/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>479130
I don't think you're understanding what is said here - this idea of entropy begins as a mathematical abstraction. There's no "being hot" as a state, and if you describe the world that way, it sounds very disjointed - you describe a succession of states rather than anything moving, which can be rearranged in the imagination. Reality conforms to the model rather than the model conforming to reality. This is intended by those who know what they're doing.

I mentioned phlogiston because, by "common sense" as you describe it, such a substance was presumed to exist, and it was conjecture that there wasn't a "substance" as such to allow heat to exist. You've already essentialized heat at "photons" (photons have nothing to do with heat in physics), then say you're "not sure" but have absolute certainty to make grand philosophical claims. You don't get to confidently bark at us and insult us and then privately say "you don't know" and get away with it forever, before someone is skeptical.

That's the sort of philosophical, metaphysical claim you are making, and it's not hard to disprove that by mentioning abstraction. Where is the "substance of sadness"? Sadness is a very real concept for us, but there's no "substance of sadness", or "substance of pleasure". That has always been a philosophical and moral claim of utilitarians that has been violently imposed on reality, and they know they willfully do this. As I said, "maximize the thrill of torture". That's what utilitarianism leads to, and they revel in it. That's why they're so visibly disgusting.

And it wasn't like phlogiston was "retarded", "pseudoscience", "idealism", or anything of the sort. Absent a describable mechanism, you would presume there is some "thing" at work. You can see how the sleight-of-hand is used to mystify the "gene", to make the definition of heredity arbitrary. That is what must be violently defended, even when evidence tells us heredity does not work in this hyper specific way eugenics must assert, and this has always been known. They lie intentionally because the thrill of lying becomes a demonstration of strength and fealty. That's why the humiliation rituals in Fabian and Germanic schooling.

That is, the idea of temperature is premised on motion itself, rather than a thing or a particular type of motion. The types of activity to describe "chaos" are then defined based on evidence of their existence, which can be proven either by mathematics - nationality - or observation.

The statistical charlatanry of Galton isn't just disprovable, but it's a flagrant lie and a a deliberate one, whose utterance is intended as a koan of strength and imposition of will on the inferior classes.

And the "dodge" is to invoke "dialectics" like a retard whenever it is convenient, to have a dual system to speak to the "retards" and keep them herded to their death. That's why you see this insulting statements like "think dialectically", and when they say that, they're bullshitting you and laughing at you. It's disgusting that this is allowed to go on.

I think you aren't capable of understanding this problem, or even my genuine position. My belief is that the mind is ultimately reducible to worldly phenomena, and this is hardly unique or unusual. The implications of that - that human intelligence or anything about sense is not relevant to reality at all - make clear that much of what we are made to regard as "the science" and political reality is intentionally constructed to ensure we don't say what anything is or does, what is happening to us here and now. It's why they constantly relitigate the past and tell us "there is no history".

If you describe the world as things that are "done", you're not limiting that to physics, but speaking of causality generally - what it is, our interpretations of it, and language regarding it, since all of our language relies on some linear interpretation of signals. That's what WE are and what we do to think rationally and must do, rather than a quality of the universe itself.

>>479131
>I mentioned phlogiston
you're the only one that did
>photons have nothing to do with heat in physics
radiative heat transfer doesn't exist ?
really ?

>it's not hard to disprove that by mentioning abstraction
No, abstraction doesn't disprove materialism, abstract thinking is a physical process that happens in the brain. Abstractions do not exist independent from "thinking apparatuses" or the matter those are made off.
>Where is the "substance of sadness"?
>or "substance of pleasure"
WTF? Sadness/pleasure is a mental state.
Your tearing down a straw-man argument that nobody made

You rely on sophism. We use language to describe processes as if they were objects. I guess if we wanted to be anal linguists we would have to say that "sadness" or "pleasure" can't be a noun, and should rather be used as adjectives like sad or pleasurable. But playing language police is soooo boring, and it doesn't really matter, most people are capable of understanding the actually intended meaning just fine.

>>479146
>We use language to describe processes as if they were objects.

And this is exactly my point, which your world-system refuses to admit, because you're stuck on the eugenic creed's necessity and fundamental appeal. What we do with language is not "the world", and we are aware of that, but the institutions insist that they can dictate reality from language alone.

For one, the brain isn't a self-contained system. That's autistic thinking. Everything we think pertains to a world outside of us and consciousness. There's no law of nature granting the brain or body any sacrosanctity. Can't you see that this is pure eugenic creed shit, the essential "natural security" of the body which doesn't exist and can never be taken for granted?

But we can go in circles forever. The eugenic creed relies on this at its core assertion - that effect precedes cause, that the "gene" that is observed after the fact is a fait accompli, and that there is no barrier between predatory will and its objective. That is what is being relitigated and only that, in this thought experiment, this trap.

And this is why causality had to be placed at the center of the "natural world" in their models, when causality was always something relevant for us because of what we are and, more importantly, the process of thinking requiring causal relations for us to make sense of anything. It was necessary to displace concepts of time and history with a theory of causality which places the command of history wholly in institutional hands, rather than any truth that is attained from this statement. We didn't need them to tell us what history is and that there is a world and a past. Yet, we're made in this discourse to believe exactly that.

The point being - we're made to assume that our perception of time/causality is "fundamental nature" rather than a consequence of how we have to think and how language works. Scientists can regard that causality exists while acknowledging their models of time don't say anything about "fundamental reality" or metaphysics or philosophy. But, if you tried to describe the world without causality in our language, it would look very bizarre. If you described causality properly based on our observations, you wouldn't speak of "historical progress" or this insane notion that you can arrest history altogether in this neat narrative. Causality implies potential that it could be different, implies that something new arises out of prior conditions, and there is always a problem of where this began. The imperial idea is that "contradiction" can be used to mystify this endlessly, and this becomes a super-truth, a monopoly on knowledge. The reality is that the world did not care about any such contradiction, and to the world, all it does works for its purposes - the world is not set against itself in the way that political subjects are set against themselves and the world around them.

A naive sense is that there is a past and future we see from the present, and this makes a lot of sense. We can't deny that. It's when you get into philosophical claims about "fundamental nature" that the trap is laid.

My argument isn't that physicalism would be "wrong" in favor of some other super-truth, but that physicalism is really not dealing with physics in the sense that is scientifically useful. It's really "metaphysicalism" but stripped of the possibility that there can be anything other than the total system that commands thought by diktat.

So, either physics is extended to describe things far removed from the bodies and fields that physics describes - and consequently ceases to describe the bodies and fields that would lead to scientifically useful claims - or you really can't say much about the world based on the belief that it originates in physical activity.

As mentioned, there is not a "physical reason" why many systems we acknowledge every day would exist as "systems". We know the causal relationship, we can make connections between physical objects which comprise life, but life is not "fundamentally" those physical actions in that sense. Life to be life doesn't have any "natural" component necessitating that it "should" exist. That's where you get abortions of reason like the "anthropic principle" where pseudoscientists believe the universe must be "fined-tuned" and "just-so" to fit their institutional conceits. It's all pigheaded faggotry.

This problem was understood in Antiquity, and if you mention that, that's when the pseudoscientists / ideologues start invoking "dead white men" and the usual tropes to say that they have some new fad, never mind that the Romans didn't really have a concept of "whiteness" as politically relevant.

>>479147
I don't know why you are raising the question about what level of self-contained the brain is. The brain doesn't have much IO (input-output), human senses are very limited, and human expression even more so. In that sense human brains are relatively isolated.

There is the famous neuralink project, where people are trying to stick thousands of electrodes into people's skulls, attempting to install a computer port. But the human brain doesn't have anything that would resemble a network adapter or a digital communications protocol. I doubt that it'll enable direct IO. It could yield a leap in prosthetics which could improve medical treatment options for a number of disabilities and enable some creepy "military applications".

If you wanted direct IO for the brain, you would need people to grow a biological network adapter, that is far-out scifi, requiring a combination of many fields, for example genetic manipulation as well as nano-scale bio-molecular fabrication.

>>479167
The brain and knowledge - what "we" are - are two different things. We could see the brain as alien to ourselves, and this has come to pass - and by essentializing the brain over any other quality of knowledge or any meaning, knowledge can be essentialized, commanded, controlled, corralled, and destroyed.

I don't believe anything I say will ever be admissible in your world system. Once you taste that blood, you never go back, and you know very well what I am saying. You refuse, absolutely refuse, in service to the eugenic creed. Always.

If however you wanted to genuinely pursue the belief that physical phenomena are the basis for rationality - and this is entirely permissible - you would arrive at very different conclusions. My argument isn't that physical reality cannot dictate nature, but that what you're calling "physicalism" is nothing of the sort and deliberately so. You're just laundering ideology by saying it's "the science". If you were to root reality and knowledge entirely in physical phenomena, you would come away with very different conclusions of what we are, and what those phenomena mean, than if you essentialized everything and "looked for the penis" like a bad psychological inquistor, looking to latch on to the first idea that suits your preferences and reinforces itself institutionally. That is, if you really did look at the world as the result of physical activity, of forces we regard as material, you would come away with a world view skeptical of institutional science, and desirous of what science would have been if knowledge were not monopolized. That world can no longer exist politically, or be described without being "retarded" and ipso facto a wrong idea.

That is to say, I would be classified as a "physicalist" in that sense - that the physical world precedes any of OUR knowledge, and that we are physical entities before we can be anything else. There is no metaphysical essence of "us", or any form - that's not really what metaphysics answers. If you accept that though, then there's not really much physics has to explain politics, biology, or many complex systems. It can explain their origin from prior physical conditions, but it doesn't explain what we consider life, or knowledge, which are always abstractions entailing things that arose from their priors. If we were to imagine the universe as a gigantic physical clockwork, we would either have to reduce it to empty ideas dictated, or we would be caught in a morass of details that can be disputed ad infinitum to make adjudicating facts - to make sharing science - impossible. At some point we would regard that there are things in this universe that don't correspond to a crude physical impulse, the way you have ultraviolently hectored me because you smell blood and your lizard brain thinks "i'm winning i'm winning" and must do so. That is all humans ever really were, though. The idea that it was different would be snuffed out every time it formed, as "reality" asserted itself. In the past, this only happened when it needed to, because states and institutions only reached so far, and it was both impractical and undesirable to insist on ideological conformity for such a worthless cause as torturing others and assertions of fundamental truth by imperium alone. Most people can figure out that such a thing turns on itself eventually, and carry on with science, reason, and their investigations with that in mind. Eventually, though, human knowledge reaches an impasse where something new is needed, and it has been the dominant idea that nothing new is ever possible, and to deny precisely that would would allow such a new thing to exist. This ultimately requires full enclosure of all space, all time, all reason, all potential. There is no alternative to the aristocratic program. Now we are seeing the final results of it. Some of us tried to warn you, but you'd rather feel good, and so you did.

Basically, even if the world were rooted in physics, it clearly has little bearing on politics. It doesn't politically matter where life came from, for instance. But, it is very relevant for the claims of eugenics, which were conscious lies told to project forcibly and destroy the brain of the lower classes - to maximize the thrill of torture.

I know this feeling, comrade.

The Kronstadt question remains the most uncomfortable question for all the leftists.

How come the cradle of revolution needed to be put to the sword by the revolution? How come the birthplace of soviet democracy needed to be put to the sword to protect the soviet power? Very uncomfortable questions indeed..

One cannot help but to see similarities in uncomfortable relationship between Kronstadt and bolsheviks, on one hand, and the Paris Commune and Jacobins, on the other. Cyclicity of history again..

One thing is certain: one cannot possibly understand Russian Revolution without understanding Kronstadt first, just like one cannot understand the French Revolution without understanding Paris Commune.

The forgotten slogans.. "Third Revolution".. "Soviets without parties".. what was it, just a product of confused counter-revolutionary mind? or a product of a keen revolutionary instinct?

question, questions..

>>479596
>The Kronstadt question remains the most uncomfortable question for all the leftists.
No, you have to be a history buff to even know what this is.

im going to be honest with you, you all are and will always be shallow and twisting tongue. no matter how long your paragraph is, it will always be dogshit.

>>479597
I'm sure leftist intelligentsia knows about it.

Finnbol made a video, so he knows. Tho he just regurgitated the official "party line" from the 21 expect for a white general Kozlovsky we now have white anarchist Petrichenko as the main villain.

The talking points are all the same that Trotsky used: the sailors of 21 were not the same revolutionary sailors of 17.

Which is a lie. At least two thirds of the sailors of both Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk where the uprising started were the sailors of 17.

The resolution may have been drafted by Petrichenko, but it was accepted by the general assembly of Petropavlovsk first and then by the general assembly of Kronstadt at the Anchor Square.

Tho I disagree with Bookchin and his anarchist idealizations.

Kronstadt was doomed from the very beginning of the February Revolution. February-October revolution was a bourgeois revolution in two acts.

State capitalism is a meaningless category - capitalism can't exist without a state. By the end of the revolution, ie by the end of the Kronstadt uprising, Russia was on a steady course of capitalist development. The revolution was complete. What came later after the Great Depression had nothing to do with this revolution.

Leftists make the same mistake as their opponents - they are hypnotized by political and ideological abstractions.

I won't blame vanguardists for their rejection of histmat like mensheviks did. Because mensheviks rejected histmat too in not seeing in October a continuation of the February.

After all, Marx himself got frightened of his own cold method when he ditched Asiatic mode of production from his schema in later life.

>>479673
>After all, Marx himself got frightened of his own cold method when he ditched Asiatic mode of production from his schema in later life.
Which is why it was such a big surprise to me when I found out that traditional three-link marxist schema (slave-feudal-capitalist) originally had a fourth link to it (asiatic).

What's more, imagine my surprise when I found out this fourth link was actually the most widespread mode of production throughout human history.

Even more, the ancient mode of production is so atypical in global historical perspective that you could call it a random social mutation by analogy with the biological world.

And if modern capitalism can be seen as an ancient mode of production on a new technological basis, then 20th century real existing socialism can be seen as an asiatic mode of production on a new technological basis too.

>when I found out that traditional three-link marxist schema
that is, of antagonistic class societies

Ie, we actually have a spiral of history with repeating patterns, but not because of dialectics or some other voodoo shit, but because of thermodynamics of history.

The question is: can we expect another social mutation?

>>479693
Maybe the reason Marx dropped it is because it was a bad idea with an inconsistent definition that couldn't be coherently differentiated from the others. You know what made Marx scientific? His ability to confront his own theories with evidence and refine them over time. You should follow his example.

>>479695
>thermodynamics of history
Perhaps in multi-billion-year cycles, when star systems recycle the materials of a previous generation of stars. Otherwise no, that's retarded.

>>479696
>Maybe the reason Marx dropped it is because it was a bad idea with an inconsistent definition that couldn't be coherently differentiated from the others.
Asiatic mode of production could be differentiated no less than other modes.

Marx dropped it because Bakunin's critique hit too close to home, not because of some scientific reason.

Asiatic mode of production was so unsupported by historical data, and so theoretically unsound, that both times USSR historians had discussion about it (in the 30s and in the 60s) - it got shut down by the order from the very top and all the "asians" repressed (in the 30s killed).

>Perhaps in multi-billion-year cycles, when star systems recycle the materials of a previous generation of stars.
Laws of thermodynamics are universal for all moving matter, you uneducated idiot, not just starts.

>>479696
>Maybe the reason Marx dropped it is because it was a bad idea with an inconsistent definition that couldn't be coherently differentiated from the others.
Also, Marx never even gave a reason for dropping it.

One day it just disappeared without any explanation lol.

>>479693
>And if modern capitalism can be seen as an ancient mode of production on a new technological basis, then 20th century real existing socialism can be seen as an asiatic mode of production on a new technological basis too.
Also, from this point of view I think we can deduce some necessary circumstances of collapse of those modes of production.

After all, both of them have collapsed before: ancient at least once, asiatic tens of times.

Ancient is an intensive mode of production - it collapses when intensive production depletes scarce resources (intensive market-oriented ancient agriculture depleting the soil and slaves leading to collapse of the monetary economy and the ancient world).

Asiatic is an extensive mode - collapses when the sources of extensive growth are exhausted (hence the high frequency of collapse). Many ancient civilizations on multiple continents collapsed and rose again multiple times with no change in the mode of production.

>>479703
>intensive market-oriented ancient agriculture depleting the soil and slaves leading to collapse
and I'm not talking about depletion of slaves in the meaning working them to death

I'm meaning in terms of reproduction, just like soil

slave raising children - slave not working

slave not working - less surplus product

which again brings unexpected parallels with the current world lol

same mode of production - same fundamental problems

>>479703
>Asiatic is an extensive mode - collapses when the sources of extensive growth are exhausted
tho it can exist without external growth for hundreds of years - it usually takes an external factor, like a natural disaster, barbarian invasion etc, to trigger a collapse

another interesting thing - agrarian asiatic civilizations of old usually collapsed into primitive tribal societies, but industrial asiatic Soviet Union collapsed into peripheral capitalism

>>479706
>tho it can exist without external growth for hundreds of years
tho only if there are no internal class formation processes inside asiatic mode, otherwise formation breaks up by itself

Soviet Union actually had one in its growing shadow capitalist economy

>>479705
When workers were sent to the factory to work under the whip of capital, this was understood to be a slave relation. They had no rights, no legal standing except as subjects marked and tracked with a deed representing their person, and could not expect any such thing. The rights of nobles and priests did not exist just because, but because they held genuine property that could allow this assertion and had to be respected for the purposes of the state, for the ruling power. That's how it always works. You didn't get freedom for nothing or because you said "me wantee", nor was freedom a matter of justice or being nice. It is, however, free - there are no natural costs to freedom in that sense. If someone holds a knife at your throat as Heinlein insists and extracts a tribute, that is not a free society. That is a slave society, as anyone with any competence will tell you. If that situation exists, freedom is dead and no promise of privileges is relevant. Legal rights conceptually required that such a line would not be transgressed as a natural law and asserted as positively good in of itself.

>>479706
The concept of "mode of production" is itself a problematic conflation of things, and a misunderstanding of what human societies do when they produce - what labor actually does and sets out to do if it were operating for its own interests, rather than the interest of money or property or some ruling idea. The interests of labor itself are alien to the person or entity which labors - we don't "labor for our Being" in a way that is self-evident. Labor to be labor is something we do in the world, not something that "just is". It would not be recognizably labor to say everything we do is labor - breathing for instance is not "labor" until we attach some moral deliberation to breathing, as if we could say that it is a moral obligation of someone to control their breathing and voluntarily suffocate for the greater good when commanded.

>>479709
The mods need to seriously consider banning you for spam at this point.

>>479713
Hehehehehe (sage because my lack of contribution)

>>479713
Go away, fag. You're not going to keep bastardizing things to feed this piss poor pseudo-model when we're trying to have a conversation.

My point being is that human beings produce in the first place because there is some reason to do so, rather than because they have a "system" which allows that, that people are beholden to obey even when the system clearly doesn't work and isn't intended to work. So much of human productivity exists entirely in spite of the mode of production that is presumed to be operative.

For the "Asiatic mode of production", no one over there believed that was a thing or that their societies were oriented around productivity at all in that sense. Economically, village life was viewed not for the products it created or as a model to reproduce as the basic "germ", but existed because there wasn't a "system" that enclosed villages into cities, empires, slave estates, and so on as happened in the Roman Empire. The Chinese Emperors did not want the village to disappear, because that is what provided peasant labor that the Emperor and government relied on. This is something made explicit during the later Song dynasty. It appeared as if workers technologically had everything to start building industrial factories, but the government steps in to break this up precisely because it would strengthen the merchants and undermine the emperor and bureaucracy. The stable village system didn't exist in Europe, because the Romans specifically chose to displace that and abolished it among themselves. That was what the downfall of the Roman Republic was - the failure of the citizen-farmer-soldier and family, which came about because the aristocracy of Rome chose to wage war against the public. That's what the republic was, what republics always do. It's why most of the world never allowed a "republic" to exist, and saw it as some species of treason.

In a productive sense, the peasant of China was free to move within the country, was not tied to anything in particular. There was no concept that the peasant had any "rights" in the sense that liberal society understood them, but there was an understanding of money and mercantile activity, and the interests of various groups and classes in that mercantile activity. When Europeans encounter China and start trade, the Chinese state and society structure their approach specifically to impede European encroachment - Europeans can only trade in one city, and the emperor's preferred interests charged a hefty tariff on everything which was great for them. They spent much of their efforts on resisting anything foreign on purpose, and were conscious of why they did this - for perfectly understandable and rational reasons that were not about any "mode of production", but about the situation they were in. It was much the same in the preceding centuries, except instead of European encroachment, the primary threat was barbarian invasion like the various times that happened in Chinese history and the really big time the Mongols slaughtered them and took all of their stuff. At the basic level, Chinese people understood money, understood markets and commodity exchange. There were merchants who were functionally capitalists, but the political order did not grant to "capital" any consideration, and something like a stock market or trading company was exactly the thing the Chinese were fighting against - they were fighting against the East India Company and all such variants that were corporate states. That's what capitalism is, and what it exists for - it starts with the foreign trade companies, as any basic student of history should know.

All of this is to say, a "mode of production" is based on spurious reasoning, because every such "mode" consists of people who did things that were politically reasonable at the time. The Romans understood very well why various people and institutions, various interests, wanted the Roman world to be as it was. None of that "just happened" or was an accident. The republic as it was designed could have only ended with a Caesar, and that's what many of Caesar's rivals wanted to do - to be the first man in Rome. Not all of them were doing the same strategy - Pompey for instance just wanted to be very rich and famous and sold his talents to whomever wanted the prestige his name brought. Pompey sought fame and glory not for some ulterior economic motive but because that's what the Roman society preferred men to be, and what allowed the republic to expand voraciously and devour itself from within. That's what a republic does - strips the commonwealth bare to prop up aristocracies. That's basically the ur-story of European civilization, and it was particular to them. Most of the world thought that was insane and crazy, but it worked in the European context, and if you trace their history, the European cities were strongly influenced by migration, trade, and the presence of the really ancient empires. The legend of Rome traces back to the Trojan War, rather than any "blood and soil" of Italy itself since time immemorial - that's common among the Romans and the Greeks, that they understood they were on the periphery of civilization when they rose, and expanded against tribes to drag them into domination. In the Near East, that thinking collapsed the prior arrangement of empires before the Greeks rose, and they were putting together the pieces ever since. The European cities were at their time a new thing, and you can see this in action with what the Carthaginians were doing in Spain - where Hannibal was setting himself up as basically a priest-king with the locals and running his own operation without the full blessing of Carthage.

Every empire, every operation, works out some "system" appropriate for its time and place. If not deliberately constructed by some plan, it becomes evident to enough people to work towards an understanding of what their situation is, whether they share that publicly or keep it as a secret.

>>479714
>>479715
Stop same fagging you retard spammer with your faggot spam. Jesus, you love to jerk yourself off all day long here constantly when your infantile rehtoric has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…..

If you would read something other tan your own farts you would know why conflating breathing and working in a coal mine is retarded. Please stop spamming our board with your AI generated content.

>>479715
>we're trying to have a conversation
Some of us indeed are, but you keep disrupting it with your deluded ravings.

>>479717
Why is it retarded? You make an empty assumption but leave it eternally unanswered, because you know the answer - you don't want the "wrong people" breathing "your oxygen" and wish to shame them into suffocating themselves and self-terminating. That's the only explanation for why you need to shout at me for making a very basic observation about what it means to speak of "labor" as anything other than a natural phenomenon that is vague and airy. This isn't a new idea and I didn't even think this was something controversial, but apparently it is. A Satanic forum for a Satanic race, doing Satanic things.

The "controversial" part would be to disdain the concept of a mode of production - except that if you actually follow any economic thought in the past century, if you follow political, historical, and sociological thought, a "mode of production" is an inherently vague concept from the outset. This is also why Marx was abandoning such models - he is knowingly saying "you know, I am saying this to describe a situation, not a 'system' of that sort." They are useful as a way to speak of general stages of development, but the "mode of production" is itself an effort to tear apart the idea of neat "stages of development" that were common in socialist thought and sociology of the time. That is, a "mode of production" is by definition a confluence of all of these things that comprise it, rather than a wholly intended "system". No one sat down and said we are doing "capitalism" in this form Marx described, or believed that "capitalism" was an eternal or natural system in that sense.

If there is anything new with what I wrote - and it's not really "new" - it would be that I suggest there is a way we can speak of how these things did form, which was not possible in the past with the models of history, knowledge, and society that prevailed. At the time where this new exposition was possible, it became inadmissible to acknowledge anything about the nature of the society we live in, or what anything actually does. The thrill of torture has been maximized, and they just haven't claimed it all yet.

Even there, nothing I write is "new". It has been around for a while, but either scattered or assembled by obscure people who don't see any reason to publicize anything, or believe that others would care or that others are going to survive. In the mind of most who think about anything that actually happens, they only think about the thrill of torture, and who is selected to die. Those selected to die will only be lied to. Anyone who encourages that for faggotry should hang their head in shame and stop doing this. But, they won't. They can't not do this. Eugenics won. Satan won.

I have no reason to ever shut up. It's not like remaining silent is going to give me anything, and if they're going to torture me, kill me, humiliate me, they'll do whatever they're going to do. After all the threats and lies, why bother pretending? They wanted this to be the world, and they got it. That's all it will be now.

I rather spend time with annoying over corrective leftoids than utter psychopathic right wing loons who cry and bitch when they see a black person in a movie
That's literally it. Never read this thread

Eugene is a weaponized general AI. We are being targeted by the Big Three. It's over.

>>479759
Fear Eugene.
There is no Big Three. Only AM.

>>479764
Who or what is Eugene or AM?


AM as in "ante meridiem"?

>>479726
Based

>>479726
<false dichotomy of left right bourgeois politics, to divide and conquer the proles
>>479766
>Based
why ?