/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Gotta get those finance capitalists under control so that the industrial capitalists can remain dominant.

>>476551
Ohhh.. that's what's going on.

So what's playing out here is Marx's old prediction where industrial capital and money capital would eventually get into a fight and then industrial capital wins and subordinates Finance to it's needs.

The People's Democratic Dictatorship does not tolerate vapid thottery

>>476550
From what I can tell
>1. Xi’s Main line tends to be anti corruption and counter-subversion.
>2. The 2008 crisis was a huge moment for neoliberalism but for china as well
I feel like xi really tries to be vigilant against any attempts to create scenarios that would result in a similar crisis. Like another anon said also, I think he is trying to keep the industrial sector prevalent also to reinforce this and maintain an economy backed by productive labor

>>476595
With
<counter-subversion
<vigilance against scenarios that would result in 2008 type crisis
You mean the neo-liberal shock-mechanism where a crisis like the 2008 financial crash enables a part of the bourgeoisie to elevate it self to big-bourgeois status that can gain control over the state to impose it's interests against all other interests at a great detriment of society.

The CPC seems to have won every battle of that type. All the mega-porkies that entered the ring of political power got K.O.ed in round one. So the CPC seems to have the strength of the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in that metaphor. I wish i knew how they do it. But i also worry, the neo-liberal tendency that has so utterly wrecked the west, still persists in China. I'm assuming that the Chinese transition to full communism will probably take at least the rest of this century, will they really be able to keep this up for several generations ?

I always wondered about whether there isn't a structural fix so that the economic system doesn't generate the Neo-liberal tendency, making it less necessary to fight these battles in the first place

>I think he is trying to keep the industrial sector prevalent also to reinforce this and maintain an economy backed by productive labor
Yes this is another question that i have. Is this priority for an industrial productive labor based economy a political choice ? Or is it simply an organic manifestation of China having the largest industrial base of the world. The west lost it's industrial base because western capitalists could simply outsource industry to China. Chinese porkies can't do the same because there is nowhere to outsource too. And a organic tendency towards socialism begins manifesting as soon as a significant enough concentration of advanced productive forces accumulate, or something like that.

>>476596
>The CPC seems to have won every battle of that type.
Oh, is that why China has the most billionaires of any country? Because the party that's supposed to be fighting for workers is winning the battle of control over the state against the bourgeoisie? Anecdotes for this time or that time when the party punished a specific porkster don't tell the story of a country of 1.4 billion people. The proof is in aggregate: China's bourgeoisie are allowed to accumulate so much power that they become billionaires. And lots of them.

>>476597
>China's bourgeoisie are allowed to accumulate so much power that they become billionaires
At least from the outside it looks like they were allowed to accumulate wealth but not power.

And the number of Chinese billionaires has begun to shrink and so has wealth inequality.

>>476597
>muh billionaires argument
How are they billionaires TRULY? They don’t have free rein of their assets. They can’t leave the country with their assets. If they use their assets in a way that goes against state plans they get shut down. If they use their assets in a corrupt way they get shut down. Yes they are corporate execs with billions in their pocket (on paper) but they can’t really do anything with it can they? Imagine having millions in your account but have strict limits in how you can use them as well having obligations in how to spend your own money. Would you truly be a millionaire in the neoliberal sense?

>>476599
>billionaire in formal appearance but not in practical substance.
Interesting concept

>Would you truly be a billionaire in the neoliberal sense?
Right it would be interesting to actually define "a billionaire in the neoliberal sense"

Or perhaps in less abstract terms what are differences in powers that a billionaire for example in the US has compared to one in China.
You already mentioned asset-mobility and spending-obligations

>>476598
>accumulate wealth but not power
Anon… do I really need to explain how wealth accumulation in industrial production happens in the first place? It's through exploitation: workers not being paid the full value of their labor. To accumulate wealth, you do so at the expense of workers, and yes, that includes worker disempowerment.

>>476601
I agree that Chinese workers are exploited.
But i disagree that the Chinese bourgeoisie has gained state-power.

>>476600
>Interesting concept
No its basic dialectical materialism which only 5% of posters here understand, that excludes schizos like leftcom, grillpilled, king lear and all the other rootless cosmopolitans and degenerates that spew word salad with zero substance or thought, who use big words to feel like big boys, but all they ever read was capital and are now stuck in a pit of intellectual rot

>>477311
>its basic dialectical materialism
Minus the materialism.

>>477311
>No its basic dialectical materialism which only 5% of posters here understand
I will admit that i gave up on understanding Hegelian concepts and just replaced it with mostly set-theory and some physics analogies like phase-changes, which to me appears as equivalent minus all the confusion. I kept only 2 original Hegelian concepts, the tendency for things to turn into their opposite, and that making a definition is also an act of negation.

As far as the status of Chinese billionaires goes, they clearly do not have even a small fraction of the power that Western billionaires have. But that is an observation that i made, without being able to explain why.

I have of course a hypothesis: In the west social democrats failed to reform out of capitalism, because capital set up the institutions to perpetually entrench the power of capital, and that's why neo-liberlaism could be inflicted on us, and why it so hard for us to liberate our self from neo-liberal domination. And in china the communist party set up the institutions such as to deny capital to entrench power. That's why Chinese capital has failed to take over China, and they can't make the Chinese state sell out China for the benefit of the big bourgeoisie at the expense of everybody else. So maybe only certain historical events that reset institutions can change those power dynamics.

I would be interested in your take on this.

>>477313
>That's why Chinese capital has failed to take over China
We'll see whether that's actually true or not in China's response to their recent credit crisis.

>>477315
Based on past behavior my guess is that they're going to save some porkies, specifically those that are instrumental in development of the productive forces and accept the CPC exerting greater levels of control (basically the CPC influencing investments to insure stability in finances, so nobody games the bail-out mechanic). While other porkies will just go down.

I could be wrong and the CPC will move further to the left economically. The US and EU economies are in the shitter, and that means there is much less pro-capitalist ideological pressure in China at the moment. And the US's hostility against China is dampening pro-capitalist ideology as well.

However China has a lot of international economic links in capitalist terms, and they have to maintain capitalist compatibility for that.

>>477313
> I will admit that i gave up on understanding Hegelian concepts and just replaced it with mostly set-theory and some physics analogies like phase-changes, which to me appears as equivalent minus all the confusion. I kept only 2 original Hegelian concepts, the tendency for things to turn into their opposite, and that making a definition is also an act of negation.
Jesus fucking christ people like you should not be allowed to call themselves "communist", just cattle

>>477313
The important thing to understand from Hegel is that he is describing an idealist and POLITICAL thought, rather than natural science. You wouldn't use any of that to describe the natural world or physics, or believe you can change the world by thought alone. That's not the point. The point of all of that is to suggest a political thinking that allows someone to manipulate people, command the mind and the soul. Idealisms do not have to do this, but they can do this, and there's nothing within that framework that could stop someone. The world, anything material, is simply overcome by irrationality. That's really the point - and what happens by flipping it on its head is to explain what this sort of thing actually does in the real world, given agents - human beings - who adopt it and act in that manner. It's real enough because people act in accord with it, but it doesn't describe fundamental nature and doesn't purport to.

Basically, it's political and philosophical bullshit, but bullshit matters, if only due to the increasing quantity of it as technology becomes more prominent in society.

>>477317
To understand the Hegelians, first you need to read other stuff from the time period Hegel was alive. Otherwise you'll lack context. Which means digging into old now defunct philosophical branches. You can learn the basics of set-theory in about an hour or 2. You save your self a lot of headaches going the mildly "impure" rout.

There also seems to be a flaw in Hegel. He kinda treats information systems as something where you can get more out than you put in. You can't make hegelian math for example. Too few Hegel-axioms for too much Hegel-theory. So you can't use computers to perform hegelian logic operations, and hence miss out on all the processing power of micro-chips.

>>477322
So it be about the
<The dialectic of bullshit.

I appreciate your effort but, i'm left profoundly un-sublimated. There has to be a way to express this more clearly.

>>477323
That's the point. Germans don't believe in math - literally they think you can move the world with magic if you believe this ideology. It's great for making grunts who will rape and kill on command, not so much for science in the genuine sense.

I don't think you understand what a computer actually does. Computers are not "driven by logic", in the sense a Hegeloid is trained to believe. Computers are a machine built to specifications specifically to do the kind of logical operations Turing described as an abstract machine. If you wanted to make a "Hegeloid logic engine", you could try, except what Hegeloid thought entails doesn't allow computation. It's designed to terminate thought, not permit it. That's what all of these stupid koans set out to do - arrest the thought process so that the dominant power can "sublate" the enemy, make it invisible, then abolish it from history, transform it into more German-ness.

If you understand what information even is as a concept, information does not exist purely in "systems" that we envision. Information is an intermediary step for an observer to resolve uncertainty for themselves. The world itself doesn't have any concept of "information". Information by its nature is a proposition which doesn't allow the kind of "contradiction" Hegelism entails. Contradiction is a problem for human knowledge because our conceits are stupid and gay.

The only thing that you would need to prove to make a philosophy is its internal consistency. There's no heavenly arbiter of truth that will decide with legal doctrines what reality is. That's not what reality is. The truth was always in the world, and we can seek from the world what we want out of it. If humans choose to lie, nothing in nature will stop them from lying, including to themselves, or creating an entire alternate world-system for political purposes. Hegel is a thought-exercise leading to the splitting of the mind and dual system that is taken for granted today, because we live in a world where objective reality is inadmissible.

>>477325
Point being - if you are dealing with a "system" in the philosophical sense, you are dealing with information which prohibits contradiction if you want to say anything about that system. Hegel's mission is to make science in the genuine sense impossible, to replace it with "The Science", and he's not the first or the only one. It's been so successful that science in the genuine sense is laughed out - the Satan won. Of course, science is not intrinsically good or even "naturally true". The main objective is to move all rationality back to the institutions, and prohibit the kind of democratization that recently happened in France, where democratization of knowledge was a part of the revolutionary milieu. If you wanted to terminate democratic thought forever, you would tell people that the institutions are "democracy", when the institutions are the exact opposite of democracy that is meaningful as anything we would want out of it. The institutions in a democratic society are a vessel of men, not a power unto themselves. Institutions let off their leash immediately turn against the purpose they were "supposed" to do, and do so brazenly and with the intent of betrayal forseen in advance. We would in a democratic society not invent new institutions that are entirely alien to anyone or anything real, and would have to seriously question the creep of institutions into our lives. We would have to question a state which breaks up our efforts to associate as we would want to, tells us we're not allowed to have friends, shouts us down for wanting the simplest things while glorifying the avarice of aristocrats.

I don't see the value of any variant of Hegelism, Marxism included, for proper and worthwhile analysis of the sort genuine science would engage in. Among Marx's contributions is that he's analyzing the Hegeloid method itself, by flipping it in reverse to show "this is what this thing actually does". But, Marx built a method of critique. You wouldn't make a "Marxist math" for the same reasons you wouldn't make a "German math" or any proprietary and ideological version of such. Mathematics to be meaningful derives from straight and simple logic. It very specifically does not allow contradiction to exist - and this is why Zeno's paradoxes are paradoxes instead of stupid questions as most of us would figure out. It's a problem for algorithms, and only for naive algorithms. There are logical solutions for these paradoxes known to ancients which account for mathematics, but the point of them is to highlight the problem an idealism would face, not tell us that motion is actually impossible. Then the Germans came along, and you know the Germans love shit…

That all said, humans are liars and won't stop being liars any time soon. That's why we have this problem of contradiction - because humans refuse to be honest about even the simplest things, when it comes to their most sacred shibboleths and the cults that really rule us. We could just not do that, but if that happened, then the Bad People would "win" by existing and not being ritually sacrificed and tortured. It would violate the very purpose of the human race - it would make everything humans aspired to worth nothing, because everything humanity was for was this, the torture and rejection of the unwanted. There never was anything else to them. The only thing good is that the world forced us to be decent enough to each other, for a time, because that made everyone's lives easier and it was not hard to see that. Even aristocrats had to abide what they couldn't take from us, and had to consider whether they wanted to rule over a dumpster fire. During the 20th century, they stopped pretending and the death march began.

If you did want anything good in the world, you could do that… if there is a will to let it happen, and politics does not interfere. The problem is that "politics" interferes, and by that logic, you really don't get to say no to this. In theory you could, but the theory of struggle in politics is doomed to ensure that those who control the present control the past and future. Nothing CAN change, and that's the point they seek to violently impose on the world. You can struggle against the lockout all you like, but they will never accept you nor allow you to live, even as a slave. This doesn't end until the enemy has to relent, or goes insane and is no longer functional. The political agent has all of the force here, and we are very much not political agents. Every lie, every humiliation, tells us this every day. That is not how free men are treated. That is how slaves are treated, and once it starts, it never stops and never can be allowed to stop. If that is internalized, the only way to be free is to never once be accused of being a slave in any way, and that makes the independent free man infinitely malleable. The first malevolent actor, given the signal of institutional approval, can decide what you are, and you cannot say no to it if you accept this political logic.

The only way out is to reject the political logic of "contradiction in nature" altogether, and this leads to numerous difficulties. It means that the free man becomes very, very paranoid and rightly so, having seen enough of what humanity is and no longer believing that it can be salvaged by goodwill, so far as that was ever believed. Humans are monsters - that is a fact. You can try to move on and salvage something from that, or you can submit to "humanism" which has a predicted endgame.

>>477325
>Germans don't believe in math - literally they think you can move the world with magic if you believe this ideology.
I'm assuming that you're attempting to critique a particular philosophical outlook. Since there are very famous German mathematicians like Leibniz or Gauss for example that clearly believed in math.

>>477340
Yeah, and German idealism did its work to destroy that tradition as best as it could, led to our present "anti-math" education and all of the usual pseudointellectual tropes about what math is.

For what it's worth there is a real argument that what Leibniz was doing wasn't mathematically kosher in the details, but math guys solved that problem many times. There is a difference between "pure math" and what is investigated by science and the natural world. The natural world preceded math and logic and would have to be so, and this is accepted by anyone working with physics. Physics is always a model we derive from observing a world prior to our conception of it, rather than physics being "encoded" in the way pseudoscience would dictate. A mathematician is developing tools to understand the world through formal logic, and anyone telling you that the world "is math" is doing the Germanic reversal of reality. It really took off with eugenics and statistical pseudoscience, using a model designed for concepts of heat and universalizing it without any context of why this would be done. Life-forms very obviously do not behave like heat particles or "randomly" in that way, based on the basic concept of what life is, to say nothing of more abstracted concepts like persons and social agents.

>>477344
Okay schizoanon, as soon as you produce a model with better predictive power than "statistical pseudoscience", I'll be happy to adopt it.

>>477345
Statistical pseudoscience is the imperial religion and eugenics. It didn't predict anything except the self-fulfilling prophecies it set out or tautological claims. With the "self-fulfilling prophecies" they didn't even come true, so much as it would be violently asserted that The Science was true until it was made true. That's just pure Germanism that the eugenists and imperial ideologues found a way to graft onto their system, creating a terrible chimera which plagues America more than any other place in the world.

I made clear the obvious problem of statistical pseudoscience - what you are modeling says a lot about the problem you are trying to solve with mechanics and algorithmic computing. This was intended, a charlatan's trick to impress through fear that eugenics cannot be challenged. Every new theory in biology has always been imposed to defend eugenics and its claims, against evidence that was presented persistently, until it became illegal under pain of torture to oppose eugenics in the academy, and the academics knew what side of the war they were on for good, no going back. No one is going to go against people who laugh openly about poisoning 25% of the population openly and intend to eliminate 90% of the population, and orient all of their efforts towards that, acting out their plan overtly. It's all so Satanic.

It wouldn't be possible without "new math" and this pseudoscience being able to aggressively assert itself. Nearly every model presented to the people about science is flimsy, from biology, to physics and the Standard Model, to cosmology. Everything the American people believe is "The Science" has been a lie, and a contemptuous lie at that. It's not so much that Americans actually believe any of the science, but that it became fashionable to say you believed in this, because you really were about getting into the club of eugenics. In practice, chemistry, physics, and science continue to be practiced, but no new ideas are permitted, and anyone showing too much independent knowledge is punished and snuffed out. When that wasn't enough, the government promoted mass drugging and people like you enabled it because maximizing the thrill of torture was your way to win. Eugenics knows no other way. You have nothing to say for yourself but more threats. That's all you ever will say.

>>477344
Yes the predictive power of statistical mechanics in physics is astonishingly good. Check out Jerimy Englands work on how entropy maximization drove the emergence of life.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

<From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat

<when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

<“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

<Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. A plant, for example, is much better at capturing and routing solar energy through itself than an unstructured heap of carbon atoms. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well. “Snowflakes, sand dunes and turbulent vortices all have in common that they are strikingly patterned structures that emerge in many-particle systems driven by some dissipative process,” he said. Condensation, wind and viscous drag are the relevant processes in these particular cases.

Beneath all that mildly deranged ranting, that other anon has 1 correct point, one has to be careful not to confuse the model with reality.

>>477347
Proving my point by posting pure eugenist pseudoscience, totally ignoring the basic concept of what life is in favor of woo. It's like you Satanics refuse to read anything that is inadmissible. Failed race, honestly. Failed race.

I really wish you would stop lying and thinking you "owned the retard". You'd only tell these contemptuous lies to someone you wanted to kill. But, you're a Satanic. This is the world you want. I will never understand what you think you're getting out of it, or what super-truth you think you're hiding. If there was something super powerful up there, they'd have brought it out by now. They only have a lot of ways to poison and destroy people. It's actually amazing how low-effort their "clot shot" was, and they were surprised when that shit didn't work because disease didn't work the way they thought, and despite the poison, people are more resilient than they believe. Satanics always have to presume they move the world by thought alone.

Life is an aberration, a form defined by its functions which really have no "good reason" to exist. If life were premised on your woo woo, it would be ubiquitous in the universe and far more uniform, and its behavior would establish equilibrium so much that evolution or differentiation would be impossible. You'd have a world of identical model societies conforming to inborn tendencies and this would appear natural.

The entire religious requires people to believe in an ever-increasing series of lies particular to eugenics. The people before eugenics did not have any of these myths, nor did they operate on an entirely reversed theory of humanity and society. Every theory of politics, spiritual thought, and human psychology presumed humans are basically evil by nature, and this matches common sense. It has always been the proper and default assumption of the ruling institutions, which are always suspicious and malicious, most of all towards people who did nothing to them, precisely because they are seen as too passive and inert to be reliable citizens. The believe in "innate, unmentionable and unknowable goodness" is pure eugenic creed, a violent lie told with the utmost contempt. I don't think any of this is admissible to you, but I'm trying to say it to those who can understand it, for what good that will do. I wish I didn't have to go around saying "Satanic" this, "Satanic" that, but the level of vicious lying on this forum is such that you have to say what it is to move on. There's no other word, aside from "retarded", which is insufficient since you're not really "retarded" and seem to believe on some level that this rot is convincing. Of course, you should know better, and you know exactly that you're just violently recapitulating anything because you're trained to attack, attack, attack. That's what Germanic education and university does to people.

If you believe the behavior of life is uniform and emergent from a principle that exists over most of the universe, it would not account for any of the behavior of life. The far more likely explanation is that life only originates in bizarre circumstances, but once started, nothing works against life that can consume parasitically on the world and reproduce itself. The trick to the eugenic creed is to essentialize life as "genes" and invent a barrier between "life" and "not-life" which is arbitrated by diktat, rather than the likely case that "proto-life" would have to be ubiquitous in the world if their theories of life and evolution worked in the way they believe. They get around this by claiming that all such proto-life is quickly devoured by "real life", but if the emergence of life were based on entropy of heat systems, it should recur often. The only reason this Satanic pseudoscientific paper was written was because their prior theory - the "lightning zapped something to make life" theory - was based on nothing.

Whenever someone suggests what I do, they bring in their natural ally, creationism and religious woo (which privately the eugenists believe - their religion is that they are a distinct race from humans and they will breed a new root race, a new master race, and when you get into their secret society shit they brag about this and what they did to us). That's always the Germanic trick - psychological manipulation, fear, and appealing to the lizard brain of filth amenable to it. It's too much for them to believe that life is an aberration, without believing life must be abomination like they are.

My belief would be that proto-life forms would have coalesced in colonies, and this phenomenon was already uncommon. It is well known that tribes, clans, and so on form from breeding populations that would be in close proximity, and asexually reproducing life-forms do not travel far due to their small size. For something as simple as a cell to exist would have required something forming with many processes which coalesced roughly around a nexus, so that parts of the cell could operate and find a "path of least resistance" to facilitate cooperative behavior that would have an advantage in spread and stasis. This would not be automatic, but many failed attempts would not have destroyed the prototype cell, absent any compelling reason why it would be disturbed by the elements. It was able to rise because, however aberrant, nothing stopped the processes from coalescing, and once stabilized, the mechanics of life and an intent implied by the proposition that life exists at all took over, until life could mingle, diversify, and so on.

You do understand that by your theory and logic, there couldn't be any "new forms" that evolution implied? Darwinian natural selection is entirely reductive, it culls existing organisms. There is no such thing as "creative destruction". Darwin was only describing one mechanism and denied the philosophical claims being made of that sort - not because he wasn't an imperialist, but because such rank dishonesty was first used to discredit his work with shambolic excuses (and these were usually in line with Germanic thinking). It didn't take long before the eugenists just adopted Germanic thought and weaponized it.

My hypothesis - and I don't consider myself an expert - would suggest that without any other life form or force in the universe to say no, life would develop on its own power, or the precursors for life would do so. For very primitive life, proto-life, adaptation by accumulation of parts would be normal rather than the passage of any genetic material. You obviously have to ocnsider at the start that there was NO "genetic material" to pass, and that such a thing could only have developed over time. This is where the eugenic creed kicks in and terminates the thought, because "genes are destiny" - the political future of the favored races and classes depends on it, even though the origin of life in general would have no bearing on heredity in any advanced animal. What is being defended is the Malthusian political economy in eugenics and Darwin's theory, which was always understood to be a weak point - and Darwin's actual theory is more complex than this, but it is still using the same sort of reductive thinking throughout to discount the initiative of life as much as possible. It would still have had to exist in Darwin's model, but this would eliminate factors that are difficult to prove with natural scientific models, but likely would have had to happen. In short, mating in any complex life is never accidental or random, but in some way deliberate and contingent on social behavior which produces marked favor even in life that doesn't think like we do. You can look at animals and find mating rituals all over, rather than random mating behavior.

It's very easy to imagine activity in a dead world. Physical matter is buffeted around by forces long before there was life to acknowledge any of it, and so the precursors of organic matter and "proto-life" would be acted on by existing forces, energetic inputs like solar radiation and chemical interactions, all of which were happening without any entropy or "order out of chaos" in the typical Masonic tropes.

Not saying you couldn't use entropy to explain features of life, but it doesn't account for genesis in any way that would be consistent with life's behavior. It would describe behavior of heat systems. All of the events that would allow anything like life to coalesce would not be "random" in that way, but would be recurrent events that, if successful, have nothing in principle stopping them except lack of energy/material input. The problems with this pseudoscience pile up the more they try to rescue the politically-imposed modern synthesis, declared unilaterally by the UN because they had to rehabilitate eugenics after the Nazis and hide everything they did to facilitate the Nazi experiments and similar experiments in the core countries.

It's amazing to me how someone can spill so much ink over such stupid screeds.

>>477358
You're a fag.

>>477353
>Life is an aberration, a form defined by its functions which really have no "good reason" to exist.
This is the view favored by idealists. Because if Life exists against all odds, that allows for the creation of religious myths that claim that the existence of life is proof of supernatural intervention.

>If life were premised on your woo woo, it would be ubiquitous in the universe
There is no reason to think that the universe is not filled with life. There might be life on Jupiter's ice moon Europa that has liquid oceans beneath the ice because gravitational sheering forces from Io, Ganymede and Callisto is heating up the planetary core of Europa. So we haven't even checked all the potential life supporting places in our solar system.

But once again idealists favor the view that there is no other life in the universe except for us. Because idealisms have to invoke exceptions from the rule to make the case for their idealist views.

The materialist conception is that life just emerged from a previous state of matter without anything special having to happen. Jerimy England's hypotheses is materialist. Of course we do have to design a experiment to verify its not just A materialist explanation but also the correct one. So we need to assemble the right mix of dead matter and observe how under certain conditions it organizes it self into living matter.

If we can see wiggling particles radiating away heat having a tendency to reorganize into clumps of matter that are better at doing that because they are living matter, we can conclude his theory is correct. So far we haven't been able to find the right mix of materials and conditions to see the emergence of living matter. But this is a really difficult experiment, that is hard to design because we're basically just guessing what conditions on earth might have been when life emerged. So it'll probably take a while until we guess correctly.

I don't understand why you think that there is a conspiracy to support eugenics in science. Even during WW2 when Eugenics was the officially recognized state doctrine in the fascist countries, it was blatantly obvious pseudo science that contradicted the contemporary evidence based "knowledge-stack". There were plenty of scientists who had to be silenced because of how easily they could explain how much bullshit it was.

Even today where few people openly advocate for eugenics anymore, the ones that still do, continue to blatantly contradict biology from Darwin up to contemporary genetics. Most of science is very hostile to eugenics. Even on a fundamental level, there is no scientific way to perform a qualitative judgement that could tell you whether a organism is superior/inferior. It would be considered a category error. You can only describe how something works and create a predictive model that will tell you what it will do given a set of environmental parameters.

Eugenicists are idiots that would throw a rabbit and a fish in the ocean, observe how the rabbit drowns, and conclude that the fish must be the superior life-form. A different set of Eugenicists would put a rabbit and a fish into a forest and watch how the fish helplessly flops around until it suffocates and conclude that the rabbit must be the superior life-form. When these to groups of Eugenicists meet they will conclude that the only way to tell whose superiority-theory is correct is to have a fight to the death. So instead of incessantly ranting, try to organize a few debates about different "superiority theories".

>>477368
It's like all you know how to do is violent recapitulation in defense of eugenics, purely reactive and beholden to thought leaders who will always betray you. I don't know why you are so confident in saying stupid shit. I've seen it all my life. It's depressing.

It is you who are fixated on the necessity of genesis and a creation myth, more than the "idealists" you claim to be against. It's like the Chewbacca Defense - if Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit. It's very legalistic, but when you chose the institutions, you chose that.

I don't know how you pretend eugenics hasn't been central to everything in the past century. They literally poisoned the world in front of your face, held a knife at the throat of everyone to go along with it, and you're supposed to march like a retard and pretend it isn't happening. They threw a third of the workforce out of work by decree, just as a flex to show you that labor was finished. What fucking planet are you even on?

If you are really opposed to eugenics, why are you uniquely obsessed about the origin of life? The eugenic creed is intrinsic to that thinking, when historically, we never had to argue whether the material origins of human had any bearing on political forms or necessary social behavior. Human beings are clearly emergent from prior conditions and operate on their own power. It is the eugenic creed which must always relitigate genesis and insist on a definition of what we are. By now, the thought that it can be different is no longer admissible. It's a Satanic race now.

That said, if you look at the facts, you wouldn't need to "explain life" and use that to make political claims, and then edit history to fit what you would prefer reality to be. I've already explained why life is an aberration, based on some basic facts. You just need to violently recapitulate, and it's always in defense of this eugenic idea. Inevitably, you aim to restore the full eugenic creed and its judgements, for the thrill of torture must be maximized. You might think that you're going to usurp the sitting eugenists, but you can only think of the same eugenism, and will inevitably reconcile with the eugenic interest because that is "rational". You can't not.

I on the other hand don't need to believe humans came from any particular process to defend my claims. It would work just the same if we were manufactured constructs "created by God". The obsession with creationism and literal interpretation of it is has always been a eugenic shibboleth. That's what is being re-litigated - a need to believe that the imperial science can make order out of chaos, the usual Masonic shit. Human existence does not intrinsically entail any "ordering" that was natural. The world had a way of doing things without our input, but that has nothing to do with our political and social organizations. Those are always things done with the volition of humans. The natural order of humanity is that humans are creatures with volition and awareness of their conditions. Eugenic creed must insist humans are flotsam for no real reason, and that their behavior is imperiously dictated by thought leaders. It can only be absolute.

For me, even if genes were real and explanatory of anything, it wouldn't change that human actors are deliberate actors. It would just mean that human actors have deliberated that they follow a Satanic world view, and we would act as if that is what humans are and what they believe. Humans don't actually believe that though, because there are no facts supporting any such claim, or the relevance of genesis or genes about any of our present-day knowledge. Humans as living constructs are adaptive, and this is especially true of intelligence and our knowledge of general technology and machines. We can't change the body or the world by thought alone, but we can change our thinking with minimal effort and willpower. It requires considerable violence and force to "make us follow nature" in the way you believe is automatic. It requires the Satan, and a great preponderance of force and fear.

I should add that even if everything were deterministic and "free will is an illusion", it would not change fundamentally that humans would automatically see correctly the eugenic institutions as disastrous. It would mean humanity is cursed to eternal and pointless struggle, controlled by the empire to make the people suffer. It would mean knowledge and science are occulted forever, and the humiliation of those outside of the institutions will be maximized. If you really think that is a good idea, then there's no point in doing any of this - and this is intended, since it will both drive up the suicide rate, and discourage suicide until the moment of maximal torture in accord with the god of the eugenic creed. That is why they don't just let us die in peace. They do not believe in clean death.

>>477376
>why are you
<interested in
>the origin of life?
Well it represents a gap in our scientific knowledge. Knowing how inanimate matter turned into living matter, might provide useful insights that helps with solving a bunch of problems or enable useful technology.

Also everything that goes scientifically unexplained, gets used by charlatans that scam people with magical thinking. If we could explain the origin of life in a rigorous, precise and accurate way, that would make a whole category of bullshit evaporate.

Also just curiosity, it be interesting to know.

>>477395
Trick question - there is not "living matter". There is matter animated by a process called life, but no substance called "living matter". When life ceases, the body decays into its constituent materials, assuming there is a body left. Parts of the body die and are shed or recycled, such that the body reconstructs itself over time, absorbing dead matter and energy to accomplish all of its functions. There is no "living matter" which is a self-contained substance in that way. It always stores energy from the environment and consumes a lot of resources simply to maintain its processes. Life is a vampire, but not a mindless one and not an evil vampire by nature, unlike our ruling elites.

The "bullshit" are these efforts to sanctify life as an essence or substance, when any competent systems view of life long ago abandoned such a thing. There isn't a singular "origin of life" story that doesn't devolve into religious koans about what life is "supposed" to be, and this is intended. Suggesting mechanisms by which life processes begin wouldn't give that origin story any inherent value to explain life now, because living things adapt as an open-ended and versatile goal to be meaningfully alive in any complex arrangement. It is at heart the processes, the life-functions, that are preserved, rather than the "life-essence" or genetic material. If that were ever adopted, which is the correct view of life mechanistically, it would mean the end of the eugenic creed's religion. That is not tolerable, and that's why all the pseudoscience is cranked up to 11, to defend a failed system.

Everything we do, and everything we ARE, is life-functions rather than genes which just happen to act in ways that conform to political expectations. If there is genetic material, it is meaningless without a corresponding life-function or behavior resulting from it. The stubbornness of life did not require a technocratic plan or blueprint to make life "regress to the mean". Life-functions to make life attain stability so that those functions continue, and it is the life-functions which "repair themselves", either by their own power or in concert with other life-functions that comprise the life-form. The body doesn't have a planning committee internal to it by some immaculate design which "just knows" what the body is supposed to do. The preservation of organic functions would be very obvious, absent a compelling purpose why those functions would cease at the command of the life-form's more prominent functions - for example, letting a limb be amputated to save the brain, which animal life cannot continue without.

The life-functions are not inexorably carried out "to the last gasp", as if a drive to live is paramount above all other concerns and all life will axiomatically preserve its life-functions in all cases. But, generally, there is no good reason why life-functions should cease just because they don't fit an intellectual conceit. There's not really a cycle of obligatory death and life. We are, in the main, "dead" creatures. The matter of the flesh is dead, absorbed largely by other dead life-forms. We interface with dead technology, and dead knowledge. The very contact we have with society to say nothing with spiritual thought pertains almost entirely to a dead or unliving world. We could view "life" as a fleeting phenomenon if we chose, and continue living happily - probably happier than if we indulged in philosophical obsession regarding life-worship or death-worship. There is much more in this world than essentialism, and eugenics exists to terminate all of it and leave us with the purest shit.

>>477416
Not the reform I was hoping for. Giant private banks don't need a fucking "oversight body", they need to be taken out back and shot so that finance can be democratically organized.

>>477419
>Not the reform I was hoping for.
Honestly it went further than i thought it would go. My guess would be chinese finance capital lost a political powerstruggle and the weakening of western economic power are the biggest factors.

>Giant private banks don't need a fucking "oversight body", they need to be taken out back and shot so that finance can be democratically organized.
The Chinese have actually done this, for extremely severe cases of financial fraud. But I get it, that's not what you meant, you want a political rupture with decisive political action. But in china things are going relatively well, so don't expect dramatic changes. I think they're basically experimenting with incremental changes to improve their economy. I wouldn't knock this too much, because having a oversight body filled with communist carders that can overrule big finance, that's something we wish we had.