/edu/ - Education

>>6742
THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKE.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/first-moon-landing-fake-apollo-16978136

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/space-agency-boss-confesses-no-proof-we-went-to-the-moon-in-1969/

I really like the picture in OP. More like it plz.

>>7952
>What's the difference between socialism and communism?
Socialism is the stage of societal development for building towards communism.
Communism might be the final form of societal development or more likely also just a stage towards something else that comes after.

>Can liberalism, capitalism, and individualism exist as separate political traits relative to a country?
Parts of it can.

For example individualism has 2 components:
The good part: a desire for personal autonomy.
and
The bad part: a type of victim blaming that strives to hold people responsible for things out of their controle.

The first part is probably a innate species being.

The second part is usually tied to a system where rulers commit crimes against those they subjugate and then project the blame on the victims. That likely can't exist outside of the specific system of repression.

>>7952
Step back a bit to see where these things came from. Communism referred to political establishments where wealth was held in common by members of some social formation (which is to say, ordered society). This could be a city-state or a congregation of believers. The commune was autonomous in its relations with other communes, and said very little about social engineering people to "make them like it".

Socialism entailed at its core some form of social engineering, and considered the units of social life the de facto economic units, rather than the individual or political units per se. The only political position of socialism is that the government has to allow anything in socialism to happen. The opposite of socialism is not capitalism, but individualism. Socialism primarily referred to changes to the familiar institutions, among them the family and what future arrangements humans might devise. It's a very different strand of thought from communism, and both are very different from the slave and peasant revolts of the past whose aims were altogether unrelated to anything the modern revolutions were. All of these are alien to what communism and socialism became when pernicious influencers claimed them for their self-serving, narrow program. By the 20th century, there was no possibility of socialism succeeding because its principal backers did not want any leveling of wealth or social status, and saw invasion of the private life of the lower orders as their new mission. Socialism envisioned social engineering "from below"—usually with the expectation that there would be lower class members who buy what the middle class socialists want, which was at first not incompatible at all. That was suddenly and deliberately attacked from all angles in the late 19th century, just when humans were starting to speak to each other and ask if this was the only way. Some said no, but all permissible political ideas said there must never be another world. I don't think it was possible for this to have been averted for a variety of reasons, but even now we are continually surprised to learn the rulers of humanity really are that evil, even though we should know better. It doesn't occur to most of us that torture for torture's sake is a great world, but if you're the torturer, to do anything but that is "retarded", and you don't want to be retarded do you? About the only difPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7952
As for the latter question, speaking of "isms" generally, none of these are total systems but they mean what they mean and aren't freely exchangeable articles that can be adopted or imposed by diktat. "Liberalism" broadly refers to such a wide range of ideas that nearly everyone today is, in one way or another, a "liberal", and the self-styled liberal parties are perhaps the most anti-liberal forces today in the sense that liberalism entailed freedom or independence from institutional control. Today's liberal is proudly despotic in their outlook and doesn't seem to find it weird that the present society is far more invasive and punitive than the ancient regimes ever were. Meanwhile the "neo-reactionaries" reproduce boilerplate liberal notions of what humans are or should be. It's a strange reversal where the conservatives are hyper-liberal tards, the liberals are insane death cultists who laugh at "freedumb", and the leftists can only retreat to imagined pasts and literally believe there can be no new ideas. It would be a fascinating book to describe just how this inversion took place, but that's not the purpose of TRI. Really, I blame Marx and Hegel for sowing a lot of unnecessary confusion. To be fair to Marx, it mostly fell on his inheritors to promote the worst stupidity of the Marxist camp, who mindlessly repeated the "total system" of something which inevitably turns inward on itself unless it's attacking some other thing non-stop. It was overwhelmingly the Marxists who allowed the far rightward turn of "the left" and did their level best to destroy any part of the left that did look to the future and what technology meant in the past century. Everywhere a Marxist writes anti-tech diatribes, ironically while shaming the Luddites who were largely vindicated by history. Destroy the machines that capitalists stole from workers to begin the extermination was the correct action if you wanted to save yourself, not blind faith in "historical progress". Yet now we're exhorted to want to return to a past goodness in humanity that never existed. People who lived in the Soviet system would tell you it wasn't roses or paradise. It kind of sucked unless you got with the program, though getting with the program is the only thing this failed race seems to value and fetishize now.

But, all of the prior "isms" that are placed in the discourse or were in the past discourse are increasingly irrelevant. The only idea that prevails in the 21st century is the eugenic creed, and it violently displaces any potential for an "other system". It will only be displaced, when its time comes, by a clique of power-mad people, who see their future as despotic rather than the anarchic, lawless republican husk eugenics left behind. They will more than happily surrender everything to a single ruler who rules entirely by their whim, because all other possibilities have been irrevocably destroyed. I keep asking why people are so enthusiastic about licking boot for a god-emperor who mind controls everyone, but humans really do not think, and Satanics absolutely do not.

>>7579
The standard reading of Nineteen Eighty-Four is not only completely wrong, but a deceitful one which either stupidly or maliciously misses the point. Nineteen Eighty-Four was primarily a work of satire directed towards:
1. The writings of James Burnham and other post-Trotskyist thought (The Managerial Revolution, bureaucratic collectivism, etc)
2. Anglo-Christian cultural norms, with emphasis on moralism
3. Orwell's own experiences within the BBC and other institutions
That Orwell himself might have misunderstood his own work is irrelevant. The dystopia in Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a Stalinist one. It is more comparable to Nazism, but ultimately it is distinctly Anglo-Saxon in its character. The correct reading is as a critique of nascent postmodernist trends within developed Western capitalist societies.

>>7881
This. Most discussions about masculinity often delve into the same cartoonish impression of "Conan The Barbarian" against some giants or fighting an epic war.


Gender roles were mainly just about who makes seed and who bleeds every month
All that "women are dainty and must be worshipped" is a modern invention made by Germanics.

>>7419
>it will help exorcise the faggy zeitgeist
Didn't work for Jack Donovan lmao

>>7969
This. Most of out machismo cultists are often found out to be fudgepackers

>>7971
what is a 'fudgepacker' ?

>>7972
If you have anal sex you are packing fudge so to speak.

>>7215
No need to be upset anon, I was just curious. After all, this thread is about what books we're reading.

>>7204
The three body problem is amazing! Best scifi series I've read. I just finished the second book in the series, The Dark Forest and it was great. I can highly recommend this, I couldn't put it down.

>>7888
Yeah such a wild ride.
I want to second this epic book recommendation.

>>7888
Isn't one of the main plot points shitting on the Cultural Revolution? I should read it before screeching I guess but the clips from the adaptation that I've seen might as well be from Prager U and I do wonder if it gets the love it does simply because it's from le China.

>>7968
I think people liked it because the 'high concept science fiction porn' is just amazing and the characters are very good.

The main theme in those books is the dark-forest solution to the Fermi paradox. (We can't see any signs of aliens because everybody in the universe is hiding). All the aliens think like ultra neocons, interstellar diplomacy doesn't exist and the way to be safe is to exterminate rival species or hide from extermination. That's a very myopic outlook, and could be considered reactionary. Dark Forest is not realistic but it is how some people think.

In my humble opinion the cultural revolution was a mistake, the goals were honorable but the implementation was a total crap-shoot. The critique of the cultural revolution in these books is slightly anti-communist, yes, but it is not too bad, it will not spoil your enjoyment of it. It is not a main plot point, 90% of the books is just exploration of cool scifi ideas.

One of the political themes is how technologically less advanced humans try to cope with more advanced aliens that want to destroy humanity. It reflects how many people in the world felt about the military interventions of the United states. The aliens even say that humans are bugs, which mirrors US propaganda from the cold war that depicted Chinese people as an insect colony.

The author has a philosophy related to Daoism and Taoism that teaches indifference to the suffering of others. I did not like that but he is not forcing it on you, his writing style is the opposite of Ayn Rand's. (She is trying to force the reader to see the world her way in a very obnoxious way)

<what else can be said
The science was very well researched for the time of release, but since then some of the predictions have been refuted.
The secondary theme in those books is the idea that civilizations are trial and error.
The ending of the third book is lame.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7001
>>7001
Aren't we just all coping through capitalism?

>>7002
You're right anon, and communism is the ultimate cope

>>7001
'nations are born stoic and die epicurean'

- Comrade Will Durant

>Comfort is the enemy.

>Comfort breeds weakeness. Contentment breeds decay. Look at obstacles as a means toward growth, and embrace discomfort. It is only through being challenged and facing difficulty that one is able to develop in a positive way.

Ah yes, the guilt tripping against contentment.
"Real men never rest, they always seek more".

That kind of mentality is what leads to burnout after doing the hedonic treadmill.

Stoicism is just the male version of "empathy".
Also, real stoics are flat-affect autists

Are you that brownanon that's obsessed with white skin?

I think you should better spend your eugenic efforts on elimination of autism

is anything that OP said actually true?

>>7924
If OP is lying, why are so many college educated people working dead end jobs?

>>7950
I mean he's got a point about degrees, we probably should have gone with radian angular measurements.

>>7949
i dont know. doesnt mean OP is telling the truth. or lying.

What fresh autism is this?

>>7943
Political autism.

Does anyone have a PDF of George Jackson's Blood in my Eye?
Requesting

>>7940
found it