Schizophonia

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9,990

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Schizophonia

  2. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    10 hours ago, Sincerity said:

    That's a terrible way to look at it. No offense.

    Femininity is incredible power. Just not as blunt as that of a man.

    Feminine power is based in attracting. While masculine power is based in directed will, "conquest". Both are outstanding forces.

    I'll reply to the @Lila9's post here at the same time.

    When I talk about powerlessness; I am not talking about motor and emotional strength, in which case girls are indeed as powerful as men if they are in good physical and mental health.

    There are women who are crushed, who keep their mouths shut and are beaten by their husbands, but of course that is an anomaly and it's agender; there are also men who are beaten/crushed by their wives or other men even if the other way is certainly more probable; and ofc to want to harm your girlfriend you must be a sociopath.

    What I'm simply saying is that women tend to be more obedient, to go with the flow; it's in their anatomy, in their appreciation of humor, in their way of loving.

    That doesn't mean women aren't creative or don't like discovering and sharing things; it's just a preference, an inclination.

     

    The heart of the genre is the relationship to the phallus that I described in my previous topic (I plan to make a larger and more refined V2 soon)

    What I mean by powerlessness is identification with limits, with negativity (not even in the perorative sense, but in the raw/mathematical sense of the term).

    Women start from the imaginary and descend back into reality, what Lacan would call the symbolic order, while men do the opposite; symbolism prevails.

    To illustrate imagine you want to buy a coffee table.

    If you say, "Okay, my current coffee table is already fine (the current coffee table), but the other one looks cool, so I'll work, go to IKEA, and buy it," you're simply shifting your attention to your current table before changing it and then shifting your attention to the new one once it's physically there.

    This way of approaching desire is masculinizing.

    However from the moment you shift your attention to the new table before you even have it (you ruminate on the fact that you should have a new table before you actually have it, you constantly look at the IKEA catalog (obsessive-compulsive disorder/Asperger's syndrome can lead to feminizing tendencies because of this pattern) etc.), then you're no longer in the realm of the symbolic but in the realm of the imaginary, which is feminizing.

    This is something you can experience for yourself. For 48 hours, try to inhibit negative beliefs when they arise; suspend this imaginary of what should be there but isn't (the phallus) and simply do what you want to do or should do; even when you're walking down the street ask yourself, "How does Sincerity like to move his member, because it's comfortable/fun?" You will:

    -Become sexually dominant, see much more; immediately eliminate all fetishes that go against this.

    -Become naturally more sociable, do more activities; strive to be a physical leader.

    -To be more physically powerful.

    -To stop wanting to listen to girly music (If the concept of self lacks lack, then you will no longer reason with this kind of music; the same goes for all the sad stuff or phonk music; it's ultimately more like music for submissive people from what i feel).

  3. Posted

    Just now, Lila9 said:

    Women are socially pressured to obey because this is what patriarchy perceives as being feminine, but this is not femininity per se.

    Femininity is lack/powerlessness.
    The female genitalia are literally a void to be filled; men are also taller and much more muscular.
    You speak of patriarchy but that's simply the basic social organization among most great apes; the great ape that Homo sapiens most closely resembles is the chimpanzee and it too is broadly a patriarchy.

    Men like submissive women; there are men who like the opposite but they tend to be less androgenic phenotypes.

    Just now, Lila9 said:

    Men obey more powerful men because this is how they learned to build trust and relationships with them.

     

    No, unless they're homosexual men don't like obeying other men.
    In the military men don't obey out of submission to a strongman; they do it because successfully obeying military orders makes them feel tough and effective.

  10. Posted

    19 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @SchizophoniaI can't believe you take the soviet numbers as accurate, they lied from top to bottom about their economy, you can't trust anything number related from the USSR,

    You just imagined it.

    19 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

    the truth is that in the 90's people lived worse than in the 70's but without transition to a market economy the 90's would have been double or triple worse if they kept doubling down on communism. 

    You just imagined it too.

    The semi-planned Chinese economy and to a lesser extent the French one functioned very very well after the war, and Stalin's USSR transformed a group of corrupt eurasian states into an industrial superpower where living standards and life expectancy skyrocketed despite civil war, the First and especially the Second World War, and western embargoes.

    The USSR essentially collapsed due to Brezhnev's spending/laxity, bureaucracy and corruption, a lack of openness to global capital (I discuss this in my article about Trotsky if i rememer well), and nationalists.

    The USSR would have survived were it not for Boris Yeltsin's conspiracy and the support of the United States.

    19 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

    And the reason Ukraine, Belarus and Russia have a very low GDP per capita is because of corruption, no rule of law, no independent courts, no nothing, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are some of the most corrupt countries in the world, You westerners have no idea what corruption even is until you step foot in the ex-Soviet space, literally you guys in the west are living in a corrupt free paradise, Ex-Soviet countries have unimaginable levels of corruption.

    No it's not the countries of the former Soviet bloc that have a lot of corruption, it's poor countries in general.
    Central American and African countries are also very corrupt, perhaps even more so, and they are very capitalist countries; because they are poor.
    Countries are poor because they lack capital, skilled labor, and raw materials.

    Now the question is, which production and distribution system throughout history has most fostered such a surge in production? I've provided ample evidence that communist states who are well planned, benefited from this surge or at least are stable while capitalist states only collapse in on themselves due to crises before rebounding by enslaving themselves in a Ponzi scheme called debt.

    I also talked about it in my topic on Trosky; I should make a V2 because from memory it is too shaky for my taste.

  12. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    13 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

    We attract what we are :) not what we want.

    When you look into mirror, what do you see, truly? 

     

    I know.
    These days it's subtle but I'm opening my heart; I experience a little more love even if it also makes me more anxious.

    It's like going from ADSL to VDSL or from 480p to 720p, a comparison of that kind.

  14. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    21 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @SchizophoniaBro, Russia and eastern Europe had no choice but to transition to a market economy, even if they wanted to remain communist they couldn't, the whole structure of the planned economy was falling down on itself, without the painful transition to the market economy, USSR and its Eastern Europe satellites would have had the same fate as The Weimar Republic in the late 1920's and early 1930's. The whole economy was in such dire straits that it could no longer bear its own weight. Some countries like Poland and Czechia had much more well thought transition phases, others like Russia, Ukraine, Romania had much more brutal outcomes.

     

    No; the USSR collapsed and liberalized because Boris Yeltsin basically staged a coup.

    Quote

     

    Why? Because Poland applied shock therapy, rapid well thought privatization, the population was educated on state television about free market, stock market and capitalism, whereas in Russia, Romania and Ukraine either the new private owners stole everything from the system or the state refused to privatize all together, for example in Romania it wasn't until 1996 until the state began privatization, here there was still this backward mentality of "Not selling the country to imperialist capitalists", this ended up destroying even the quasi profitable factories, the lack of proper serious privatization and the fact that the state continued to waste money on unprivatized, unmodernized factories, made the situation even worse, sky high inflation and a total destruction of even the factories that could have been saved with proper privatization by serious investors and modernisation.

     

    That's what I said; you're paraphrasing me.

    Quote

     

    The fact that you don't see that communism was the very reason why people struggled massively in the 1990's is staggering. In the 1990's Russia and eastern Europe had to suffer precisely because of the effects of the disastrous communist management not  because of the transition to a free market. The transition to a market was the medicine. Blaming the transition to the market economy It is like you are blaming your doctor for giving you treatment for a deadly disease. 

    If the transition to a free market is a medicine why did Ukraine have a lower GDP per capita than even Algeria just before the Russian invasion; most of the former Soviet bloc countries are still poor including Russia; Russia is overall a very poor country.

    The USSR had a GDP around the half to that of the United States, and now Russia, despite the opening to the global market that the end of the USSR allowed, isn't even worth a quarter of it.

    There has only been regression.

  15. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @Schizophonia Ok, I'm openminded, but I still believe USSR was a textbook example of empire. They collonized the people of eastern Europe ideologically

     

    It was a dictature yes.

    I don't promote Staline 

    Quote

     

     they collonized the people who had capital and property and redistributed the land and the resources of the bourgeoisie to the lazy and unproductive.

     

    No it is precisely the bourgeois who can have the privilege to be "lazy and unproductive"; the characteristic of being a bourgeois is precisely to earn excessively compared to others simply through the right to private property; because you were in the right place at the right time.

    And if there are people who earn a lot because they own the capital, it means that on the other side there are people who earn less even if they are productive.

    And it's natural for people to be productive if they're in good physical and mental health and not high on alcohol or heroin, lol; and even under any socialist system, even a lax one, you can't live on welfare alone—that's the bare minimum.
    There are 5% of people in France who don't work and receive welfare and France is particularly lax; the French are also still one of the most productive populations in the world in terms of wealth generated per hour on average.


    So you're fixated on this but it's just not true.

    Quote

     

    They collonized eastern Europe with north Korea style secret police, ineffective central planning and a total backward dictatorship.

     

    Ceaușescu was one of many communist leaders with their own vision of communism, and he was a rather foolish dictator.

    Colonization means that you directly control a territory through colonists; this is not colonization.

    Quote

     

    Furthermore, the industrialization was planned catastrophically, thus freezing eastern Europe for 50 years, after the collapse of the ussr, eastern Europe was after collonialism, the industry was bankrupt, people were starving, queueing for bread and clothes etc. 

     

    I've already explained all of this elsewhere, I'm not going to repeat myself.

    Quote

     

    Only after a colonialist empire there are such economic outcomes, easter Europe was in the same state as was a conquered city state after the retreat of the Roman empire back in ancient times, while Western Europe advanced industrially, economically, politically during the second half of the 20th century, after 1990, 

    Western Europe was much less affected by the war and benefited greatly from the Marshall Plan particularly West Germany.
    After the war France implemented a semi-planned economic policy due to the Communist Party's victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_French_legislative_election)in the parliamentary elections, and this coincided with the greatest period of growth in its history. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses)

     

    You're comparing Western Europe, where there were relatively few conflicts and deaths, and which ultimately received generous aid from the United States, with Eastern Europe which was devastated, undergone tens of millions of deaths, and had to rebuild itself on its own

    And once again you're lying; it depends on the country. Ukraine has always been poor, but East Germany industrialized well despite the dictatorship and lack of aid. France and East Germany did recover in the west, but Spain remained quite poor.

    Quote

    eastern Europe had to go back to square one to rebuild and create efficient industry, agriculture, manufacturing etc and the process is still a lot behind compared to western Europe. All of that because communism created only inefficient and without any economical fundation industrialization. When the communism collapsed, the local population had no capital whatsoever to start rebuilding, thanks to the communist "non imperialism" political framework. 

    Of course they do; all factories and infrastructure in general are capital.
    Russia's transition to a market economy went badly and increased poverty, corruption, violence, and inequality; a large portion of that capital was simply stolen by a handful of oligarchs.
    Poland's transition went very well, the best transition of all ex USSR's satellite states; it's a matter of organization, and here you're admitting that the shift to a market economy tends to jeopardize living standards and institutions more than the other way around ahah; perhaps you don't realize it but that's your own deduction.

    Today the vast majority of poor and very poor countries are capitalist countries; capitalism doesn't systematically increase wealth it doesn't work that way; the causality is reversed, because a state industrializes it becomes more liberal by developing a bourgeois class that will in fine strive to increase its rights.
    The French Revolution for example was bourgeois; among the first measures taken by the Jacobins were liberal ones such as the abolition of guilds.

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chapelier_Law_1791)

    Quote

    If freezing in place half a continent for almost 50 years is not the highest form of collonialism, I think I will give up.

     

    No that's not it; words have a definition.

  17. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    25 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @Schizophonia I'm hinting at the fact that you don't get any more imperialistic than USSR.

     

    Imperialism means the exploitation and oppression of one people by another; carrying out a coup d'état is not imperialism.

    Quote

     

    Furthermore, until Stalin died,

     

    Stalin isn't USSR, even less communism/marxism.

    Quote

     

    USSR treated the occupied eastern Europe the same way the british treated their African colonies. The soviets robbed eastern Europe of its resources until Stalin died.

    Stalin did not "steal" Eastern Europe, eastern europe developed under communism; you can say that Stalin was a dictator and that the Eastern Bloc countries were de facto satellite states yes, but they weren't colonies and these states industrialized.
    China was broken up into several random states controlled by warlords so the western countries could sell goods especially opium; drugs lol; that's an example of imperialism, as Lenin meant.
    India wasn't even colonized by the British state but by the British East India Company which was basically the equivalent of FedEx today lol.

    Then there was the random partitioning of Africa, the settlement of Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine, Rohingya in Burma etc.

    There was the displacement of Chechens in the USSR because Stalin was afraid of their nationalism and nationalisms in general; but again it was Stalin and this was denounced and reversed by Khrushchev after Stalin's death.

     

  20. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    52 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

    Maybe it is possible to rid all your social neurosis even in solitude, but I’d say it’s much harder than simply exposing yourself to social situations 

    Idk because I did and continue to do this and it works; and I see plenty of older people who have socialized a lot and are neurotic.

     

    Because socialization isn't just about humans but objects in general, it's the "territorialization" as Deleuze would say so in fact socialization happens everywhere and all the time; when you vape your watermelon-flavored e-cigarette you're socializing with it.

  23. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    Lenin starved 5 million of the peasant class FOR his imperialism.

    Indeed Lenin made a mistake; he should have pulled the elder wand out of his ass and fixed the collapse in production caused by World War I, the Civil War, and the droughts.

    Meanwhile in the following decade Stalin's USSR experienced has been the greatest growth in population, living standards, and industrialization in modern history with the semi-planned economy of Deng Xiaoping's China.

    And you say this as if I were some great defender of Lenin; all I did was post a book of his that addresses the issue raised by OP.

  24. Posted

    Just now, Daniel Balan said:

    @SchizophoniaBefore Lenin named the Russian state the Soviet Union, what was the name of the Russian state in 1916?

    It was a giant, cold, reactionary shithole under a constitutional monarchy.

    Russia did not become the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union was a federation like the United States, and Russia was a state.

    The Russian Soviet Socialist Republic