Schizophonia

In my case, it works like this: you dissolve the layers of "bad self," "neurotic self" if you will, and in fact, you risk losing motivation because you no longer know who you are. Because the body is manually led to this "primordial happiness," but the layers that block access are too repressed in the unconscious to be visible, except in dreams or uncomfortable situations. What works for me is visualization; it's difficult to say, but by playing with your imagination and your senses, you can succeed in visiting frequencies of happiness, intensity/vitality in general. But it's a challenge to maintain these frequencies and abandon this kind of dysthymia in everyday life.

I was going to make this a response to @Daniel Balan's topic, but in the end I'm going to make it a topic. I thought it would be good to do a little propaganda 😏 1)Lowest production : The production/import of certain raw materials, particularly gas and grain, has declined since the war in Ukraine, since these are the world's leading exporters. We could do a Marxist analysis of the war in Ukraine, the management of covid etc but that would be a topic in itself. 2)Structure of interdependence of the capitalist system : Theoretically, this should only be correlated with a slight increase in overall commodity prices. But the structure of the capitalist system implies that if one market player fails, it risks dragging the rest down with it. If your baker neighbor loses his job for whatever reason, it's not just "no big deal because it's just less bread"; in a planned economy, yes, having fewer baguettes wouldn't be too much of a problem, but since we're in a market economy, that we exchange capital and not production goods you're dependent on his purchases from you (let's say you produce photocopiers) and therefore on his wages. This means that during a recession, due to a stock market crash, a drop in production of certain commodities, etc, capitalist systems get stuck in vicious circles. This is the theory of "Commodity fetishism" proposed by Marx, There is a divide between use value and market value. This means that, through a domino effect, as explained above, and of course, speculative bubbles in certain commodities, while the means of production (labor, available resources) haven't changed that much, we end up with outlandish price increases. Real estate is one of the best examples; there has never been so little real estate built due to demographic stagnation, and even if that were the case, it doesn't require that many resources, especially with modern methods, and there are a lot of vacant homes; so logically, real estate should never be so cheap, but for the reasons mentioned, the opposite is happening. 3)Distribution of wealth : Due to an unequal redistribution of wealth, inflation is difficult to cope with for a significant part of the most disadvantaged population. Some market's players to gorge themselves and even increase their incomes because, in a way, inflation serves their interests (for example, small producers are more expensive than large agri-food groups, which are often less ethical about their production, the way they pay and treat their employees, etc; because, precisely because they are large groups, they are the ones who can own the best means of production ("socially necessary labor time" in Marx) and therefore ultimately offer the best prices; these large groups are therefore the ones who will generally be favored first, hence capitalism's tendency to generate monopolies, and so as i explained especially in times of crisis). The capitalist world is full of people who own more than they produce, and vice versa, because given (I'll come back to this in the next point) that capitalism is no longer fundamentally about the exchange of goods/services, with a concrete use value, but about the exchange of commodities, of capital; then there is a dissociation between the use value of an object and its market value. This dissociation create the possibility, and this is what the entire capitalist system revolves around, of "surplus value"; literally "more than (true) value", the difference between use value (and we could say labor, the resources including human resources necessary for its constitution) and market value. And because of that, for certain reasons the people who produce goods with a real use value and which will be distributed, who produce labor value as Marx would say, do not recover the equivalent in purchasing power, in capital; And vice versa, there are people who don't provide that much labor, but because they "own" (hence the fact that private property is fundamentally theft in Marxist theory) or are friends/relatives of those who own the goods of production (including labor) find themselves in a position to have a purchasing power greater than the actual labor they provide. Added value can be excessively absorbed by those who have the most control over the production and distribution chain, and missed by those who are not in a position of power, even when they are the ones producing the goods and services in question. Because in a capitalist system, those who are privileged are not the producers, but those who own the means of production and the capital in general for whatever reason. This is what we call having capital. Capital is a value that you possess independently of what you produce and which often allows you an exponential capacity for the accumulation of this same capital (if you own an apartment, you want to rent it to someone and take advantage of the fact that they need an apartment to generate surplus value; you haven't produced anything, there is no labor value, you have just taken advantage of having capital that they don't have, which will allow you to have even more now, in a virtuous circle (for you ) if you will). Karl Marx divided people in two categories called the Bourgeoisie (capitalist class, to be less "anachronistic")and the Proletariat (worker, performer...) This divide isn't about purchasing power; a baker (I'll come back to this) is technically a bourgeois/capitalist as Marx understood it, because he generally owns his means of production (one could call it a "small agricultural bourgeoisie"). An insurer who earns €5,000 a month by basically ripping off his old folks lol is still, in some way, more a proletarian; why does his insurance company agree to employ him even though he earns a lot and is easily replaceable ? because his boss earns EVEN MORE. There is more added value made by his work, he is "employed". As I saw on a Marxist YouTube channel in my country, so I'm going to repeat it eheh, we can imagine a graph with an abscissa axis "Capital/Labor" (Capital on the positive part, and Labor on the negative part, for example) and an ordinate axis "Top manager/Executive" (Idem). If you are a farmer (bottom right of the graph), you exploit your employees; but at the same time, you are dependent on and therefore exploited by all the structures that distribute your production (agri-food industry, retail establishments, etc.). Which means that, well, farmers often earn a poor living, even though they are capitalists and, despite everything, terribly useful to society and work a lot; lots of farmers kill themselves because of that. And vice versa, the insurer I mentioned is useless; in fact, it is closer to the proletarian class, but is a higher-ranking executor. It is subservient but still better placed in the capitalist structure; we could place it at the top left of the graph. What happens is that the further you are to the top right of the graph (basically beyond the downward diagonal), the more you tend to earn more than you are actually worth, and the free market and private property are in your interest. The further you are down the diagonal, to the bottom left, the more you are exploited. If there are people who are French and want to know more about the graph : 4)Debt : In a planned economy, to carry out a project, the state could just asks to some people to work on it, but since we are in a market economy the state, or a private agent, has to pay, so if it desires a product in the long term, it will be forced to take out "loans" with interest. You can buy a kilo of potatoes, because in a market-based system you "earn money" and this "money" corresponds more or less to what you have produced (even if it is false, as we have seen, but we will take it like that because it is convenient), but obviously if you need to house yourself, you do not produce the equivalent of a house per month, so you cannot buy a house with a monthly salary, and at the same time you need, ofc, it so in this operation you will need a mortgage. But the bank produces nothing/does not increase production; it serves no purpose; it is an institution that profits from the neoliberal production and distribution system, having stolen trillions from various states over the last century. The interest payments on the US debt alone in 2023 were $1 trillion, do the math. And that's just the public debt. To give a concrete and conventional example, when you have your house built, the bank loan you need is just an excel file. This doesn't mean there are more workers available, more farmers and land to produce food for these same workers, more trucks, more workers and resources to build these same trucks ans so on. Do you see the magic trick ? But the capitalist system is twisted in such a way that you have to resort to a "banker" to "lend you money," with "interest," to get the right to have your house. and because of that a whole structure that basically does nothing apart, lives off spoilation, and not just a little, can survive. So to summarize : Lower production + capitalist system structure that sets off vicious chain reactions, monopolies, and an unequal redistribution of wealth.

Thanks Tbh i am regularly on coffee and nicotine (wape) lol. I wrote this topic on that combo. In reality productivity has still increased despite demographic stagnation, rising oil prices etc. You can ask ChatGPT; a modern American produces on average as much as four Americans in 1950, thanks to technological progress. Yet there is still, and even more, food stress, housing problems, etc. Food and housing quality haven't improved, except maybe now there's optical fiber lol. So, in reality, these are structural problems: inequality, spoiling through the debt system, and contradictions of the capitalist system.

You didn't offend me

@Alexop Maybe Swedish collective unconscious was adapted to a naturally very masculinizing environment, such as cold and few resources, and now that Sweden is a rich and modern country it must adapt so that individuals can return to more balanced behaviors.

You're not loving, otherwise you'd be serially monogamous like most humans. Because why bother looking elsewhere when you already have someone to whom you can give what you have to give? Obviously, you don't love your boyfriend very much, and vice versa (because otherwise he wouldn't stoop to dating a girl in an open relationship who also explains on a forum how great a guy she met was). Since you're not loving, you encounter mirrors that aren't loving, that is, not very physically present (men tend to be for women the mirroir of their symbolic order).

Eheh; I saw it too. The scenario is a bit random but the realisation and actor game is good, espcially if you see it at the cinema.

Ofc you're right; without going into details if i was less anal i probably would be right now with friends, working etc. It's because i'm still too much neurotic for now that i lose time in a forum or in internet, and so automatically i fall into mirroirs like you or others who bring me back the reason, the energetic game for which i am still here; that is to say I refuse to contemplate, accept how (I think) am small, out en childish narcicism, and so is afraid to be discovered, that which automatically limits my interactions with the outside world. Even if I decide to play the man, the one who adopts the phallic position, when I am with you this position is not objectively true because otherwise it would not appear; I will really be my masculine ideal only when the non-masculine/phallic mirrors (me in denial) stop appearing; because I would naturally be alone or surrounded by phallic men themselves (athletes, workers, honest about themselves and the world). If I'm phallic, then I'll naturally be surrounded by people like me, so the polarity will disappear. If I consciously want to be phallic, but in reality I don't embody it, not to the same extent for whatever reason (insecurities due to trauma and neurotic mechanisms), then I'll end up with people who truly reflect who I am, and my interactions with them will potentially be frustrating for all parties because of the conflict between the software I'm trying to bring and the real energy of the egregor. I give in to this egregor (Actualized), but sometimes because I'm uninhibited, my crazy, ribald psychoanalyst from a rugby player's region of France software , an archetype like that ahah, which is ultimately closer to my deep conditioning, "higher self," will take over, and I'll come into conflict with my usual mirrors here. For example, I recently realized that I probably couldn't be friends with people who are too left-wing or far-left, often LGBT. Not out of malice at all, but precisely because my deep-rooted way of being kind is in conflict with theirs. My first instinct, if I want to be kind, is to make others feel lighter. I like to be low-stress and strong, so I'll naturally want to share that, BUT this involves a process of self-dissolution, acceptance, weakness, etc, which is simply not acceptable for people (mirrors!) who have a strong sense of individuality.

Since you are so developed you could use your large development to react like a normal man, and not like a teenage girl who gets angry and insulting because someone made an assumption about your structure. Because that's what it's about; I've never been rude/mean, it's just hate to be discovered. Once again, as you are a diva, you feel humiliated by my approach and try to humiliate me back with your "tier 2 thinking" business. Well if you are that smart you should be able to understand that if you state something, that this thing is blackpilled, and then you call yourself anti-blackpilled then you are contradicting somewhere; You probably denied blackpill because you felt humiliated by my comment.

I attacked nobody, I just looked at what you wrote and gave an idea what could going on. If you cannot stand even friendly assumptions about your energy structure, then by definition it is impossible for you to develop. I precised you don’t have to take you as an exemple to work on your energy agenda. So much the better You said you said that women can't be happy with an average man, that's a blackpill idea (or redpill idk, whatever) That said, it doesn't mean that you believe in BlackPill most of the time; our structure is fluid with ego backslashs. I trust you. Once again, my game is to delve into people's unconscious; not what they consciously think and say whether it's true or not. I'm not even saying that what I say is true, I'm just giving a point of view that can explain the energy.

Lol what is this question. They would be more pist because you “steal” their potential girlfriends (looksmatchs), I guess.

When you operate in a regressive, sadistic-anal manner, libido becomes confused with aggression. So you'll create frustrating fantasies like "If I get a girlfriend, I'll be frustrated because she can't satisfy/be loving with a beta like me (or other people; the scenario doesn’t have to concern you just trigger agression)" something like that, because you enjoy the aggression it generates. Look at the structure of the fantasy/game; it's not even "He can't get a girlfriend", but "He can get a girlfriend, but won't be able to enjoy it to the fullest because the girl will get cringey from interacting too much with someone at that level" (that's not quite what you said but it's the underlying fear, to put it briefly); my goal here is to maximize aggression. And this comes from a mixture of trauma and the poor developpement of the Oedipus complex which did not allow the imaginary phallus to be castrated, you to enter into the symbolic order. Aggression is enjoyable because the phallus is confused with excrement; there is a game of playing with excrements/dirty things and turning that into a power feeling. But it is a form of mild chronic psychosis; your character of “I am the blackpilled” on x subject does not make you gain power, in the real world. It’s an illusion and a tentative to maintain a regressive psycho-sexual fantasy which ultimately incites and implies castration (poor life).

My dad used champix but he said me it turned him abnormally angry/impulsive lol

It feels like most of us have undiagnosed attention deficit disorder and depressive mood (there is a comorbidity between the two); so instead of having a normal life we protect ourselves by locking ourselves in the forum or certain problems; and in the top of the pyramid there is Leo who is kind but also dysthymic; He is not sociable, revolves around neurotic ideas like "the truth" and has even developed chronic fatigue. I want to feel frequencies where I am happier and without attention problems, and I have looked at the thing in all directions I do not see how approaching these frequencies would not lead to disengagement from this forum but also to "personal development" in general. Because there's no longer any need for "personal development" when you no longer have mood problems; you naturally go somewhere. It's like "Looksmaxxing" lol; taking care of yourself is normal for most people, but when you're neurotic, hygiene, dressing well, etc. become something special.

Again, maybe i clicked in the wrong place but i went to a random place in the video and he just says random stuff. One day I'll be doing politics or something like that and some guys will be digging into my 10,000+ posts to try to convince themselves that I'm bad.

Men are also under increasing pressure; look at all the men who bodybuild and even take steroids. Even I, who am not very social, have encountered several of them both in real life and online.

I have several friends and I frequent French forums where men talk about romantic relationships; and when they are average or worse, uglier than average, many have great difficulty attracting any woman, even ugly, fat, etc.; lookmatch or inferior. I'm not saying that means Black Pill, Pareto, and the like are true; I'm saying that your projection theory is false. The nature of reality is projective, yes, but it involves similar objects; so men onto men and women onto women, but not men onto women, or vice versa; or, at the limit, projection of the anima onto women, as I theorized in one of my topics. Maybe I don't have a clear opinion here; I was criticizing your projection theory. Rumination alternates between a masochistic and sadistic pole. And since masochism is primary (you have to be a masochist to shift your attention to an object you don't value, sadism therefore implies masochism), it is generally masochism that dominates, so If you ask people who ruminate a lot, it's usually self-hatred that wins out. Look at incel forums; there are a lot of hate about other yes but especially self-hatred. Same for LGBT forums and especially transsexuals btw. I'm not talking about myself; I probably won't have much trouble finding someone once my life is more in order, but that's because I'm at an advantage physically financially, etc. I'm not going to lecture men about romantic relationships who are at a much greater disadvantages, that would be hypocritical. All I can do that is truly productive is to propose individual and collective solutions.

No she is wrong. You only believe her because your ego is too afraid of an alternate reality where you don't have the privilege of your advantageous physical and economic status. People are led to think this because they can't get women at all; not because their physical standards are too high. Take an interest in the people concerned.

This is true online because by looking at your random selfies women can easily see that you suck, it's even worse if you go on a Tinder-alternative dating site where people come because they know they're ugly/suck, lol. In any case, it's easier and more enjoyable in real life, in a context where you can offer something. What's paralyzing next is learned helplessness. There isn't much of a solution you have to go through this feeling, but yes it's not natural to be abandoned by your social group; it's normal that it's infuriating/paralyzing.

Lots of introspection, and videos on Freud/Lacan during my insomnias.

Karma is identity, the sense of self as you call it. That's not true, well being isn't priority of humans otherwise there wouldn't be self-destructive behaviors. The absolute priority of human's ego is survival, conservation of the self in general. Well being is a symbol of survival yes but it's not survival in itself, The gap is the reason why people have behaviors that seem irrational from the outside, even from their conscious point of view; because unconsciously their behavior allows them to survive; they are not sure of surviving in any other state even of "happiness" and they are so attached to survival that they will choose the state of not happiness. This is the tragedy of the human ego, which makes people allow themselves to be exploited, belittled in various ways, and to exhibit neurotic behavior in general. Yes. I wanted to say that spirituality is ultimately not so non-normie after all, eheh, and above all that it is an object of choice for our neurotic part; like all scrupulous subjects (religions, nutrition, politics...). I'm not saying that we shouldn't be interested in these subjects "because otherwise it's neurotic"; I'm saying that they are fertile ground. When I watch a sad movie, when I don't have access to my Paris Brest, when I learned about the implementation of a boring age verification system for pornographic sites in France. Negative affects 😾

In obsessive-compulsive neurosis, due to castration anxiety, there is a pleasure in shitting in the wrong place as a response; excrement is used as a substitute for the phallus. That is, you will "hold it in" most of the time and exhibit mixed, non directed, even masochistic behavior; this is due to unconscious processes. And sometimes you "release the excrements" and become aggressive/sadistic, and say, "Oh, what a pain in the ass those cuckolds pencil necks, me, virility, me, me..."). But excrement still isn't a real phallus; the true phallic position doesn't occur when you rebel, but when there's nothing left to rebel against. If you've adopted the phallic position, then there's no longer any competition (unconsciously the father/father substitutes, power holders, since the Oedipus complex or individual scenario of the transition to the phallic stage in general) to rebel against, by definition. So right now, you'd be a stoic doing whatever you want, rather than going on Actualized and making a thread complaining about your gay (non-phallic) mirrors who are afraid to lift heavy weights.

I'd rather have "pencil neck" than end up with a herniated disc, a torn muscle, a torn ligament, etc. The guy who made the video may be angry, but Mister Olympia contestants often have accidents.

These are begin the questions so i'm not going to respond to that, It would take entire topics. You are essentially a product of your culture/tradition. Even if you're an unsociable autistic person hiding in a cellar, all the activities you engage in and your way of thinking—language, as Lacan would say—are essentially a social inheritance. Look, why do you have your psychedelic avatar found on Google? To say, "Look, I'm the guy who takes psychedelics and is spiritual." You're attached to the social body. Everyone here does that, even if one is neurotic and claims to be "above all that." "Being above all that" is still a character, haha, a stupid character to ultimately gain power and place oneself in society. Tradition is a bundle of symbols that the libido can invest in and that facilitate social cohesion. Without this, you end up in an atomized society where people are bored and/or their sexual energy is poorly harnessed. Rather than pretending you don't have a dick, you might as well take care of it.

The "collective unconscious" Jung is proud of you Because of karma. Hre what the ego believes is good too "gain power". For me, the only sign that someone is open is the absence of negative affects. Then, whether a subject is marginal or not doesn't matter. And spirituality isn't unconventional, it's average as hell eheh.