Monthly Archives: September 2021

Positive language

Posted on by
Reply

I’m watching this:

… and I’m thinking, the Americans are always “leading”, they are “making progress”, and they are never having problems, they are having “challenges”, which is what one does if he’s in a dominant position; there are things challenging his dominance and “leadership”.

They never fail, they never lose, they never fuck up. There are no negative things out there, just “challenges” that will be “overcome” as “progress” is made in the course of their “leadership”.

What an incredibly arrogant and stupid people they are.

How does one know whether he’s been making progress or not before the war is actually over and one can retrospect? Why do you say problems are “challenges”, as if they are communicating personally with you? Is the fact that you will die if you jump off a tall building a “challenge”, or is it better to say it’s a limitation you need to work with? If it’s a challenge, it means you need to overcome it, but that’s a very dangerous position to have in politics; for instance, you can see a powerful sovereign country like Russia or China as a challenge, which will lead you into a mutually destructive conflict, or you can see it simply as a state of things – you have interests and goals, others do as well, and now you need to negotiate with them, haggle, make deals, cooperate in mutually beneficial ways. If others having any power is a “challenge”, what does that mean, that you have to work on making everybody else into a powerless slave before you’re happy, and you’ll see every instance of freedom, sovereignty and independence of others as a threat, a “challenge”, until you are universally seen as such a menace to others, they will join forces against you and destroy you like a mad dog that you are?

I knew a person who always stated he’s making progress, every day; always positive stuff going on, always learning new lessons, and some other bullshit. An unbiased bystander would see him and conclude he’s completely deluded, because his situation was stagnant at best and degrading desperately at worst, and there wasn’t a single positive thing about it whatsoever, and that was mostly because of his insistence that everything negative is actually positive. Sometimes progress is possible only after you admit you have failed – you did everything wrong, you deluded yourself and you are now facing a disaster, and it’s not that all the bad things necessarily happen for the best, they can happen because you’re a damn fool who made all the wrong calls, persisted on a wrong path and is now facing utter ruin in all respects. That’s the point where you can possibly save yourself if you repent, if you admit failure, and concede defeat, so that you can learn what you did wrong, and do better. If you claim you’re winning and making progress while you’re on a path towards your ruin, and you provoke other powers in their back yard, claiming you’re “challenging their excessive claims” and “answering their challenges”, all this “positivity” will increase the chances of your country becoming a glass parking lot.

America is an incredible country – founded on the principles of arrogance and Satanism, but thinking they are God’s chosen people for some reason. Even their most common variety of Christianity is based on shallow and selective thinking, and incredible self-serving arrogance.

Whom to believe?

Posted on by
19

Last night I was thinking about why reputation destruction attempts are so rampant online, and why all political sides try to discredit the opponent instead of his arguments, and on the other hand some people act as if all arguments are on the order of “Rome is in Italy” where the person making the statement doesn’t matter. Of course the person making the statement matters; if you’re reading investment advice, Warren Buffet’s opinion is going to carry much more weight than the opinion of some random person on Reddit. That’s why it would be a problem if we had to read all opinions completely unsigned, divorced from the “brand” of the author, and then I thought – the weight we give to the information we read is a product of the weight of the argument itself, and the perceived weight of the person/entity making the argument.

You are going to take something much more seriously if it comes from a reputable source. Also, if a formerly reputable source abuses the trust invested in them by all the previously sound information they have been giving, and starts spreading propaganda, their “brand weight” is going to degrade and people aren’t going to put much trust in their opinions anymore. We saw that already with the news networks, which have degraded to the point where they are the least trustworthy sources out there, but also with corporations like Boeing, and, unfortunately, science – which has been corrupted so terribly by financial influences, policies that favor publishing questionable work often over publishing solid work infrequently, political influences and so on. Basically, I went from a position of treating scientific articles and publications as mostly rock solid in 1980s and 1990s, to a position where I now see them as obfuscated garbage until proven otherwise. This is unfortunate, because I already treated everything the governments are saying as deception until proven otherwise, I treated “news” as propaganda, lies and deception until proven otherwise, and I can also add science as something that’s manufactured on demand by industry and politics, and has no scientific value until proven otherwise. Essentially, my weighing of various “brands” has changed from positive to zero or negative, which leaves me with a very realistic conundrum: whom are we to believe, and are we actually better off with all those sources of (dis)information around, than we would be if it all stopped bombarding us with worthless, deceptive bullshit altogether? Basically, if Internet went down permanently, would that really be a bad thing? At least the liars would have their mouths shut finally, and deluded people would have to depart from their insane echo chambers, if not voluntarily, then because their Borg interconnection hardware stopped working, and Big Brother TV stopped broadcasting.

The painful thought that follows this is, whether people who got liberated from the brainwashing machine would actually bother to turn their brains on, or is it really their aversion to independent thought that created the addiction to the brainwashing machine in the first place? It’s not that people believe that Earth is flat in the 21st century due to lack of evidence; they believe in lies because truth doesn’t make them feel special and important enough. They believe in lies because they prefer it that way.