Deleted Member 0927
Banned
- Joined
- May 31, 2025
- Posts
- 459
- Reputation
- 752
Foreword
This thread combines a few fragmented notes I’ve been sitting on—rather than posting them separately, I’ve stitched them into a single throughline. I feel like sporadically posting these ideas weakens them.
Many people believe that just because they can observe the public life of individuals they know the average life of people. This is false. Just because a life is observable doesn’t mean it’s representative.
When public action is punished—socially, psychologically, or physically—private or underground action becomes necessary. Desire doesn’t disappear because expression is dangerous. It simply hides.
If acting openly brings “death”—literal, social, or spiritual—then survival demands concealment. Individuals may look inactive, but only because the cost of action is too high. What you see is not what is—it’s what is allowed.
This dynamic scales. When a community shares a suppressed aim, its members may act privately—individually but with collective alignment. It looks like apathy. In reality, it’s underground coordination.
Just as public behavior doesn’t reveal private truth, your imagination of private behavior isn’t necessarily accurate either. In fact, imagining what happens privately—based only on public cues or assumptions—is inherently self-contradictory. In fact, I believe it’s more likely that most things you think are private are not actually private or apart of what privately occurs, occuring, or will occur. I can give one shallow private example of this: I’m not Christian but I lied about being Christian to go a Bible study with a centimillionare for about a year. I went to their Bible study at a coffee shop until I eventually left that city. They truly believed I was Christian (LOL). Therefore, you cannot measure or quantify private actions with any confidence.
This is especially true for ideologies that place spiritual or metaphysical obligations above social permission. Such ideologies can produce quiet majorities whose values contradict visible norms.
I would wish to mention the concept of preference falsification, a term popularized by political scientist Timur Kuran. Preference falsification occurs when individuals misrepresent their true views due to fear of social, economic, or political consequences. They adopt publicly acceptable positions not because they believe them, but because they calculate that revealing their real stance is too risky. If everyone is pretending, but no one knows others are pretending, then the lie looks like truth—until it doesn’t—a phantom consensus. Kuran argues this explains the seemingly rapid shifts in sociocultural events.
There exists a movie I like on this: The Wickerman (1973). I won’t explain how or why because that would spoil the movie. Just I recommend it.
So public inaction ≠ private inaction and public conformity ≠ consensus. Visibility is not a measure of importance—sometimes, it’s a measure of risk.
Judging a group’s motives, values, or potential based solely on public behavior is not only intellectually lazy. It can be disastrously wrong. Invisibility ≠ Inexistence. Suppression ≠ Apathy. Risk ≠ Agreement.
Part II: Insanity
In this video, the person talks about the ‘mass delusion’ @cromagnon briefly mentioned in this thread the idea that humans, because they live virtually exclusively by abstraction, are living in a deluded state, whereas animals, supposedly since they don’t abstract ideas, are not deluded as we are. That all ideas are not above another, and so is the idea that hates the idea that all ideas are not above another.
I used to hate reasoning until I realized I hated reasoning until I realized I reasoned I used to hate reasoning until I realized I hated reasoning. The reason reasons are paradoxical in this manner is because reasons are created exclusively from signals then impulses then emotions then reason. First, the brain receives a signal, the brain conjures an impulse—but wait—impulses can contradict each other, so they brain somehow found a way to resolve these into emotions, then emotions conflict and begin reasoning. If you are inclined to believe the impulse was tangible then you are wrong because it had to abstract the signal into a form the brain could understand and so did the signal when the sense was converted into a signal. Therefore, you cannot hate reason because it’s intangible because everything it’s based on is untangible.
If you are to still be against reason, I want you to ask yourself this question: at what point do you say emotion is good and what point reason is bad? In any case you imagine, emotion alone will never benefit you more than reasoning based on emotion.
The point is that yes, all abstractions are intangible, but there is nothing that is tangible. The animal that @cromagnon conjured still abstracts as the human does, but they just abstract ideas less than humans. @cromagnon also claimed that humans are retarded because they become their lives to things that are intangible. For someone to be retarded, they must be worse in comparison, but the animals are just as retarded in this sense because animals also devote their lives to abstractions. Every moment you are alive, you pick abstractions which decide your action. It’s my belief that this is why Mitchell Heisman in his suicide note said the following:
“The following is an experiment in nihilism. Already I have contradicted myself! How can one believe in disbelief?
I might be a nihilist except that I don't believe in anything. If there is no extant God and no extant gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose; if there are no values that are inherently valuable; no justice that is ultimately justifiable; no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, then there is no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, art, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, egalitarianism, subjectivism, elitism, ismism.
If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate, nonarbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery; cruelty is equal to kindness; love is equal to hate; war is equal to peace; dignity is equal to contempt; destruction is equal to creation; life is equal to death and death is equal to life.”
I would also like to mention @Klasik616 ‘s reply to @disillusioned ‘s thread:
“Stop projecting bro”
There’s this commonly held belief that you can simply stop projecting. This is because Jung’s analogy of a projector implies that you can turn off projections just as you can turn off a projector. You can’t just “stop projecting”. You projected the comment, “Stop projecting bro”. True belief comes from conviction.
There is no collapse of reason or meaning because everything is forced into reasoning and valuing. There is no out of reason. Everything collapses into reason. You cannot die without meaning because you killed youself to lose meaning; therefore, God is alive. Your suicide had meaning even though you tried to escape it. I often like to hate moralfags (e.g @Orc, @Naticel) because they believe their morally transcendent until I remember that I also am not transcendent for not liking their supposed moral transcendenance until I realize this idea also isn’t transcendent. I have no transcendent ideology to form from anything in this thread.
Part III: The Myth of Coherance
Imagine an ant colony. There are individual ants each doing something to support the colony. Each action of the individual ant isn’t complicated in themselves; however, it isn’t until you take a step back that you notice something more interesting about the ant colony—the colony itself is alive. It has properties that can’t be explained by the decisions of the individual ants. It moves as a whole, it adapts the outside world, and has a life cycle almost like a living, breathing organism. Why is that? If an ant colony is filled with individual making their own independent decisions, how is it organizing itself into a predictable and coordinated system? No central planner exists. The order is emergent.
This is what a complex system is: a web of probabilistic actors whose interactions produce something greater—but not logically deducible—from the parts. If each link in a causal chain is 70% predictable (0.7), by point five the predictability is 17% (0.7^5). So even if you understand the parts, you may still not understand the system.
We are trained to believe in unified actors—individuals with consistent motives, organizations with coherent goals, systems with central logic. This is false. No self, group, or ideology is unified. The illusion of coherence is necessary for functioning, but it is only ever an approximation—at best, a temporary alliance of impulses. The ‘unified organization’ may be a state, a church, a corporation, or a person.
Each individual in an organization has unique interests and ideas. The US government is does not act in the organization of the US government; rather, each individual is organized in a manner which manipulates individuals’ self-interest into behaving in the manner which is labeled the US government. This means that it is possible for conflicting individuals within the US government to exist without the conflicts pertaining to the US government. This organization is not a entity but a mode of operation of people to promulgate their own agendas. Yet, these people are not whole either and have similar operations taking place within. No collective actor is truly coherent—organizations aren’t entities but temporary arrangements of individuals with loosely converging self-interests.
Part IV: Nincompoops
I would like to mention the people writing ideological pieces on social media (e.g @got.daim, @neurosis), seemly in an attempt to persuade others. I’ve never seen a single person and everyone reading this will also be hard-pressed to find someone who was proselytized via internet argument. No one cares to change their ideology for yours or to seriously persuade you of another ideology because it doesn’t incentive them or yourself. In fact, it’s instead FEDERAL AGENTS & contractors reading your posts. Maybe you can convince the FBI of your ideology (lol). Post-Snowden, it's no longer conspiracy to say that digital surveillance is pervasive and institutionalized. Federal contractor Naama Kates said that Master’s forums are actually great for the intelligence community and called everyone on it ‘harmless’. Below is the full video if your interested in the dynamics of how Feds monitor you foolish political and vocal nincompoops:
To think that Feds aren’t recording everything you say here and on other social media platforms is retarded. I was able to get a glimpse into my police file on me and I noticed that some of the things I exclusively said on here were in the report.
im dajjal
This thread combines a few fragmented notes I’ve been sitting on—rather than posting them separately, I’ve stitched them into a single throughline. I feel like sporadically posting these ideas weakens them.
Many people believe that just because they can observe the public life of individuals they know the average life of people. This is false. Just because a life is observable doesn’t mean it’s representative.
When public action is punished—socially, psychologically, or physically—private or underground action becomes necessary. Desire doesn’t disappear because expression is dangerous. It simply hides.
If acting openly brings “death”—literal, social, or spiritual—then survival demands concealment. Individuals may look inactive, but only because the cost of action is too high. What you see is not what is—it’s what is allowed.
This dynamic scales. When a community shares a suppressed aim, its members may act privately—individually but with collective alignment. It looks like apathy. In reality, it’s underground coordination.
Just as public behavior doesn’t reveal private truth, your imagination of private behavior isn’t necessarily accurate either. In fact, imagining what happens privately—based only on public cues or assumptions—is inherently self-contradictory. In fact, I believe it’s more likely that most things you think are private are not actually private or apart of what privately occurs, occuring, or will occur. I can give one shallow private example of this: I’m not Christian but I lied about being Christian to go a Bible study with a centimillionare for about a year. I went to their Bible study at a coffee shop until I eventually left that city. They truly believed I was Christian (LOL). Therefore, you cannot measure or quantify private actions with any confidence.
This is especially true for ideologies that place spiritual or metaphysical obligations above social permission. Such ideologies can produce quiet majorities whose values contradict visible norms.
I would wish to mention the concept of preference falsification, a term popularized by political scientist Timur Kuran. Preference falsification occurs when individuals misrepresent their true views due to fear of social, economic, or political consequences. They adopt publicly acceptable positions not because they believe them, but because they calculate that revealing their real stance is too risky. If everyone is pretending, but no one knows others are pretending, then the lie looks like truth—until it doesn’t—a phantom consensus. Kuran argues this explains the seemingly rapid shifts in sociocultural events.
There exists a movie I like on this: The Wickerman (1973). I won’t explain how or why because that would spoil the movie. Just I recommend it.
So public inaction ≠ private inaction and public conformity ≠ consensus. Visibility is not a measure of importance—sometimes, it’s a measure of risk.
Judging a group’s motives, values, or potential based solely on public behavior is not only intellectually lazy. It can be disastrously wrong. Invisibility ≠ Inexistence. Suppression ≠ Apathy. Risk ≠ Agreement.
Part II: Insanity
In this video, the person talks about the ‘mass delusion’ @cromagnon briefly mentioned in this thread the idea that humans, because they live virtually exclusively by abstraction, are living in a deluded state, whereas animals, supposedly since they don’t abstract ideas, are not deluded as we are. That all ideas are not above another, and so is the idea that hates the idea that all ideas are not above another.
I used to hate reasoning until I realized I hated reasoning until I realized I reasoned I used to hate reasoning until I realized I hated reasoning. The reason reasons are paradoxical in this manner is because reasons are created exclusively from signals then impulses then emotions then reason. First, the brain receives a signal, the brain conjures an impulse—but wait—impulses can contradict each other, so they brain somehow found a way to resolve these into emotions, then emotions conflict and begin reasoning. If you are inclined to believe the impulse was tangible then you are wrong because it had to abstract the signal into a form the brain could understand and so did the signal when the sense was converted into a signal. Therefore, you cannot hate reason because it’s intangible because everything it’s based on is untangible.
If you are to still be against reason, I want you to ask yourself this question: at what point do you say emotion is good and what point reason is bad? In any case you imagine, emotion alone will never benefit you more than reasoning based on emotion.
The point is that yes, all abstractions are intangible, but there is nothing that is tangible. The animal that @cromagnon conjured still abstracts as the human does, but they just abstract ideas less than humans. @cromagnon also claimed that humans are retarded because they become their lives to things that are intangible. For someone to be retarded, they must be worse in comparison, but the animals are just as retarded in this sense because animals also devote their lives to abstractions. Every moment you are alive, you pick abstractions which decide your action. It’s my belief that this is why Mitchell Heisman in his suicide note said the following:
“The following is an experiment in nihilism. Already I have contradicted myself! How can one believe in disbelief?
I might be a nihilist except that I don't believe in anything. If there is no extant God and no extant gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose; if there are no values that are inherently valuable; no justice that is ultimately justifiable; no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, then there is no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, art, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, egalitarianism, subjectivism, elitism, ismism.
If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate, nonarbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery; cruelty is equal to kindness; love is equal to hate; war is equal to peace; dignity is equal to contempt; destruction is equal to creation; life is equal to death and death is equal to life.”
I would also like to mention @Klasik616 ‘s reply to @disillusioned ‘s thread:
“Stop projecting bro”
There’s this commonly held belief that you can simply stop projecting. This is because Jung’s analogy of a projector implies that you can turn off projections just as you can turn off a projector. You can’t just “stop projecting”. You projected the comment, “Stop projecting bro”. True belief comes from conviction.
There is no collapse of reason or meaning because everything is forced into reasoning and valuing. There is no out of reason. Everything collapses into reason. You cannot die without meaning because you killed youself to lose meaning; therefore, God is alive. Your suicide had meaning even though you tried to escape it. I often like to hate moralfags (e.g @Orc, @Naticel) because they believe their morally transcendent until I remember that I also am not transcendent for not liking their supposed moral transcendenance until I realize this idea also isn’t transcendent. I have no transcendent ideology to form from anything in this thread.
Part III: The Myth of Coherance
Imagine an ant colony. There are individual ants each doing something to support the colony. Each action of the individual ant isn’t complicated in themselves; however, it isn’t until you take a step back that you notice something more interesting about the ant colony—the colony itself is alive. It has properties that can’t be explained by the decisions of the individual ants. It moves as a whole, it adapts the outside world, and has a life cycle almost like a living, breathing organism. Why is that? If an ant colony is filled with individual making their own independent decisions, how is it organizing itself into a predictable and coordinated system? No central planner exists. The order is emergent.
This is what a complex system is: a web of probabilistic actors whose interactions produce something greater—but not logically deducible—from the parts. If each link in a causal chain is 70% predictable (0.7), by point five the predictability is 17% (0.7^5). So even if you understand the parts, you may still not understand the system.
We are trained to believe in unified actors—individuals with consistent motives, organizations with coherent goals, systems with central logic. This is false. No self, group, or ideology is unified. The illusion of coherence is necessary for functioning, but it is only ever an approximation—at best, a temporary alliance of impulses. The ‘unified organization’ may be a state, a church, a corporation, or a person.
Each individual in an organization has unique interests and ideas. The US government is does not act in the organization of the US government; rather, each individual is organized in a manner which manipulates individuals’ self-interest into behaving in the manner which is labeled the US government. This means that it is possible for conflicting individuals within the US government to exist without the conflicts pertaining to the US government. This organization is not a entity but a mode of operation of people to promulgate their own agendas. Yet, these people are not whole either and have similar operations taking place within. No collective actor is truly coherent—organizations aren’t entities but temporary arrangements of individuals with loosely converging self-interests.
Part IV: Nincompoops
I would like to mention the people writing ideological pieces on social media (e.g @got.daim, @neurosis), seemly in an attempt to persuade others. I’ve never seen a single person and everyone reading this will also be hard-pressed to find someone who was proselytized via internet argument. No one cares to change their ideology for yours or to seriously persuade you of another ideology because it doesn’t incentive them or yourself. In fact, it’s instead FEDERAL AGENTS & contractors reading your posts. Maybe you can convince the FBI of your ideology (lol). Post-Snowden, it's no longer conspiracy to say that digital surveillance is pervasive and institutionalized. Federal contractor Naama Kates said that Master’s forums are actually great for the intelligence community and called everyone on it ‘harmless’. Below is the full video if your interested in the dynamics of how Feds monitor you foolish political and vocal nincompoops:
To think that Feds aren’t recording everything you say here and on other social media platforms is retarded. I was able to get a glimpse into my police file on me and I noticed that some of the things I exclusively said on here were in the report.
im dajjal
Last edited:
