Schizophonia
Member-
Content count
9,990 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Schizophonia
-
-
2 hours ago, Elliott said:Intervention would be leaving the nations with autonomy, taking control of them, as Lenin did is de facto imperialism.
De facto of nothing because Imperialism is just a word to which we give a meaning and I've been using the one given by Lenin this whole time.
The topic is about the invasion of states by the United States for their resources; I posted this book because it is what Lenin was talking about when using this term; and there is no hypocrisy because the invasions of the Soviet Union—whatever one may think of them—have no pecuniary interest.
In the sense of personal benefits for a class of people.
The United States wages war because of lobbyists; that's essentially what Lenin described. There were no lobbyists in the Soviet Union, nor was there ethnic domination.
Here you're associating warmongering with imperialism; but we don't care what you think because we're not playing with the notion of imperialism you have in your head, but with Lenin's one.
QuoteSoviet Russia could not survive without Baku's vital oil reserves, making control of the region a strategic necessity for Lenin
It's convenient that their altruistic intervention was at a time when 5 million Russians were starving.... thinking of others while you starve, so dreamy!
Just because you stop waging war doesn't mean production will magically rebound; the USSR wasn't operating in a war economy like it was against Germany.
But as you yourself say, there is a geostrategic interest in these interventions.
It's a case of "the end justifies the means," as Trotsky would say.
-
4 minutes ago, Elliott said:If you like to be wrong....
And you have the right not to know how to read.
I didn't deny that Lenin was an interventionist and invaded states; I denied that it was for imperialist purposes.
-
12 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:Who wrote that, Nikita Khrushchev?
Vladimir Lenin; the most known communist thinker after Marx and Engels; and the one who sponsored rusian revolution and who ruled URSS some years before dying.
-
24 minutes ago, Elliott said:Lenin was an Imperialist, USSR under Lenin was Imperialist
There was an invasion of the new Polish state in an attempt to impose Bolshevism.
We can think what we want of this intervention but imperialism is a spoiling venture; which was not at all Lenin's objective.
-
-
It looks like some kind of lame cope.
-
42 minutes ago, blankisomeone said:"It is characterized by an overestimation of one's own abilities." What? I'm literally dealing with the opposite condition
Your post literally says “ I want my object of desire now” That's overestimating your abilities.
Like you're being falsely modest, but what's behind this mental structure is the belief that you should normally be able to do it and that it's not normal.
-
1 minute ago, CARDOZZO said:Sure. It is the same dynamic. These woman that do not receive attention start to sexualize themselves on the internet then she got what she needs.
Even ugly girls have more easy than average ugly poor guys. I'm sounding like an incel right now
I see things from a perspective of a "chad light" (yeah, on the red pill scale I am there
) man on a 3rd country.
I'm coming to join you in Brazil.
To me the big butts
-
2 hours ago, AION said:You can recognize them by their fruits
And you have no example to support what you say
I mentioned Sadghuru because he's the only yogi I know, and he is ultra active.
I also sometime watch Rupert Spira and he does videos, he is a normal person.
He's not exactly a spiritual master, but I'm reading Deleuze right now; he was gentle and a communist, and probably the greatest philosopher of the 21st century.
The only one I can think of who can get close is Ken Wilber, who's also a regular guy, active on YouTube, and has written a lot of books.
Joe Dispenza ! That you like too.
So I don't know what you're talking about; there is a confusion here.
-
1 hour ago, CARDOZZO said:Work on yourself, go to the gym, develop inner game, etc.
Yes! But that requires time, money, and good mental health.
So it's social.
-
14 minutes ago, Lila9 said:Many times, especially in more conservative countries, the women who hold power in society tend to be the ones who internalize masculine and patriarchal values.
They see themselves almost like men with different genitalia.Precisely; because wearing a blazer and being unkind is not a man's thing, it's a boss's thing.
-
1 hour ago, Lila9 said:All humans from all races are still very genetically close.
They are more similar than different. Even if there are some genetic differences, they are small and irrelevant and do not mean that one race is superior to another. We can accept the differences of each group of people without categorizing them into some artificial hierarchy of power.
We can accept the biological differences between men and women without discriminating against each other.
Yes, I am probably idealistic and I expect too much from society, but I think that this is possible in the future.
Regarding the distribution of material resources, it is not a problem, because there is no scarcity.
Being an idealist means believing that ideas ultimately shape social structures and conditions, rather than the other way around (materialism).
One could say that as a non-dualist I am ultimately an idealist myself; but what is implied in the ideas of idealism and materialism, as they are usually understood as philosophical concepts, is the separation of signifier and signified.
You emphasize the signifier—that is "white people," "women" or objets like that—whereas I target the signified which is the collective subject; and i assume the nature of the collective subject is essentially social.Therefore there's no point in talking about "whiteness"; "whiteness", "patriarchy" etc is simply what happens when we industrialize.
-
12 minutes ago, AION said:@blankisomeone you are good. 26 is very young and your brain can still change. Only after 35 your brain - slowly - crystallizes.
If you are a spiritual person with low ego you lack survival skills.
to get the things you want you need that fire and survival skills. I recommend you watch an Andrew Tate and copy his good sides and integrate it.
That lovey dovey shit makes you weak and most spiritual teachers don’t understand the importance of healthy ego and healthy survival skills so stop listening to these people.
Sadhguru is one of the most active people for his age.
Most spiritual leaders are normal.
-
16 minutes ago, Lila9 said:No, this is not what I said.
The first victims of white supremacy culture were white people, their indigenous religions, which connected them to nature and their humanity, were erased in favor of becoming white.
Then they imposed it on the rest of the world. If white people are aware of the way their attachment to white culture is hurting them snd disconnects them from their humanity, and hurting the rest of the world, we can start to heal and create a better world in which everybody would benefit.(more about the deconstruction of whiteness: https://christianortiz.substack.com/p/you-werent-born-white-you-were-made )
Same with patriarchy.
In order to become a patriarch, a man has to erase part of himself, his femininity, even though it makes him whole, complete, and happy, he traded it for dominance and control. And now he is miserable. No amount of money or power will fill the hole.
The problem for me is that you're completely idealistic; that is to say you're essentializing collective subjects.
There are certainly biological differences between Black and White people, but if it had been the Malians who initiated the Industrial Revolution, and if women were more muscular than men in that agrarian then industrialized world that demands greater physical strength, preferably not being pregnant and greater empathy for children, then Black people would also have lost their religion, they would have become capitalist and imperialist, and there would be a "matriarchy" with men who criticize it for the same reasons.
So I am not anti-feminist or against anti-racism per se, but if as I believe since I come from Marxism, it is the material question, the distribution of wealth, that essentially influences collective subjects and their relationships with each other; then this framework for interpretation is useless and will tend to create hostility; since it suggests that it is the fault of men, of white people or whatever if something happens, because of their essence or because of what is "contained in them" for "some reason".
-
1 minute ago, siasatmadar said:"I feel a sense of urgency", "I wonder what's at the root of this impatience"
It might be helpful to contemplate about the underlying cause for this sense of urgency. It could be mental-health related (depression, anxiety, adhd, trauma, etc.) In that case, I suggest you seek support from a psychotherapist AND psychiatrist.
It's paranoia.
-
14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:Your expectations are just wrong.
It doesn't work that way for anyone. Even talented people work their asses off to train to be great and to perform.
Modern culture has spoiled you with an entitled attitude. You expect life to be too easy. Life has never been that easy. That is some Hollywood/Disney-spun fantasy.
Everything great requires deep patience, hard work, and long term investment.
Even just having a child is a 20-year investment. Even after 20 years of life that child will still be a fool.
You need an attitude change and a strong work ethic.
Even if you had the skill it would still be lots of work. I have the skill of speaking, but each new video still requires lots of work. Great work cannot be effortless.
Meaning and satisfaction comes from working hard and investing in yourself every day. Anything effortless isn't meaningful. It is meaningful because of how much you had to work to develop it. So pick a domain and start investing. You don't need to wait for years to feel good about yourself. You can start feeling good now, just knowing you're training hard and investing.
Once again you emphasize deprivation, as if this viewpoint made you productive, revolutionary when it doesn't.
My father for example has a fairly low ego as you might imagine based on your criteria; that is to say, kind and present in the moment.
And he's a skilled craftsman who has always earned a good living and been a business owner.
Most truly productive people have this "psychological makeup," and the people you suggested as "achievers" with big egos are actually just garbage when they're not simply heirs. A big ego works when you read Wikipedia pages (i tease you), when you're a YouTuber, a coder, when you do training, coaching, dropshipping, and other ramdoms things like that.
You won't find a great craftsman because you don't renovate a house with ego, but rather with a love for a job well done.
The same goes for doctors, technicians, musicians, artists, railway workers, and great philosophers, great politician and so on; all those who actually produce and don't pretend; they can produce because they enjoy their work, not because they're in a "I have to do something great" delusion - it doesn't work like that.The separation between pleasure and effort is an illusion; it's pleasure that motivates you. "Dopamine," to use a vulgar and materialistic term, is what drives you. The problem is that people are losing energy because of new technologies and drugs, and/or precisely because they have an inflated ego, which paralyzes them because great things are made up of small things.
That's what having a developed prefrontal cortex means: instead of thinking "I'm going to be king of the world," as a gorilla might say in its own language, you focus on less egotistical things like building a shelter, hunting, gardening... And who is more productive, a gorilla or a human.
-
You set your goals too high maybe.
For example you could get a job at a store and in a month you'd have a good amount of money; and if you want to do something else, you can pay for training (though you don't even need it anymore with YouTube and AI) for, for example, a manual trade, and with that you can offer craft services that will bring in more money.I posted in the thread about success and ego that those with the "least ego" are the ones who succeed the most and the fastest because, since they don't have the pressure to produce something "big," they can do lots of small things that will ultimately add up to something important later on.
The idea of depriving yourself now to eat your bread later is for me a total illusion and people who believe they can operate like that end up lazy, scammers, or doing shit.
-
1 hour ago, Elliott said:I'd suggest reading it again while being critical of your sexist claim.
She believes that the collective subject is essentially qualitatively associated with the majority sex in institutions.
It's like me telling you that "whiteness" is a problem because white people are serious and hoarders, while Black people just dance; and that therefore by putting more Black people in power we'll be able to create a more relaxed society; lol.
-
27 minutes ago, Lila9 said:Such a good question.
A non-patriarchal society would be centered around motherhood and children. Children are the life force of society, they are the future! And mothers, who bring children into the world, do difficult and sacred labor that is overlooked under patriarchy.
Look at how single mothers are treated, and even non-single mothers. They are not appreciated enough, society doesn’t care about mothers much, even though they perform some of the most difficult labor in the world.
Under patriarchy, society is centered around the male ego and its will to be immortal. There is a severe issue with surrender and the acceptance of death. Women and children are used as mere tools to protect men’s ego and “continuity,” rather than being recognized as the life force they are.
Patriarchy is a cult of death, of old men. Of materialism, of rationality, of capitalism, of colonialism.
Death for everyone else but patriarchy, it is like a malignant cancer that would kill every single healthy cell in order to thrive.
There is an accumulation of possessions and greed rather than sharing. This is not human nature. Healthy humans share once their basic needs are met, sick humans hoard at the expense of everyone else.
There is an emphasis on artificial hierarchy rather than a natural one, which is do disconnected from truth.
Repression of emotions and creativity. Have you noticed that the most intuitive, feminine, creative, and highly compassionate people usually would be the poorest and most under appreciated people under patriarchy, while the most egocentric, narcissistic, psychopathic people are the biggest winners. Imagine a society in which compassion and creativity are among the top values and how advanced such society is. This is a non-patriarchal society.
It has nothing to do with misandry or female supremacy.
In fact, when I criticize patriarchy, I do it out of love for humanity, women and men, children and animals, and everyone on this planet. I want everyone to thrive. I am seeing the potential of what we could become.
That's one of the most lowkey sexist (and new age) delirium I've ever read.
-
11 hours ago, EternalForest said:Are you serious? If anything, you see ME as a machine if you think jacking off alone will make me happy. What the fuck?
Jacking off is a dopamine hit at best, it doesn't truly satisfy the soul.
I mean, masturbation isn't even in the same CATEGORY as intimate sex with someone who loves you.
And are you really pulling the "natural selection" card and saying some men are meant to die virgins?
I've never had sex at all, let alone with someone who loves me, and for that I feel like I'm missing out on something huge. I could masturbate everyday for the rest of my life and it still won't fill the void.
So what I truly want isn't sex, it's a deep, fulfilling relationship.
You're wrong about me, Lila.
To spread my Marxist propaganda a bit 😏; note that what hurts you in what she says isn't her "feminist" software, but her individualistic one.
Even a kind of hidden discourse of domination (misandry) which automatically frustrates you because you think you are socially declassified.The only thing to do is control your mental dialogue and reject limiting beliefs, even if it means sacrifying from your life objects that remind you of limiting beliefs; it's basically essentially what buddhism turns around.
From a political point of view, a left-wing government would be in favour of putting in place social policies so that people have the means to socialize.
-
Achieve what; what do you mean by spirituality
-
7 minutes ago, Basman said:You do very little actual philosophy within academia. Just you thinking deeply about serious questions about your life, like how to get a girlfriend, is going to be more substantive philosophically than most what you learn in university (because it matters to your actual life).
The point is that there are much better degrees than philosophy if you have serious goals. They are good at teaching intellectual rigor though.
It’s ego hypertrophy
-
37 minutes ago, Basman said:Academic philosophy is mostly scholarly and historical. It's boring and I'm saying that as someone who loves philosophy.
It depends of the university you are in.
Philosophy is very large.
37 minutes ago, Basman said:There are no jobs that require a philosophy degree specifically except becoming a philosophy professor,
That’s what I said
37 minutes ago, Basman said:but that is a kind of incestuous career structurally. A medical ethicist is a medical degree. Your better off getting a law degree if you want to work with ethics.
I don’t know where you are but in France you can go in medical ethic via philosophical degrees (at the beginning).
-
@CARDOZZO He can manifest a higher IQ/bigger brain
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted
What do you mean.