nobody is willing to provide it.

@Charli Are you talking about Operation Mongoose? Or are you talking about some other operation? What happened in this one and what is the proof?

@kray I strongly agree that it is more helpful to figure out why someone believes something. There are stories about former anti-semites who were raised by parents with those beliefs. As children they just soaked in what they were told since before they could read. Often times it is easy to assume that someone with crazy beliefs is acting evil or in bad faith, but sometimes upon closer inspection you can see their humanity. This is the key to ultimately changing such people rather than just arguing with the surface beliefs. If their fundamental framework for understanding reality is not changed, then debating them probably will not help.

These kinds of debates seem to be designed to just make the people we don't like look like idiots. If we already know that they are idiots, then this is probably just entertainment. Something helpful would have to go far beyond debating the right wing and try to convince them that they live in an entirely false sense of reality.

In my experience, if any psychological system serves your survival well enough in a given context, then the brain will create the neural pathways necessary to cause you to hold it as true. One does not necessarily have conscious control over these biological processes especially sense a child's bond with their parents is usually automatic whether they are harmful and stupid or caring and intelligent. Considering how a child's mind develops, it is easy for them to adopt all of these beliefs because they have a limited capacity for rationality as they treat their parents as simply the arbiters of truth. The outcome is that in adulthood, it would take a lot of conscious effort in order to start undoing these neural pathways that often operate beneath our conscious awareness. From this point of view, I see religious people as largely the result of their circumstances. For example, If I were born in the middle east, then maybe Islam would serve my survival and it creates a strong incentive to make a self-deception convincing enough for me to believe in Islam. This self-deception process would likely happen automatically without a conscious choice. Once my sense of reality becomes tethered to any religion or ideology, it becomes psychologically threatening to undo it, therefore most people stay within the range of what they were taught as kids. When people stay stuck in this kind of narrow worldview, it can indeed make them seem very stupid. In fact I have encountered multiple therapists who insisted that I prayed despite the practice not fitting with my spiritual views. Religion therefore corrupts other fields whether it is psychology, science, the educational system, the government, and so on. Making everybody think like you becomes the ego game in which the religious ideologue thinks they are saving people, but actually they are just bringing themselves deeper into self-deception.

@Daniel Balan Putin, like Hitler is engaged in restorative authoritarianism, meaning he is trying to compensate for the national humiliation such as the fall of the Soviet union like Hitler tried to compensate for the humiliation of the first world war. It is being done by projecting military might which is often a method of disguising deep internal dysfunction and contradiction which will ultimately be the downfall of Putin. Throughout history such empires are demonstrated to be paper tigers just like this disaster in Ukraine even if he somehow anexes the entire country. Furthermore, Russia like the Soviet union, China, and America are deeply corrupt due to the excessive influence of wealthy elites which makes governance inflexible. The leadership often loses sight of national interests when it is clouded by corporate interests, which ultimately drives empires into the mud. This is critical because it shows that Putin didn't actually learn how the wealthy interests ultimately undermined the apparent communist state, contributing to its defeat at the hands of America. Putin therefore represents a likely failed attempt at restorative authoritarianism as he only serves to strengthen NATO and make him even more hated on the global scale.

@Hardkill I'm struggling a little bit with this too. I am strongly considering leaving the country for various reasons. I notice that although I intellectually recognize America as deeply problematic in its international relations and in its governmental corruption, I recognize that part of me still has an emotional attachment to this country because I was born here, lived here all my life, and was bombarded with propaganda that I am now seeing through. America's decline saddens me somewhat which demonstrates a disconnect between my intellectual understanding and my emotional embodiment. I might need to deconstruct my national identity further along with all of my historical analysis which undid many layers of the propaganda and political theater I was exposed to as if it stood for democracy and freedom.

I have been doing a lot of contemplation and research lately. I believe I have broken through many layers of American propaganda that I have been conditioned with. This propaganda runs much deeper than just white washing a few significant historical moments. The propaganda runs so deep, that it effectively shapes our entire world view, giving us false hope that change will come about through things like peaceful protests. In history we are taught about many horrible things in history such as slavery and genocide. It is presented in a way that makes it appear as if genuine moral progress has occurred, and that there is real hope for fundamental change. My claim is that humanity has never fundamentally changed because the illusion of moral progress is a consequence of the wealthy and powerful making strategic repositions which safeguard apparent moral progress, and this power dynamic has never actually changed. First of all, we need to discuss who benefits from war. Your history teacher probably told you that most wars are fought over resources. This is misleading because the truth is that these resources will not be equally distributed. These resources will primarily be controlled by the wealthy and powerful, therefore making war over resources more about wealth extraction for a few rather than societies' survival as the poor and middle class die for these wars. Throughout history there have been many layers of propaganda to justify wars such as religious and holy claims. This created the illusion of moral progress by making it seem like the uncivilized heathens were being either crushed or converted. In reality, seemingly religious wars were usually about economic motives and wealth extraction, much like they still are today because humanity has not fundamentally changed these power dynamics. If you look more closely at wars throughout American history, you will find all kinds of misleading claims that your history teacher told you and that I believed. Starting with the American Revolution, this war has a ton of mythology and propaganda around it. It is framed as if this war was about "taxation without representation." This is misleading because it ignores who was most affected by these taxes. The reality is that the middle class faced average taxes, while the wealthy faced higher taxes which threatened their tea companies. In order to garner public support, the wealthy spread propaganda about Democracy, everyone having a voice, and everyone being represented while being taxed. In reality, the wealthy wanted to create a system in which they were taxed less and the middle class were taxed more. As many people died for the ideals of democracy, what happened was that the wealthy tried to go back on their word. They considered things like making George Washington king, but they faced enough backlash for democracy to accidentally emerge rather than emerge through genuine moral progress. There is also a ton of mythology around the founding fathers who are treated as wise by building a government by the people for the people when really they were largely privileged white men. The freedoms they gave us in the Bill of Rights were not out of the kindness of their hearts. These were calculated decisions designed to give the general population the illusion of freedom while maintaining a system that benefits primarily themselves. This is why the Amendment process has been deliberately designed to be nearly impossible, requiring a super majority. The freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution are largely abandoned when it serves elite interests. An obvious example of this is all the blatant "taxation without representation" within Washington D.C. The people are being taxed, but they are being prevented from voting because the Republicans fear that they will vote blue. This is punches a hole in the American propaganda around the American Revolution because America obviously does not give a shit about democracy and making sure everyone has a voice. Once again, this is about the wealthy having a voice, not the general population. The propaganda spread through your history teacher continues throughout every major war in American history. The Civil War and the abolition of slavery were never the result of genuine moral progress on the part of humanity. These were largely accidental consequences of the wealthy and powerful strategically repositioning as they developed more sophisticated forms of control over the population. Think about it for a second, in the South, who do you think would be raising hell about the abolition of slavery? Do you think every normal middle class family was equally concerned about this, or do you think it was the wealthy slave owners who were raising hell about abolition? Obviously, the wealthy slave owners insisted on sending the middle class to die for them claiming it was to "fight for their way of life" when 'their' meant the wealthy. The Civil War was created by this conflict between elite interests, not out of genuine moral concern. Some Northern elites saw slavery as sometimes giving the South an unfair advantage in farming and thus wanted to abolish it. Other Northern elites saw industrialization and wage slavery as even more profitable than chattel slavery because you can trap your workers in debt and force them to pay with company cash that goes back to them in exchange for the food and shelter they provide without ever paying for the worker's medical needs. This motivated the Northern elites to make their system of exploitation dominant. The system I am referring to is the one that was present during the industrial revolution that had atrocious working conditions. Nevertheless, the propaganda is that we were fighting for freedom when really the well-being of the black people never mattered. This is why the wealthy did not follow through on their word. Reconstruction was largely abandoned, allowing Southern white supremacy to develop new methods of exploitation such as indentured servitude, selective crime making, or just straight up slavery in blatant violation of the 13th Amendment which was largely for show. Slavery was not actually criminalized and many wealthy slave owners just ignored it and continued it for decades. Eventually, the North just accepted Southern white supremacy because the war wasn't actually about any of this moral progress, it was about conflicting wealthy interests. Therefore, the actual progress made from the abolition of slavery was minor. Black people just became victims of new systems of exploitation which continue to this day with more sophisticated and subtle forms discrimination like red-lining, selective policing, and so forth. Black people were never set free, instead they became victims of more sophisticated control methods that give them the illusion of freedom and telling them to be grateful for crumbs. In that sense, humanity has not fundamentally changed because the power dynamics which prevent moral progress are still in place and they have only become harder to detect, not easier. We think we are more advanced and morally superior to the people who lived during slavery, but this is the illusion of moral progress designed to give us false hope that justice is possible through gradual change. This entire "gradual change" narrative also serves the wealthy and powerful because they get to choose when to strategically reposition in a way that is profitable and beneficial to them. None of this was ever about moral progress. Continuing with deconstructing propaganda, I would like to discuss World War II. This one is a bit difficult because it is one of those rare instances in which the moral stakes were genuine, and not entirely bullshit propaganda, although there is still plenty of bullshit propaganda nonetheless. Nazi and Japanese imperialism were genuine threats with the Nazis planning to round people up and send them to death camps while the Japanese demonstrated their brutality during the Rape of Nanking while building their own concentration camps for captured prisoners in which they ran experiments on them. That said, I still have questions about why the allies initially allowed the Nazi expansion. My history teacher told me it was a misguided philosophy of appeasing the bully, but maybe the wealthy didn't seem war as profitable yet. The reality is that the allies were initially on Hitler's side because the elites saw it as beneficial to themselves, and none of this was an innocent miscalculation. Western businesses were drawn to the anti-socialist policies that might be used to control their workers and hoped that Germany would serve as a buffer against the Soviet Union, eventually drawing them into conflict with each other. many corporations had major investments in German industry across America and Britain as they provided technology for Nazi concentration camps. The allies allowed German imperialism initially because they had calculated that doing so would ultimately serve their own imperialist interests. This included intentionally allowing Hitler to take over Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia had strong defenses and was an ally of the USSR, therefore the allies allowed Hitler's expansion as they sided with authoritarianism and fascism our of their own capitalist interests. Furthermore, even after the Allies declared war, they initially did nothing to help Poland because they were hoping Germany would betray the USSR and fight them, therefore France built a wall which was just for show as they did nothing. the wall was useless anyway because the Nazis just went around it. The war was for domestic consumption while profiting military industries rather than genuine opposition to Nazi death camps. My history teacher suggested that modern policies have improved because world leaders have learned from their mistakes, but the reality is that WWII was not a mistake, and the world leaders knew what they were doing. This is why global policies are ignored when it serves elite interests. Any apparent moral progress which followed was once again accidental and not genuine. The propaganda continues with America dropping the Atomic bombs on Japan. My history teacher told me that the reason the atomic bombs were dropped was the prevent unnecessary American losses. On top of that Japan was painted as strong and imposing by telling troops to fight to the death. This was actually just Japanese propaganda because in reality the emperor was negotiating terms of surrender with the USSR. Instead the narrative goes that America dropped the bombs to force Japanese surrender, but in reality the atomic bombs were political theater designed to show power to the USSR, not Japan. They were actually unnecessary for winning the war and Japan would have surrendered even without the American invasion as it was clear that they were losing. America wanted to get to Japan and establish their own sphere of influence before the Soviets could much like during the Cold War. Japan essentially became a permanent American military base and a client state disguised as an ally. The entire Japanese economy was structured to favor rather than oppose U.S. interests which would not have happened had Japan surrendered to the USSR. Remember, America did not rebuild Japan our of the goodness of our hearts. We did not rebuild Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, or Afghanistan because those locations did not have the same strategic advantages as Japan. Even Obama repeated this WWII narrative which serves to make the American empire seem benevolent because "we do it because its right!" In reality Japan pays billions to U.S. military bases, Japanese policy remains subordinated to U.S. interests, and Japan cannot develop independent foreign policy. Another profound layer of propaganda is even the names of "World War I" and "World War II." These names are extremely misleading because that is not what these wars were about. In reality the Cold War began during the military inventions around the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. The Western powers funded the white army, hoping to defeat the socialist ideology which threatened their own corporate interests. "World War II" can more accurately be called The Anti-Soviet Phase because the Western powers hoped that Hitler's fascist regime would destroy the USSR. This was a continuation of the Cold War which my school told me started after WWII. The reason Hitler seemed so powerful and so intelligent as he used new war tactics to conquer so much territory, was because the Allies were barely fighting back. This apparent genius was largely circumstantial and Hitler was not as brilliant as depicted. The war strategy that Hitler actually implemented was to attack countries that don't fight back, which therefore allowed for rapid expansion throughout Europe. American propaganda completely glosses over how the Allies initially supported Hitler and fascism as the Allies funded the Nazis and even gave them materials to build the concentration camps. The alliance to defeat Hitler didn't start until 1941 when the allies were finally forced to fight back as Hitler threatened their interests as well. Suddenly, the war was reframed as a moral crusade against the evil Nazis. This is no better than monarchs using religious propaganda to justify wealth extraction from their imperialist ambitions. The reason Neo Nazis are so prevalent in America is because fundamentally it was never about fighting the evils of Nazism, but rather advancing the imperial interests of the Allies rather than the Axis Powers who were initially on our side. Once again, none of this was a mistake. The narrative that humans do not learn from past mistakes in history is misleading, because the reality is that humanity is not making mistakes. These are the results of calculated decisions that are framed as ignorant mistakes when in reality the people running these wars actually know what they are doing. Humanity hasn't fundamentally changed because of all of the same power structures in place that lead to these wars. The only way in which humanity is learning from history is actually looking for ways to build more sophisticated systems of control and exploitation which extract the maximum wealth, and this is how it always has been throughout human history as we went to war for "resources." WWII was not about fighting the evils of the Nazis, but rather the entire war was sophisticated orchestrated political theater. Educating humanity in the hopes of preventing "mistakes" is actually another source of false hope that serves those in power because they are learning from history, but they are just applying the knowledge to help them more effectively exploit and control people. What is actually changing throughout human history is how those in power make oppression and exploitation appear voluntary and beneficial as their methods become more subtle rather than outright slavery, monarchy, and imperial wars. This creates the illusion of moral progress, when fundamentally nothing has changed despite the surface appearances and propaganda. Finally, I would like to discuss the Civil Rights Movement. There is a lot of mythology surrounding this and I think even Spiral Dynamics makes "mistakes" when analyzing these things. Much like Ken Wilber makes "mistakes" when he claims Donald Trump is stage yellow when really Donald Trump serves his own biases and interests as we can paint others who oppose him as "less evolved." In the case of the Civil Rights movement, the Spiral Dynamics historical narrative paints this era as the emergence of stage green. I think this is wrong because the Civil Rights movement was actually much more sophisticated and intelligent than contemporary left wing movements which Spiral Dynamics correctly predicts will largely fail due to the power dynamics in play. The protests against the Gaza War were largely to no avail, the protests following the death of George Floyd brought minimum concessions while increasing police funding, and so on and so forth. Most well-meaning left wing movements today match stage green, and they will largely fail. However, the reason they fail is because they lack the strategic calculations that were present in the Civil Rights movement which may have actually been more intelligent than contemporary leftists. Contemporary leftists have now been taught that peaceful protests will lead to change, but this is a manipulation of the historical narrative at the hands of those in power in order to channel resistance into more manageable forms. The reality of Martin Luther King's success was actually more nuanced than just taking a strong moral position. King was also very well educated and even came from a privileged background himself. he understood the power dynamics at play more clearly than current leftists, and he devised a deliberately strategy to overcome these power dynamics. Peaceful protests alone were never going to be enough to bring about change. These protests needed to carried out when the elite powers were divided and weakened due to the need to appear superior to the Soviet Union for propaganda purposes. these protests cannot be carried out at just anytime with significant effect. This is what gave King a little bit more leverage over the elites than present leftists have or realize they need in order to be successful. Likewise, the reason why showing peace and love as police officers beat you or as the British empire kills the people of India, is not because the universe is just and kindness and love will ultimately prevail. This is actually a deliberate strategy to make the aggressor seem brutal by comparison, thereby controlling the narrative and garnering more support. It is a strategic application of morality rather than a universal rule that works under all circumstances as those in power want us to believe. Unfortunately, current leftists often believe in moral persuasion, but this is an oversimplification of why the Civil Rights movement was so effective. Maybe Martin Luther King and other Civil Rights leaders were actually stage yellow rather than stage green like current leftists. Meanwhile, I find it misleading to frame the 1960's as the emergence of green when really all levels of the Spiral were present throughout human history, but humanity went back and forth as these stages competed with each other. Unfortunately, today's leftists are often bought into the oversimplified and sanitized version of Martin Luther King that makes him look less intelligent than he actually was, thereby leading to less effective forms of resistance on their part. My new understanding of history challenges the optimism that I am sold by many people, including Leo. Maybe humanity isn't actually getting better by evolving through these stages. Maybe humanity is actually entrenching itself more deeply in these elite power games as they develop more sophisticated methods of control. Today modern technology gives the elite class omnipresent surveillance. They control the media and spread propaganda and narratives more effectively and convincingly. They distort the entire historical narrative we were taught to give us false hope of moral progress without fundamental change. They make our exploitation appear voluntary when we can choose from 50 different cereals at the grocery store, but we can't negotiate higher wages because the worker unions have been co-opted by the corporation to give workers crumbs rather than meaningful change. Maybe humanity is actually getting worse as we develop more convincing lies as the climate and environment is being destroyed by unfettered capitalism. Leo plays into this myth of the just world by talking about how evil only succeeds in the short term because the universe is selfless. Actually, it is entirely possible that humanity will remain stuck in these exploitative power games for thousands and thousands of years, potentially spanning all the way until our eventual extinction. If humanity hasn't fundamentally changed, then maybe we will be this way forever and at the end of the day the wealthy and powerful will get away with everything and fundamental change will never happen for humanity. Instead, we will be given the illusion of freedom as methods of control become more sophisticated and convincing. Maybe the general population will never become intelligent enough to see through all of this elaborate deception as education and propaganda becomes more widespread and convincing. In conclusion, my claim is that gradual change and moral progress are narratives that give us false hope. Most apparent moral progress throughout history has actually been strategic repositioning of those with wealth and power. It is almost never about moral progress, only when the appearance of moral progress serves those in power do they allow it. We actually are not morally superior to or more intelligent than previous generations because this is propaganda designed to make us feel grateful for how good we have it. Meanwhile, the control methods in America have become very sophisticated. The media manipulation has divided America between the false choice of Democrats and Republicans. These election cycles are political theater that prevent deep change because Democrats still serve primarily corporate interests despite being the "lesser evil." For example, Joe Biden was treated like he would save us from the evil Donald Trump. In reality most of Joe Biden's positions and policies served corporate interests regardless, just not to the same extreme as Trump. For example, Joe Biden acted heroic when he stood by workers who wanted to organize unions. This was clever political theater designed to support only specific kinds of unions. What the left wing does not understand is that the "victories" of the Starbucks workers over the corporation was not as impactful as they framed it. These unions are not as powerful as they have historically have been because they will likely be co-opted by the corporation to give workers crumbs while pretending their voices are heard when really they are being suppressed. This is my experience with working with the Kroger union at my job. They act like they represent me while actively suppressing me and taking power away from me despite the surface level appearance. This is just another example of more sophisticated manipulation designed to make me feel free when really, the control methods have just become more deeply embedded and ingrained. This is the most likely outcome for those Starbucks workers. I no longer believe in the hopeful narratives I was taught about humanity. I no longer believe in this illusion of moral progress because humanity still hasn't fundamentally changed despite these surface level appearances. We live in a "democracy" but we don't actually have any real power despite appearing more free. America does not actually value democracy, representation, and freedom as these values are propaganda which serve elite interests while making us feel like we have it better than others by comparison. These values are consistently abandoned the moment they serve elite interests. I hope my arguments helps you to see through the propaganda you were sold in school.

@Rafael Thundercat Well, I now understand the government's interest in controlling people's reproductive and sexual choices. In layman's terms Trump is full of shit. I know it might sound shocking, but you can trust me.

@DocWatts Hey, I know that you seem to be well educated on political matters and you have shown sophisticated analysis as you applied systems thinking. Despite my fears and my relative certainty in America's doom, you seem to believe that there is still hope for change. Why do you believe there is hope? Furthermore, you mention that we may be struggling for years as we fight for Democracy. First of all from my point of view, Democracy is largely propaganda in America as the wealthy elites effectively own either major political party, reducing the possibility of defeating Fascism at the ballot box. What exactly are we fighting for when we say "Democracy" when our current Democracy is essentially a wealth extraction system? My main fear is that there may not be enough time to fight for reforming this broken system. How long do you think we have before America falls apart due to unsustainable levels of debt and the over extension of the military? By some estimates, America could become much more unstable over the course of the next ten years. These estimations come from Peter Turchin, who predicted a spike in unrest around 2020 and Ray Dalio argues that we are in Stage 5 of his model out of Stage 6, leaving Civil War as a real possibility, though it seems unimaginable. Do you think there is any legitimacy to these predictions of American collapse from both within and on the world stage as a massive economic crisis from the ballooning debt remains a potential catalyst? How long do we have to reform this system despite the extreme and effective resistance from the wealthy elites and the polarized nature of the left right wing which prevents effective unity and governance?

I believe America's course is set for its fall from global dominance and there is nothing we can do to change it. The protests are well meaning, but the wealthy have too much power and they will not allow for any reform of our government. The entire system is itself the corruption because it is a corporate wealth extraction apparatus. So long as any governmental system is constrained by the demands of the wealthy elite, the system becomes inflexible and therefore must collapse. This pattern of Empire collapse is consistent throughout history. The United States has been strategically outplayed by her rivals because she has been provoked into unsustainable military and debt spending which finance unwinnable wars against terror such as the war in Afghanistan. China already knows these contradictions within the American system and is positioning itself to become the next global hegemon. There is nothing we can do to salvage this situation because both parties are captured by wealthy elites and will never bring about the change we need. The viable third party is not coming and the wealthy will continue to extract whatever they can from this dying empire before they flee to other countries to start the process all over again. America is becoming increasingly desperate with its military spending, but this is only digging our own graves. I believe America is unstable due to its geopolitical defeat and I am considering leaving. The Trump administration is only accelerating America's descent into self-destruction by alienating us from our allies. The European Union sense that America is increasingly unstable, and they are distancing themselves from us through the Euro, giving them an alternative to the unstable petrodollar as they seek new trade relations with China instead. Trump's "America First" approach might be the final nail in the coffin for America. No Democrat will be able to undo the damage he is causing, and said Democrats are being controlled by wealthy elites anyway. America is not as stable, wealthy, and powerful as it wants you to believe. Don't fall for the propaganda, and don't pretend that our political polarization and the rise of violence is normal. This is denial about the American system becoming untenable due to its enormous corruption at the hands of the wealthy elite who effectively have far more power than the President. The President is a mere figure head, and defeating Trump will not salvage America even if we could. Our course is set for destruction, and I see no realistic way to turn America around or change course. America is in denial of its decline as the global hegemon.

I will do research on this too. I currently don't fully understand the government's interest in controlling people's sexuality. I'm not sure what they think they are achieving concretely. At the same time the government only giving tax cuts for billionaires is a big part of the problem. The reason American governance is ineffective is because the wealthy elites have captured the entire legal apparatus and have rendered it limited to maximizing profits at the top. Once this happens, the government becomes limited by short term profits rather than long term sustainability. I sense that America is deeply unsustainable and unreformable despite any well-meaning left wing movement. The wealthy elites are completely entrenched in the legal system. Their agenda is to extract as much wealth as possible at the expense of the entire nation and the future of hundreds of millions. It is this corruption which I believe will be America's downfall in the near future. There is nothing we can do to reform this system and I believe it will collapse.

Guys, I have been doing further research. In a future post I may need to discuss the American political situation. It seems bad enough that I am considering leaving the United States. I will complete my research and then share with my family as well as this forum. I am strongly considering leaving America within the next 3-5 years. The political situation is very very dire and it may be worse than what most of us are imagining.