Schizophonia

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9,990

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Schizophonia

  2. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

    have you read Lacan and Rivière? this reminds me of their reading of Freud.
     

    I don’t know Riviere but indeed I looked at some Lacan works, my paradigm here is probably influenced by him even if I mainly stick to Freudian language elements

    39 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

     

    maybe i'm simply too dumb to understand any of them though

    Ahah no it’s complicated in general.

    Deleuze is even way worst 😬

  5. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    Behind every object of desire (a tall Slavic woman in a garter belt 😏, love, drugs, a Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream, watching and breathing in nature, a BMW...) lies the inclination to use these as a mirror of your identity, in order to maintain a degree of ego inertia. I could delve further into the non-dual dimension, but that's not the focus of this thread.

    Libido, not just in the sense of sexual arousal but of energy in general, the "will" of "doing things", is a phenomenon of intensification, of densification of usual dualities.

    Someone talking about "seminal retention" or taking stimulants might say to me, "But Valentin, if libido has an inertial purpose, then why do I want to do different things when I have more energy?" The answer is that by intensifying this inertial drive, certain mediocre, even habitual activities will be abandoned in favor of activities that are actually more fundamental to human egotic structures.
    It's because your life isn't threatened that you bother to be lazy—in a way, lazy people are very meditative, lol—but if your ego is threatened, then you'll need, and therefore want denser objects to maintain your ego structure. This isn't a revolutionary phenomenon, but rather a reactionary one; It is actually easier for someone with low energy to take truly revolutionary actions (like taking psychedelics, for example).

     

    This idea of being "in the right place," the ultimate signifier hidden behind every object of desire, is what Freud called the "phallus."

    The term phallus isn't even patriarchal or anything like that; it refers to children's tendency, when they discover that girls don't have penises, to interpret the difference between the sexes as a litteral castration.
    Thus, in psychoanalysis, when we speak of "castration," of "losing the phallus," we are indeed talking about the possibility of losing objects to which the ego is attached or identifies.

     

    What is the difference between men and women in their relationship to the phallus and to the object of desire?

    The main idea is that men are usually so attached to the idea of possessing the phallus that they prefer to look "down" to prove to themselves that they do, by contrast.

    Conversely, a woman (or even a man in the case of neurosis, which I'll come back to) who doesn't consider herself phallic, or only slightly so, will look "up" to try to benefit from the phallus above.
    It's a mirroring effect: the man will reassure himself that he is the phallus by making jokes, giving money and flowers and cie to a woman, and the woman will feel that she possesses this phallus by receiving these gifts.

     

    Men : "Oh she is not phallic compared to me so it means i am phallic".

    Women : "Oh he is so phallic compared to me so it means i get the phallus".

     

    I'm talking about giving flowers lol, but the phallus can also take on a negative form; being an asshole and a neo-Nazi can be phallic, and you can attract certain women that way.
    The central idea is that women find in men tangible objects to which they like to cling, again as a mirror of their ego.

    If a woman's obsession is being persecuted, she's not going to like a guy who doesn't.

    It's not "Oh, this woman has suffered so much, she'd be happier with X." The reality is that some women enjoy suffering, some women appreciate kindness, and everyone finds something to suit them. Very often, a horrible person can be more phallic and more attractive to most women.

    And this isn't unique to women; a man will also choose a mean and/or crazy but very sexy woman over a kind woman who looks like nothing.

    And men, often the ones who complain about women's choices btw (I'll come back to that), also frequently choose activities that generate a lot of negative emotions (politics, religion, personal development, fighting, sports...) rather than "kind" activities; it's exactly the same.

     

    Capture d’écran 2025-12-05 152522.png

    As you can see from the topic, the man prefers to have the phallus (therefore on the positive part of the graph) even if it means perceiving less in absolute terms (smaller surface area).

    There's no point in being paranoid about it, but that's why "simping" doesn't work and is even ultimately repulsive, because by doing that you're identifying with the lack of a phallus.

    In other words, you have an object of desire in your imagination that you don't possess and you act accordingly, which is inherently anti-masculine.

    It's even infantilizing, because in reality, girls also look downwards to some extent.
    What's attractive is acting without threatening your feeling of losing power/control (the phallus), even if it means losing the girl (which is an illusion, because in reality you're pushing her away anyway by wanting het (what means you need her, and so you don't have the phallus, you are in danger), that is, acting out of pure love/pleasure; with complete "egotistical modesty."

     

    I look upwards, I conquer what "I should/want to have" = Feminizing.

    I look down, I tend my vegetable garden as Candide said = Masculinizing.

     

    An overview of obsessive-compulsive neurosis.

    It's a psycho-sexual mechanism that everyone, and especially men, uses to varying degrees.

    When you were a child, you were more like a woman and you acted in such a way that you projected the phallus outward (usually onto your mother) to "woo" her, up to the Oedipus complex or the phallic phase in general.
    It's when you annoyed your parents saying things like, "Oh, look, Mom, this video!" or "Oh, look, I'm doing cartwheels!" while pretending not to understand that it bothered them.

    In some people, the abandonment of this pattern was too weak, which leads to infantilizing/feminizing behaviors.

    The hallmark of neurosis is misogyny and disdain stemming from the contradiction between your self-centered, idealistic self-image (seeking a penis that's elsewhere) and the demands of others; not just women, but people in general, but also your own body. Imposing a diet on yourself, for example, is neurotic and contradicts both your own body and the expectations of others (for instance, if it's a celebration).
    Finally, a diet can be a necessity (for health and attractiveness), but deep down, it's very often at least partially neurotic.

    Personal development often attracts particularly neurotic men because a normal man would simply be working on his own little empire/garden. It makes no sense to want to "progress," to want to be rich for the sake of being rich, even to torture yourself with psychedelics, etc. It only makes sense if subconsciously you do not identify with the phallus and consequently try to use makeup to obtain it, which is again in line with what people expect from an adult man, which makes many people in this environment unsociable and even more or less misogynistic as i said before.

     

     

  7. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Entrepreneur said:

    Every company I do work for here in the US utilizes numerous contractors to accomplish whatever needs to be done.   Many of these contractors are business owners performing work for the company, yet not direct employees of the company.    For example, a business wants to expand and add additional building space.   They hire a building contractor to accomplish it.   The building contractor hires an electrical contractor, a plumbing contractor, and HVAC contractor, a drywall contractor, and IT contractor, etc.   Often times, these individual contractors are tiny businesses themselves being operated by one person or small number of partners.   Some of these small contractors hire other small contractors.  For example, an IT contractor might do work for all of those other contractors.   You have massive amounts of collaboration without having your employees do the work.

    Another example:  Here in the US it is common for salespeople to be independent contractors working with the companies they sell for.   Each salesperson is a one-person business.    They are responsible for doing everything for themselves that a business typically does for their employees - things like health insurance, income tax withholding, etc.   Yet they collaborate on the goal of maximizing sales for the company.   None of them are employees.    People collaborate as independent contractors, not just as employees.   And it is a far more efficient system of allocating labor.

    That's called being a craftsman, it's like that all over the world and that's why they generally vote for the right.

  11. Posted

    3 hours ago, Salvijus said:

    Even this question is fake to me. Nothing is genuine anymore. Everything's a lie. 

     

    On the contrary I couldn't have asked for anything more authentic; that is to say your karma/what you project; what it says about you.

    Yes, creating edits or organizing your photos on Hinge is a lie, but it's a nice little lie in a particular context.

    And there's definitely a bit of underlying trolling in my post anyway, to be honest.

  12. Posted

    7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Truly nothing better than this system has yet been invented. Marxists have no clue how to replace this system with something better.

    You talk about truth all the time, only to finally declare that you don't like to debate and say things you imagine in the shower: look at your Karma.

     

    There is a ton of marxist literature, theorists if you wish it (Marx himself, Engel, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lukash, Gramsci, Althusser...)

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, AION said:

    The ironic thing would be that most of the people there would hate Elon.

    Seems like you are living your life which is good. I'm wondering how long you can hold it out over there.

    I would go crazy without animal protein though and start chewing on some mammal and I would be evicted from there lol.

    It's the lack of activities and other people that would piss me off.

    No monuments, no restaurants, no gastronomy in general, no cinema, no bowling alleys, no pool with friends while drinking beers, no Latina prostitutes ☹️, not much human warmth in general.

  20. Posted

    1 minute ago, Something Funny said:

    Let me know how it goes. I also have no pics of myself, lol

    I will keep you aware of the experiment 😏

    I already had an account on another dating site and I got quite a few matches, even though it annoyed me and the quality of the girls wasn't high enough.
    With much better photos and a bigger dating site like Hinge, there's a chance of getting good results.

  21. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    47 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @Schizophonia Bro, the Ceaușescu regime was basically North Korea of Europe, you don't get any more unhinged socialism/communism than that. 

     

    But this isn't unique to communism.
    The Third Reich was totalitarian and it was a market economy.

    Quote

    Regarding that communism gives employment to everyone, yea, our dictator created 1000's of oversized factories all across the country, with 10x more the personnel of a western counterpart factory. It went for a couple of decades, until it all came crashing down because everything was centrally planned on 5 year production plans. In todays money the dictator wasted close to 70 billion euros adjusted for inflation in 2025 for factories of heavy industry based on autarkic economic principles so that everyone has a employment. 

    Yes, but once again, being under a mad dictator and having an autarkic economy is not unique to communism.

    What's wrong with building factories as long as they're productive? I don't know Romania, but even under Stalin, who was a horrible dictator, the population ultimately increased enormously and the USSR became an industrial superpower.

    Quote

    Capitalist factories were built on supply and demand, not artificial qotas of production that were centrally planed by the communist party.

    There is no difference at all

    Quote

    Once the COMECON collapsed together with the USSR, all the factories that the dictator built turned to rubble. Because they weren't based on economic reality, rather they were based on ideological fantasy and falsehood.

    That doesn't mean anything; either these factories were active and producing goods, or they weren't.

    They closed because the economic and social structures and trade with other countries changed drastically and suddenly with the collapse of the Soviet bloc; the same thing happened, only worse, in Russia.

    And once again Romania is like one of the worst possible communist experiments.

    Quote

    The people who were wealthy before communism, dragged the whole communist regime on their backs with their labour and expertise, while the losers before communism, only fucked around and worked just for the day to pass while being dead weight that the hard working and the smart must carry as a burden. 

    And regarding myself, I worked too in grueling conditions in Germany and slept in a horse shed together with other 20 people because we agreed we need to save money and we can't afford to pay rent. I came home and I bought myself my first car and renovated my house etc. I didn't expect the government to take care of me like I am a bitch. The reason I didn't start a business is because I am stupid and I don't have the mental fortitude to withstand the immense pressure of runnin a business, I prefered to work a normal job instead. But I didn't become bitter and envious of the successful people who were capable enough to build a business. Only the losers that want communism back bad-mouth the people who become successful. I will never be such a person. I respect and applaud the ones who earned their success and I loathe those who expect the government to give them land, housing and other stuff that the government must steal from the worthy and successful and then to give those goods to some total loser whose biggest accomplishment in life is bad-mouthing those who built their own success.

    Once again you are in a delirium.

    Communism is (normally) precisely about guaranteeing the needs of people who actually work.
    It's in a capitalist system that you are "a bitch", because you often work for people who aren't any more essential but are better positioned.
    Not everyone can become a boss; firstly because it's impossible, it makes no sense, and secondly because as you yourself say not everyone has the time, money, cognitive or physical capacity to have their "own business."
    Does that mean it's too bad for them to be exploited? That's what capitalism ultimately leads to: a predatory hierarchy of exploitation.

    You're conflating welfare and communism; in a communist system everyone would have to work; social assistance is only useful in a capitalist system.

    Stop with your delusions of hardworking, courageous people and such versus useless people; it's fantasy and actually a bit mean to oneself when one knows the projection mechanism.

  22. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    22 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    This has to be wrong, I know countless of people who grew up with me in my village, that were dirt poor when they were young,

    Obviously in 10/20 years the infrastructure of a city can evolve a lot; there was barely an internet 20 years ago; technologies, means of production in general and by extension the creation of wealth have evolved enormously.

    Quote

    and now they have successful businesses that they have built across decades. People who were begging me for a cigarette when we were 15 years old, now have successful construction businesses.

    You don't need a "business" to produce and distribute things; it's just a social organization, and a social organization that amplifies inequalities.

    Quote

    I am happy for them, they endured sleepless nights, went in Germany to work in agriculture in grueling conditions, they saved all the money, ate the cheapest food available , slept 10 people in the same room etc and now have opened their businesses here back home!

    Not only is it hypocritical to talk about precarious working conditions as if they were good and as if you were ready to do the same, but it also has nothing to do with capitalism or communism.

    Quote


    They didn't cry and begged for the government to give them free stuff.

    That’s not communism.

    In communism there is no unemployment because there is no labor market; and most Marxist thinkers agree that everyone must work and be beneficial to the community; communism is not about giving money for doing nothing, that would be stupid.

    Quote

    They rolled up their sleeves and endured work! That's why I hate socialism, all the nobodies and losers from my village are regreting the communist dictatorship from the 20th century, while the winners are working non stop and love capitalism.

    The goal of communism is precisely to guarantee good living conditions for those who work rather than for those who are lucky enough to be well-positioned.

    And the Ceaușescu regime is not “the communism”; it was a communist-inspired dictatorship like all the regimes installed, influenced by the USSR or China.

  23. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Thats exactly what capitalism is, lol! You can't become sucessful in capitalism by mistake, only the best of the best achieve it. The problem with capitalism is that the winner takes it all, while the losers fight for scraps! A more conscious capitalism will allow the winner to win, but will also make sure that the winner doesn't win it all, so that the losers will also have plenty of resources to share amongst themselves.

    No, capitalism is the least meritocratic system because by definition it favors those who already have capital to begin with and a ludicrous distribution of purchasing power.

     

  25. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    On 12/11/2025 at 10:28 PM, Alexop said:

    Women sometimes say no to healthy things. She might say no to a cool guy like Leo because some video rubbed her the wrong way hehe. An saying yes to some people pleaser nice guy wimp instead that will slowly ruin her life.

    But it's the same for you and Leo; your attention is constantly shifting to emotionnamy negatively charged ideas. Personal development, pick-up, getting your brains fried by magic mushrooms, politics, and so on.

    And since sexual behavior generally reflects your persona I'm sure you get turned on by girls who reflect that.

    So all of this is projection, a mirror effect; and there's projection because there's a refusal to acknowledge one's desire, which is a neurotic reflex.

    edit: I responded intuitively as if it were a question of "good guys" versus "bad guys" whatever that means because generally it's that; here you are twisted in a slightly different way but it amounts to the same thing.