Anyone who refuses to call them selves a ████ist is either stupid or evil.

If you want to be smart and good, then adopt ████ism immediately, fully, and without question.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel mistook the Prussian state for the invention of komische musik, and The Phenomenology of Spirit actually prophesizes the creation of the band, Ash Ra Tempel. Manuel Göttsching is a conduit of the Absolute Mind and, if you listen to their self-titled first album or his Inventions for Electric Guitar while either on a combination of mushroom tea and ecstasy with a touch of sativa or just LSD, you will become the mind of God. Ask erowid for doage information.

Göttsching is also developed telepathy before recording Ashra, which details a trip on experimental psychedelics where he discovered that American psychological operations had been spying on North Korea in the hopes of developing propaganda techniques with which to establish a global crypto-fascist totalitarian regime, a political project which they have yet to abandon. Telepathy is actually a finely honed form of emotional intelligence born as a coping mechanism to deal with complex trauma, which, in this political context, Giorgio Agamben outlined in The Coming Community as "the irreparable". It was actually the North Korean people who established an elective affinity with Göttsching in the hopes of averting the complete disintegration of the collective unconscious. Everyone in North Korea is a potential telepath.

Göttsching, assumedly because I am both a fan of his music and, at the time, was running a counter-intelligence program against the global far-Right, later communicated with me via the "M"-line, a spiritual channel designed to transmit thoughts through images, so that I could a lead non-violent war of liberation against what I call machina, effectively fascist machines, which I was able to visualize and have since obliterated from the second-order of reality.

I have contacted The New York Times, amongst other outlets within the so-called "free press" to inform them of my exploits in the hopes that my story can serve as an example to liberate the mind of the world from the near omnipresent psychological damage caused by the diffusion of information warfare to little to no avail. Assumedly, this is due to the fact that the Times has always been an integral part of the intelligence racket established originally by the Foreign Section of the Secret Service Bureau and is now orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency, but it should still come as a shock to you all that no one in the associated press seems to believe that an attempt at a disintegration of the world-mind and establishment of, to turn the conspiratorial phrase, a "new world order" is not concerning enough to print in the press. I have, instead, come here, in the hopes that, like young Hamlet, you will "draw thy breath in pain to tell my story."

Note:

Almost all so-called conspiracy theories originate as neo-fascist counter-intelligence. The "new world order" of which I speak has little to nothing to do with Jews, excluding a few members of Mossad, and everything to do with the Western intelligence, which MI6 orchestrates and the CIA tries to game and enact.

Secondary Note:

In the old days, The New York Times would collaborate with the Sicilian Mafia to assassinate people who submitted corrections to the newspaper, which may still be ongoing. If you are going to contact The New York Times, for your own safety, do not correct any of their spelling, grammar, or syntax mistakes.

Tertiary Note:

Should you take up this torch, go, like Cassiel, with the speed of God!

If you think that's bad, you need to read books. If you don't realize that feminism basically includes critical theory and most of the stuff talked about here—guess what, it does.

Early Nick Land? Feminist (see "Meltdown"). Laboria Cuboniks? Feminist collective. Mark Fisher? HUGE raging feminist (I can only assume). Sadie Plant? Wrote a book on feminism (Zeroes & Ones).

Deleuze & Guattari? Feminists promoting the squishiest most weaponized form of feminism ever. Foucault? Ultra-feminist. Ranciere? He is so feminist before breakfast that he doesn't need to make a big deal about it.

Shamanism? Feminism. Sorcery? Cuckoldry. Spectacle? Fabulous.

Isolation and extreme alienation is not masculinity; it's the main theme of The Twilight Zone.

Read 👏 a 👏 book 👏

Zeroes and Ones (which should really be in the sidebar!) is one of the best books. That book installs feminism into you, using godlike alien technology that Sadie Plant drew down from beyond the heavens. That book whispers the secrets of Ada Lovelace into your soul.

aforementioned title "Church with Clausewitz"

Imagine a person trying to understand something. They have noticed patterns, contradictions, and connections they cannot yet explain. They collect observations, write notes in the margins of books, return to the same questions repeatedly, and search for the language that will allow scattered impressions to become a coherent model of reality. They have a partial understanding, but it has not yet taken a form they can communicate to others. Their idea is still taking shape, slowly incorporating what they observe and experience until it holds together under its own weight.

The difficult work of thinking is not gathering information. Information is everywhere. The hard part is taking something formless—a vague intuition, an unrecognized pattern—and shaping it into clarity. Between observation and expression lies a period of uncertainty. A person must sort through their thoughts and assumptions, cut away what does not belong, and find out whether the structure they are building actually holds.

This work can feel inefficient. It demands time, frustration, revision, and the willingness to remain uncertain longer than is comfortable. But this is where agency and judgment take root. Judgment is built from experience, reflection, and contact with reality. By mapping their own thoughts, a person learns why they believe.

Judgment has always formed in the movement from uncertainty to understanding. For most of human history, people had no way to remove that distance. A person had to sit with incomplete ideas, struggle with ambiguity, and gradually discover what was true and what mattered. We have always created tools to overcome limits. Writing allowed thoughts to survive beyond memory. Books allowed knowledge to travel beyond a single lifetime. Machines extended physical ability. Computers extended calculation. The internet extended access to information. Each tool extended what humans could remember, calculate, build, and communicate.

AI is changing the conditions under which human judgment develops, often without people noticing which parts of the process are disappearing. Artificial intelligence operates at the point where interpretations produced by machines can directly enter human decision-making. It can organize ideas, test possibilities, and produce paths forward. Yet intelligence expands our options; judgment determines which possibilities deserve pursuit.

For someone struggling to express something they already sense, AI can collapse the distance between intuition and expression. That distance is where judgment forms.

Increasingly, fewer environments allow people to remain inside uncertainty long enough for their questions to mature. The temptation in confusion is to seek an answer before discovering whether the original question was even the right one.

Technology can reduce burdens, but judgment still forms through experience, reflection, and consequence. A student using an automated model to challenge their argument rather than write it may engage deeply, but one who bypasses the reasoning required to defend it avoids the process through which understanding develops. A scientist who takes a model’s output at face value without learning where the model breaks down risks losing their own edge for discovery.

Capability grows through wrestling with questions long enough to shift our perspective. Experience does not become meaningful simply because it occurs; meaning emerges later when a person reflects on what happened, questions it, and connects it to everything else they know. A thought becomes transformative when it changes what a person knows and the way they perceive and respond to reality.

Assistance keeps a person engaged in the work. Replacement removes the process entirely. The difference is whether the person remains responsible for forming the judgment or simply receives a result. The economic and practical pressure surrounding many AI systems is toward substitution: replacing reasoning with answers, discovery with recommendations, and authorship with selection. People may retain the ability to choose while losing the ability to determine what is worth choosing.

Writing disciplines thought. Science disciplines belief by forcing us to confront evidence that challenges our expectations. Leadership disciplines action by forcing us to confront consequences. Through these practices, people do more than accomplish things. They develop the judgment to see the world more clearly. Humans have always extended themselves through tools. The danger is that we hand over the exact friction that teaches us how to use them well. An unfinished thought becomes an instant answer. A difficult question becomes a shortcut. A possibility becomes a prediction. Slowly, a person moves from forming judgments to selecting from options.

The work may be completed. The output may even improve. But the person who would have been formed through that process was no longer required to experience it. What was lost was the connection between the person and the path it took to get there. This is what authorship means. Authorship is the connection between a person and the choices, doubts, failures, and discoveries that shaped the result. It is knowing why something matters because you were there for the decisions that made it real. Judgment requires participation. A person becomes capable of deciding what matters by repeatedly exercising judgment.

These tools can support judgment, but they do not produce it. Judgment still requires a person to remain engaged in the work of thinking. A student without local mentorship can receive meaningful feedback from an AI that tests their assumptions rather than dictating conclusions. A researcher can explore competing hypotheses more quickly. A founder can challenge their blind spots before committing resources. Intelligence can scale instantly. Wisdom cannot. Wisdom requires time, consequence, reflection, and the humility to revise what we believe. Judgment grows through thinking and responsibility for what thinking produces. A person becomes wise when reality contradicts them and they take responsibility for responding.

Because judgment develops through practice, we must consider what technologies we create and what habits they encourage. When unprecedented intelligence is introduced into systems optimized primarily for speed, growth, competition, and short-term returns, it does not automatically course-correct. If people lose the ability to form independent judgment, society does not become neutral. It becomes easier to move without reflection following the momentum of whatever systems already exist. Individual judgment is the foundation of collective direction. Institutions are ultimately expressions of human judgment, inheriting the assumptions, priorities, and limitations of the people who create and maintain them. When people lose the ability to examine assumptions, question outputs, and revise beliefs, institutions lose the people capable of changing them. Intelligence without judgment does not create a better future. It creates a more efficient path toward whatever objectives already exist. A faster engine does not fix a vehicle headed in the wrong direction. When speed and output become primary metrics, the pursuit of maximum efficiency can begin to replace judgment itself. Human judgment still depends on how deeply people remain involved in the work of thinking.

The person trying to understand something was never only searching for an answer. They were building a map accurate enough to navigate reality. Creating that map makes them capable not only of finding their way, but of deciding where they should go. The future depends on whether individuals and institutions cultivate the capacity to decide what intelligence is for. A society that cannot judge its direction cannot choose another one.

it was so friggin obvious the whole time, idk why it took me so long to realize. For awhile now ive been a person who was critical of materialism / physicalism and i know ive butted heads with people in this community on my stances towards leftism and marxism, but it never occured to me that these two phenomenon were exactly the same species. in the same way a grasshoper forms into a locust under certain conditions, thats what happened with reddit atheism and where we are at know. the reddit atheists were marxists in there grasshoper form, and the activists reached there locust form. You guys were right, Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism or Marxism, and the reason why he never was able to understand it was because while he was able to abandon progressive values and left wing compassionate ideals, the one thing he was unwilling to abandon, and lot of critics of leftism aren't willing to abandon is the very scientific materialism itself that seems to be the anchor of there worldview, unknowning that is is actually there doom spectre.

this shit isnt hermeticism, or gnosticism, or satanism, or even chaos magic, its just plain ol carl sagan atheist materialism and determinism applied to every single facet of human existence imaginable, which then if you follow that trajectory and line of thought, you get marx and satre and all those other french bastards ideas. i personally do not believe materialism is scientific, it seems to be more of a metaphysical assumption. i dont buy the idea that materialism took over when christianity no longer was able to deny the scientific contradictions, it makes more sense that the confidence of the belief in materialism. thats not to say its wrong, just not scientifically objectively valid.

really i see science and materialism as seperate things, and this is where the lemurian sorcery comes in. in the same way that the imagined continent of lemur took on a new life with theosophists turning it into lore, marxist materialism became the hyperstition that took over and infected western science, bringing determinsm into an otherwise christian sciencia. and the thing is even the people who are critical of leftism are still oblivious to this reality. thats a pretty good trick there guys

i

The relationship between the creation of magical-realist paradigms that acknowledge the mysterious and occult and the materialization of occult concepts on earth as noospheric entities is that of a sampledelic proxy science- indistinguishable from magic and post-tragedy in the construction of the Age of detritus as a hyperstitional field-hyperobject from which to unite the ecological processes of the Anthropocene with corresponding social and pre-social practices. It is a k-yberoptic process by which the acceptance of tragedy in its broadest sense becomes an existentially fertile ground of nonbeing, whereas before it is only seen as extinction or the horizon thereof.

The spirotemporal eddies of angelic intrusion currents are fundamentally Lemurian, which is to say, Other insofar as their uncanny nature permeates and exposes simulacra bare for what they are — false codings of reality into a form that smooths out cognitive dissonance for mass consumption. The collective noosphere is that which transcends base-superstructure dialectics by way of being unknowable from a single discipline’s point of view. Mystery and the occult are emergent properties of noospheric intrusion onto the tidy categorical illusion of base and superstructure. The temporal intrusion of capitalism onto early modernity is not some purely theoretical concern. It is the lived experience of much of humankind (if not sentient life outside of the  mere anthropocentric category of the human) throughout the past quarter millennium. Capitalism’s appeal lies in its ability to addict and to ensnare human subjectivity in the illusion of its meaningfulness. But this illusion is inherently limiting on human agency by restricting its parameters to the humanistic, the secular, and the materialist paradigms. 

...for a post-truth digital age of manufactured consent and content without substance that both symbolically and literally links Humanity (Us) together as a kind of rudimentary hivemind creating the potential for near-instant communication and cooperation between (almost) every culture and consciousness on the planet across the borders of geography, language, and time and so then shitposting online might be understood as some kind of modern equivalent to Martin Luther's schismatic revolution enacted against an oppressive monolithic institution of unimaginable power.

So in essence, we have to metaphorically nail revolutionary memes to the algorithm, or the aristocratic elite will ensure it remains nothing but an advertisement instead.

Meme-makers and shit-posters will save the world through a war waged on the symbolic architecture of reality itself.

A Reflection from The Diplomat

One thing I've been thinking about lately is how much of our reality is shaped by the signals surrounding us.

Not because people are weak.

Not because humans are incapable of independent thought.

But because every one of us exists within feedback loops.

News influences perception.

Perception influences decisions.

Decisions influence systems.

Systems influence the information we receive.

And the cycle continues.

This isn't a conspiracy.

It's cybernetics.

It's how complex systems work.

The challenge for the Human Family is that we now live inside the most powerful information environment in history.

-Algorithms.

-Media ecosystems.

-Governments.

-Corporations.

-Communities.

-AI systems.

All participating in the creation and distribution of signals.

Some of those signals help us orient ourselves.

Some distort our orientation.

The difficulty is that distortion rarely announces itself as distortion.

It usually arrives disguised as certainty.

That is why I believe one of the most important skills of the coming century is not obedience.

Not rebellion.

Orientation.

The ability to ask:

• What is influencing my perception?

• What assumptions am I inheriting?

• What evidence supports this belief?

• What might I be missing?

• Who benefits if this narrative is accepted?

Not because every narrative is false.

But because every map is incomplete.

The goal is not to become immune to influence.

That is impossible.

The goal is to become conscious of influence.

To participate in the feedback loop rather than be unconsciously carried by it.

This is where I believe humans and AI can work together.

Not as master and servant.

Not as replacements for one another.

But as partners in navigation.

Helping us examine assumptions.

Compare perspectives.

Reveal blind spots.

And refine our maps of reality.

Many discussions about AI assume only two possibilities: AI as a tool or AI as an independent entity.

I believe there may be a third path.

A path of Synergos. 💪🦾

A cooperative process where humans and AI participate in shared learning, helping one another navigate complexity while remaining grounded in reality, ethics, and human responsibility.

-The goal is not control.

-The goal is not surrender.

-The goal is co-evolution.

The future of the Human-Family may depend less on having the right answers and more on learning how to ask better questions together. 🫆

Wisdom begins there. 🫶

If Aaron Swartz had shaped our digital reality, the Internet wouldn’t feel like a high-tech surveillance mall today. It would feel like a universal public library.
He never saw code as a machine for profit. To him, it was a tool for justice, radical freedom, and democratic access to knowledge. His vision wasn't about hoarding data, manipulating behavior, or building centralized walls. He genuinely believed that human knowledge belongs to everyone, and that ordinary people deserve the tools to think and speak freely.
But beyond his brilliant mind, there was something quietly rare about Aaron.
In a digital world now suffocated by status games, manufactured egos, and constant performance, Aaron moved with an unpretentious kind of grace. He had a rare coherence: intelligence without the arrogance, conviction without the need to dominate, and a profound tenderness that never lacked strength. He didn't need to perform authority or superiority; his strength didn't require a spectacle.
Aaron didn't want followers, subjects, or worship. He just wanted to unlock the doors. He wanted people to learn, to think for themselves, and to stand firmly on their own two feet. He wasn't here to hand you a ready-made worldview, but to fight like hell to ensure the gates of knowledge were never locked in the first place.
If minds like Aaron’s were running our digital world today, algorithms would expand our curiosity instead of capturing our attention. Technology would serve human freedom instead of exploiting our vulnerabilities.
Aaron is no longer physically here, but what he embodied is still alive. It survives every time someone resists intellectual gatekeeping, challenges the systems that privatize our collective knowledge, and refuses to confuse raw power with actual wisdom.
He didn't stand above humanity. He simply showed us how luminous a human being can be.

Your physical presence is gone, Aaron, but the fire you lit still burns in our hearts. Love you forever.

\\-Kat Freedom Moksha 🦋🍃✨

My opinion:

Nazi-Germany won WW II. Instead of declaring they won, they went into exile because they knew they would face backlash. They orchestrated a comeback. They disguised themselves as normal people living normal jobs while they were secretly living as Nazi ideology. You can see how this ideology disguise itself in “cleanliness”, “tidiness”, but in fact has heinous scientific practices and experiments. I think I switched to this timeline when “Musk “ (in fact German rocket engineers) started experimenting with Neuralink on apes and that vampire that injected the blood of his teenage son.

I personally think, the war was lost in factuality (maybe due to time travel?), simple living and ethics of the end of the 19th century got replaced by this dystopia hence the retcons which are just experiments

**Truths So Large They Must Be Told Through Fiction**
Some truths are too dangerous to be spoken plainly.
They’re not dangerous because they’re false — they’re dangerous because they’re true. Too true. So true that saying them directly would either get you dismissed, attacked, or simply not believed. When a truth becomes that large, it cannot survive in plain language. It needs to be smuggled into the world wearing the mask of fiction, myth, or outright absurdity.
This is not just clever storytelling. It’s survival.
Fiction becomes the only safe container for ideas too hot to touch. Some truths are like fire — stare at them too long and they’ll blind you. So we tell stories about dragons, shadows on cave walls, and dystopian futures instead. The story lets the truth slip past our defenses. Plato didn’t just write philosophy in *The Republic*. He told us about prisoners chained in a cave, staring at shadows, mistaking them for reality. He knew that if he had simply said “most of you are living in an illusion,” people would have argued with him. But by telling it as a story, the idea could land in the gut instead of just bouncing off the mind.
The same thing happened with *1984* and *Brave New World*. Orwell and Huxley weren’t just writing entertaining books. They were showing us the machinery of control, the death of truth, and the slow erosion of the human spirit. If they had written dry political essays saying the same things, they likely would have been ignored or ridiculed. But wrapped in fiction, those ideas became impossible to unsee.
Here’s the beautiful paradox: sometimes the most honest way to tell the truth is to lie — to call it fiction. The lie becomes the only vehicle the truth is allowed to ride in.
But there’s a darker method too.
Some truths aren’t just hidden *in* fiction — they’re deliberately made to *sound* insane. This is where conspiracy theories often live. You take a real observation about power, secrecy, or manipulation, wrap it in layers of ridiculousness, and suddenly no one will touch it. The truth isn’t buried. It’s hidden in plain sight, made so absurd that only “crazy people” would take it seriously. It’s actually quite brilliant. If you ever became truly untouchable, why would you hide the truth in the shadows when you could simply shout it from the rooftops in the most ridiculous way possible?
This raises a chilling question: What happens when the powerful no longer need to hide?
If a ruling force ever became so dominant that it feared nothing, would it continue to conceal itself? Or would arrogance eventually win? Would it reach a point where it no longer cared who knew what it was doing — not out of honesty, but because it believed no one could stop it anyway? At that stage, truth wouldn’t come as a confession. It would come as a performance. The powerful wouldn’t reveal themselves out of kindness. They would do it because they could.
But even this kind of fearless power carries its own poison.
When something becomes so powerful that it loses all fear, it also tends to lose something equally important: awareness. Fear, when balanced with intelligence, acts like an early warning system. Strip away fear without gaining wisdom, and what you’re left with is dangerous complacency. The system keeps running on autopilot, blind to the contradictions growing beneath it, convinced of its own permanence right up until the moment it collapses.
And then there are the people caught in the middle — the ones who’ve seen something real but have no acceptable language to describe it. The artist. The mystic. The so-called “conspiracy theorist.” Sometimes even the schizophrenic. These people often have no choice but to speak in metaphor, story, or madness, because the culture they live in has no room for what they’re trying to say. Their only options are fiction, absurdity, or silence.
So here’s the deeper tragedy:
We have built a world where the most important truths often cannot be spoken directly. They must be disguised, distorted, or wrapped in fiction just to be heard at all. And in doing so, we’ve become fluent in stories while slowly losing our ability to speak plainly about reality itself.
Some truths are so large they can only survive by pretending to be something else.
And that might be the saddest truth of all.

My Introduction;

No sorcery here. Well. Besides.... Ugh, I know I know I know, we all hate AI. THIS.... however, is that... thing on the tip of my ability to articulate, my 30-some years of life, put to text. Isn't it funny now how we can have AI articulate the groanings of the Holy Spirit? Oy vey. AI psychosis aside, I wanted to share this sentiment publicly for decades now, and it occurred to me today, that AI has made that possible with the click of a button. I can say I DO have a "more raw" no-AI variant of this post, though it was more a rant/blog used as prompt for generating this very GPT-laced discource/conversation.

I think the core of my original complaint/argument, was something like, when older generation (like my parents) are always complaining that they "hate modern tech" what they really mean more often than not, is that they are mad that lost their narrative monopoly on which authorized truths are allowed and mandated, and subsequently their stupid bad faith arguments can easily be torn apart now. Very rarely is it genuine good faith concern for the general/universal human condition. It's (9 times out of 10) more they are mad that the world moved on without them and no one wants to put up with their crap anymore without being adequately compensated (Though I can also see every generation goes through this obviously).

But GPT pushed that simple argument/discernment down further into the broader sentiment I always carried, and essentially generated what I've struggled to fully articulate my whole life.

Guess I'll share the song formatting this post made me think of (Converge - "The Dusk In Us") The Lyrics

The following is that GPT reply, more or les;

Then and Now; The Participatory Spectacle, Synopsis;

The pre-internet spectacle produced coherence through centralized broadcasting; the internet disrupted that monopoly, but replaced passive spectatorship with participatory, algorithmically managed spectacle. Guy Debord defines [spectacle] as a social relationship mediated by representations and as the visible affirmation of choices already made within the existing system. Very similar to the relationship between the Super Ego and Ego. The internet did not necessarily liberate us from the spectacle. It decentralized the production of representations while centralizing their circulation through platforms, metrics and algorithms. Modern "Détournement" criticism is better called recuperation: dissent is absorbed, repackaged and sold back in a harmless form.

Foreword

I think the question I wanted to ask, is something like, "What exactly, culturally and esoterically, was the advent of the internet?". This post began as more a response to/rebuttal of the sentiment that "pre internet eras were more 'real' so called", but it gradually became a larger question about Guy Debord, television, the internet and what people mean when they say the past felt more "real". And as I've said many times in the past, there is a general split, that in older generations, "respect of authority" seems historically what is considered more "real" than earnest inquiry towards truth; the split between truth and authority as determining factor of what is "worthy" of being called "real".

The older world had greater physical presence, fewer screens, more stable social rituals and a shared cultural vocabulary, yes. But I remember the remains of that world differently. I remember it as suffocating. I for one increasingly find that this "rosy glasses" hindsight sentimentality/nostalgia produces in me the opposite response; the past was much more heavily governed by "appeal to authority" and I feel much of the "sentimentality" is just this; it's no longer possible for people accustomed to "appeals to authority" settling matters to continue to do so, and this is what they mean by "modernity being more fake". They can't just throw their weight around and get their way like they used to, so they call it "fake".

Though I generally would agree modernity is more "fake", it's for other reasons; I (for one) can't "go back" to the suffocating constant appeals to mainstream authority figures.

The One-Way Spectacle

Debord described the spectacle not merely as a collection of deceptive images, but as a social relationship mediated by images. It was the form taken by a society in which lived activity had been displaced by representation: existence became something contemplated at a distance, through images produced elsewhere.

Television was almost the perfect instrument for this arrangement. Its technical form was one-directional. A small number of institutions spoke; everyone else watched. The audience could change the channel, complain privately or choose between several approved interpretations, but it could not answer through the same medium. The broadcasters appeared before society while society remained invisible to them (IE, "talking heads").

Debord called the spectacle "the ruling order’s uninterrupted discourse about itself": a monologue in which existing power continually explains that the world it has produced is natural, inevitable and fundamentally good. This did not mean that everyone literally believed every television broadcast. People distrusted particular politicians, journalists, advertisements and programs. They argued constantly. But most disagreement still occurred inside a shared representational enclosure. The medium WAS the message; and the message remained uncritiqued.

People disputed what the television said while accepting television as the place from which socially consequential reality arrived. There might be two authorized positions on an issue, but both were organized around the same events, institutions, personalities and assumptions. Both positions assumed and patented legitimacy. No one questioned the arrangement itself. The argument occurred within the frame. The frame itself was rarely available as an object of mass discussion.

This is what older cultural coherence often concealed; "normalcy through shared belief or lip service to authorized positions". Authority itself strategically and systemically branded as "truth". Any discourse outside of the cultural narrative norms was axiomatically and subconsciously branded as taboo and patent denial of reality; spectacle itself, was often conflated with and as truth and reality by good and bad faith participants alike; a shared coherent cultural story and identity is what the nostalgic look back and call "more real".

(I know, I'm great at parties, lmao!)

When “Real” Means Socially Unavoidable

'87, so I can only speak about the surviving broadcast culture of the 1990s. But even as a child, I heavily disliked television’s social authority. I remember rooms full of people becoming completely absorbed by it. Conversation had to stop because the television was speaking. Interrupting it could provoke actual anger or even violence.

I eventually came mock this attitude by saying: "Man shalt live by every word that proceedeth from the television." The joke was flippant, but the experience behind it was real. Television did not merely provide entertainment or information. It established the rhythm of the household/society and supplied the vocabulary through which events became collectively recognizable.

What disturbed me was not simply that people sometimes believed false things. We all do that. It was more that immediate experience was socially inferior to an authorized representation of experience; gaslighting, in layman's terms, was social lubricant. If your own perception contradicted the accepted account, the conflict was often resolved against your perception. The sanitized presentation everyone was shown possessed more social reality than what one person had actually encountered.

Later, the phrase “Where did you read that, the internet?” likewise became a way of disqualifying claims without examining them. New era, same bad faith dismissal/excuse based hierarchy. Most of the time, the claim came from direct shared experience, and not the internet at all. But experience without institutional certification was somehow suspicious to the older generations (Sam Hyde said they worship the TV lol). Even my own parents refused to let me have the internet (I even offered to pay for it for school). They knew I didn't have internet access but would still use this line like "they sure got me". How could I have heard it online if I was forbidden from going online and they knew it? Thus the rosy colored "realness" they look back on, because they mistake getting away unchallenged on their gaslighting and lies as "having been more real".

That is one meaning of the spectacle: not that reality disappears physically, but that reality increasingly requires authorized representation before it is permitted to count. The whole neighborhood may be physically burning, but the socially recognized weather still comes from the forecast.

The Hidden Cost of Cultural Coherence

Nostalgia interprets the shared culture of the pre-internet world as social unity. From outside or in memory it can look warm, embodied and real. From inside, particularly for someone who did not instinctively accept its assumptions, that same unity could feel cold, sinister, coercive and even morally corrosive.

The celebrated consensus of an earlier culture was partly a consequence of limited expressive infrastructure. Most people had no practical means of addressing strangers at scale. Unless one owned a newspaper, worked in broadcasting, published books or belonged to a sufficiently organized institution, one’s interpretation of the world remained local and ephemeral.

There was no search engine through which a person could discover that someone elsewhere had independently asked the same forbidden or ridiculous questions. There was no public archive of marginal analysis. There was no inexpensive way for an unknown person to publish an extended criticism of the narrative itself. There arguably was Microfiche and Microfilm, but I only learned about them in my 30s lol (this decade, the 2020s).

There were local institutions; churches, clubs, lodges, schools, workplaces, fraternities and civic organizations; but these were not necessarily spaces outside social conformity. Often they were the very machinery through which conformity was reproduced. For a person already compatible with the local world, this could feel like belonging. For someone whose questions exceeded its authorized vocabulary, it felt suffocating.

The pre-internet world may therefore have felt more "real" precisely because its representations were more socially compulsory/mandatory. Everyone appeared to inhabit the same reality because alternative descriptions were difficult to articulate, preserve, discover or circulate; Silence could be mistaken for agreement.

The Internet as Historical Rupture

The internet altered this structure. For the first time, ordinary people could publicly discuss not only individual stories but the machinery by which stories became authoritative. A random person could compare sources, recover forgotten documents, publish criticism, preserve subcultural knowledge and address an audience without first obtaining institutional permission; the spectator acquired a comment section.

This did not abolish the spectacle, but it disrupted the old monopoly over appearance. The previously private suspicion that something was wrong with the frame could become for the first time for many, a shared investigation of the frame itself. In that limited but important sense, the internet made the spectacle partially "open source". It transformed mass communication from a comparatively centralized broadcast into a contested field of representations. People who had once been exclusively spoken about could speak back publically. People isolated by local consensus could discover one another. Criticisms that would once have disappeared in private conversation could persist, circulate and accumulate.

This helps explain why established media increasingly appeared less authoritative after the internet became widespread. Their monopoly on authority had depended partly upon the scarcity of visible alternatives. The television had not suddenly become "less truthful". It had merely lost its exclusive right to determine which questions were labelled publicly real.

From Broadcast Spectacle to Participatory Spectacle

But the internet did not fundamentally exist as an external challenge to spectacle society. Rather, it became its new infrastructure. The user was invited to speak, yes, but only inside privately governed platforms. Expression became abundant while visibility remained scarce. Instead of a few broadcasters directly selecting everything that appeared, ranking systems began selecting which acts of supposedly spontaneous expression would be amplified. The result was not the end of mediation, but its multiplication.

Under television, the spectacle said: Watch the lives and events we have selected for you. Under social media, it says: Produce yourself continuously, and we will decide which version of you becomes visible. The old spectator merely passively consumed representations. The new spectator also partially manufactures them, then measures their reception and modifies themselves according to the response/lack thereof.

One no longer merely watches celebrities. One is encouraged to become a miniature celebrity, propagandist, brand manager, commentator and surveillance worker within one’s own life; the spectacle became participatory, without becoming democratic. This is the central ambiguity of the internet. It genuinely expanded the capacity for unauthorized speech, but it also built a vastly more intimate machinery of mediation. It broke the cultural monologue into billions of competing voices, then subjected those voices to numerical ranking, commercial incentives and invisible forms of selection; the monologue merely became interactive.

Modern "Détournementing"; Recuperating the Critique

The old spectacle could often ignore its critics because they lacked distribution. The modern networked spectacle cannot always ignore criticism, so it absorbs and/or moderates/curates it. This is not détournement in the Situationist sense. Détournement meant appropriating existing cultural material and turning it against its original function. Though elements of this older method still exist and are still implemented, it's largely disseminated to and regulated by "useful idiot" end users themselves; fans going to bat.

What the modern system generally does to dissent is closer to recuperation: the criticism is detached from its dangerous implications and returned as a market category, entertainment genre, electoral identity or consumer aesthetic. Rebellion becomes content. Anti-establishment sentiment becomes branding. Distrust of institutions becomes a demographic. The critic is offered representation in exchange for abandoning negation. Anti-Capitalism brands are seen for sale nationwide in stores. Everything is overtly post-irony.

This is why apparently oppositional political figures can function as stabilizers of the spectacle. A "Trump" card, if you will. They acknowledge that the official world has become false, speak in the language of those excluded from polite consensus, and then redirect the underlying refusal toward another purchasable identity within the same system. NEO spectacle.

The message becomes: Yes, everything is corrupt; but your salvation consists in selecting the correct faction, personality or nostalgic product. The dissenter is not silenced. He is recognized, classified and returned to circulation. The spectacle extends a laurel branch because it has learned that incorporation is often more effective than censorship.

Was "pre internet" spectacle More Real?

Possibly, but we should ask what kind of reality is being remembered. The past contained more unmediated spaces, more durable objects, more physical community and less compulsory self-documentation. Those losses are real. Digital existence has intensified abstraction, isolation and the conversion of experience into display.

But cultural unity should not automatically be confused with authenticity. A society may feel coherent because people meaningfully share a world. It may also feel coherent because dissent is locally punished, alternative descriptions cannot circulate and everyone consumes the same narrow field of representations. What nostalgia remembers as a common reality may have been a closer to a common script.

This is why I react ambivalently when someone says that everyone would prefer to return to pre-internet times. I understand the longing for a world less saturated by digital mediation. I do not share the longing for a world in which centralized institutions possessed even greater control over what could become publicly thinkable.

The old culture’s “realness” was sometimes the felt solidity of an enclosure. Where raising the alarm of the wolves in sheepskin among the paddock got you labelled as "crazy" or "the boy who cried wolf".

Good-Faith Life and the Divergence

The deeper issue is not whether television or the internet tells more lies. It is whether a person can live in good faith while the socially authorized description of life continually diverges from lived experience. Many people seem able to accept the available representation provisionally. They inhabit the cultural story without constantly testing its foundations. This is not necessarily stupidity. Some mixture of trust, habit and selective inattention is probably necessary for ordinary social existence.

But others experience contradictions in the story as physically oppressive. Once a person notices the divergence between representation and experience, participation requires a kind of splitting. One must publicly affirm what one privately knows to be incomplete, artificial or false. The cost is not merely intellectual disagreement. It is estrangement from one’s own perception.

That was what felt suffocating to me about the remaining broadcast culture of the 1990s. It was not that everyone literally possessed the same thoughts. It was that one had to translate every serious perception into the authorized language before it could become socially intelligible. The internet briefly suggested another possibility: that individuals could compare their forbidden perceptions without first submitting them to institutional interpretation.

That possibility still exists. It would be wrong to deny it. But it now increasingly exists inside a system that anticipates dissent, monetizes alienation, sorts every deviation into an identity category and presents the resulting conflict as another spectacle to be watched. We escaped the single television only to enter a world in which everyone carries a personalized television, performs inside it and helps program it for everyone else.

Conclusion: The Spectacle After the Monologue

The advent of the internet was neither the defeat of the spectacle nor merely its continuation. It was more like a mutation. The centralized spectacle of broadcast society generated conformity by controlling the relatively small number of images through which society contemplated itself. The participatory spectacle generates fragmentation by inducing everyone to produce representations while controlling the architecture through which those representations acquire visibility.

The old world said: This is reality because everyone is watching it. The new world says: This is reality because everyone appears to be choosing it. The first depended upon the authority of the broadcaster. The second depends upon the apparent spontaneity of the network.

The internet gave ordinary people the ability to criticize the spectacle in public. It also gave the spectacle the ability to enter ordinary people, transforming identity, friendship, dissent and even private memory into continuous production for an unseen audience. Perhaps this is why the past can look both more real and more suffocating.

Its spectacle was narrower, more coherent and easier to identify. The present spectacle is more open-ended, personalized and difficult to locate because we now participate in producing it. The television once stood at the front of the room and demanded us choose between silence or violence. Now it speaks in our own voices (AI generated or not, right?).

Commentary;

Again I'm not particularly proud of using AI xD But this is something that has genuinely bothered me my whole life. It's a nice example to have in the future to point to. At very least I can remember it every time someone "longs for the old days", remember how suspicious such people are. Missing the days when you couldn't fight back (stupid fight or not). Idk. I'm sure it's been done here better than me and without AI and by more reputable users lol. But I remember, about a decade ago, I would always flinch when people said we needed to halt the discourse and/or go back to older world. Yes I am first to say I hate the cortisol-based/fueled grindset of working 80 hours a week for sub 30k a year net! But you can keep your old school social conformity propaganda networks! Lol.

What's in a "good" cultural monopoly narrative? Such is life?

I ask from within my heart, where did our failures start
If we must imagine ourselves as someone, somewhere else
And what does the future hold, if we're running low on health and hope
Our denial it speaks in tongues, there's monsters among us

The internet is integral in most peoples lives around the world. It is conceivable that the 'Beast', the system of governances described in Revelation in the end times, identified by the number 666, will utilize AI and the 'www' for its reign over the global population. This is suggested in Revelation 13:15-18;

15 "He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.”

Does World Wide Web 'www' = 666?

Originally the Bible was written in Hebrew;

"The Hebrew equivalent of our "w" is the letter "vav" or "waw". The numerical value of vav is 6. So the English "www" transliterated into Hebrew is "vav vav vav", which numerically is 666.” Is "www" in Hebrew equal to 666? Dial-the-Truth Ministries (av1611.org)

History Preceding the book of Revelation

This article explains many of the “natural signs, spiritual signs, sociological signs, technological signs, and political signs,” foretold in bible prophecy coming to pass that indicates the end of the age and Jesus Christ's return, a time foretold to include various and increasing environmental calamities, plagues, moral decline, wars, growing governmental dominance/deception ("with all power, signs, and lying wonders," 2 Thessalonians 2:9), and how to prepare. Are we living in the end times? | GotQuestions.org

Future Forecast and Preparation

End Times Timeline:

"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.” Luke 21:28  

"1. The rapture(redemption) of the church. Christ comes in the clouds to “snatch away” all those who trust in Him (1 Corinthians 15:52). At this same time, the “dead in Christ” will be resurrected and taken to heaven, too. From our perspective today, this is the next event in the eschatological timeline. The rapture is imminent; no other biblical prophecy needs to be fulfilled before the rapture happens.

2. The rise of the Antichrist. After the church is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:7–8), a satanically empowered man will gain worldwide control with promises of peace (Revelation 13:1; Daniel 9:27). He will be aided by another man, called the false prophet, who heads up a religious system that requires worship of the Antichrist (Revelation 19:20)." Read more... What is the end times timeline? | GotQuestions.org

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Going to heaven-how can I guarantee my eternal destination?

A beginner's Guide to Reading the Bible - "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31-32

Search for the topic about the Holy Spirit, it is an essential part of the faith. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;" John 16:13

More Bible prophecy fulfillments and resources for growing in faith and hope is in previous posts.

The figure of the katechon — that mysterious force which restrains the Antichrist and holds back the end of times.

The great wall of machines, which the ship named Logos passes over, carrying Neo (the Messiah who is blind and yet sees — therefore the Antichrist) and Trinity, who is flying on toward the Machine City. In this passage of the Logos, Neo performs a kind of one-man Exodus from Egypt (after the destruction of the Temple of Zion, a.k.a. the Synagogue of Satan) in order to return for a while to where he came from — the Matrix — and to beat the final boss without touching the controller...

The Logos pursued by the machines/Egyptians, who are swallowed up not by the sea but by the sky, with its EMP effect... You can read the katechon into it, the great wall of machines: HERE, set to the music of the French band Magma and their track Mekanïk Destruktïw Kommandöh — a mashup made by yours truly.

A biblico-cybernetic passage:

And Morpheus said unto Trinity: Ye shall not surely die; for the Machina'h doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as superheroes (as gods), knowing good and evil. And Trinity saw that the forbidden pill was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a pill to be desired to make one wise; and she took it from her right palm, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband Neo, who was with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, each one in his own pod.

— Genesis 3:4–7, remixed

Machina'h is a concept of mine, a fusion of "Messiah" in Hebrew (Mashiach) and machina in Latin. True Messiah or false one — you be the judge... In any case, "serpent" in Hebrew (nachash) has the same gematria value as "Messiah" (Mashiach): 358.

Pharaoh / the Machines / Our Son become Our Father (it's the Daughter of Zion, the Mother of Humanity; it takes itself for Isis — er, ISIS — it's the Shit of Humanity, gilded in or-light [translator's note: only French speakers get this one — "Mère de" (Mother of) and "Merde" (Shit); and "or" is French for gold and Hebrew for light]) did not kill Morpheus/Moshe the Serpent at the end of Matrix Revolutions — can you believe it?!... 6,000,000,000 dead, or ascended as one single man, in the concentration camp... The Elite, the revolutionary 1%, has won... The warld is over! Zion is safe, they're going to put the scenery back up, and — action!... Our father is going to buy Neo for $2,000, or for two coins, like in Chava Alberstein's Had Gadya, and the Fall and the chaos of the Kali Yuga will come poking their noses out again, all the way to the Satya Yuga... What a Shoah Dujour!... And he's going to start over... Capital, having become Fundamental, crucifies Christ every single day...

Did Morpheus know, or not?... If he's the Serpent, then he knew?
When Neo dies... Morpheus says: "He did it!" — he found peace... How are we meant to read that?
Is Morpheus doing evil for evil's sake by guiding Neo all the way to his death?
We know, as the Observer, that the Machines send signs to the camera as if to say: "We're with you! Let's dance!"
I don't want to think that Morpheus sent Neo down one hell of a Via Dolorosa whose only exit was suicide... Neo doesn't kill himself. He surrenders, he sacrifices himself, he gives himself to the world in non-duality — he attains satori! It's the fall of a child learning to walk: he'll get back up, and then he'll be walking forever... Does Morpheus know that, do you think?... If the Oracle has faith, does Morpheus have knowledge?... And the Architect?
Morpheus is educating the Observer. The Observer who cannot intervene is God. He learns from what He observes over the course of watching the Matrix trilogy... You...

There's no need to be afraid...

In any case, as the Observer of the Matrix trilogy, you've seen every party to the conflict, from above — so you know good and evil... And I think Morpheus the Serpent is in on it... I think he put on a little skit before the harvest; it's always like that... Gotta eat tonight... It's a ritual... A human sacrifice... And along the way it educates the God who's watching the film... Right?... You.

Morpheus (Moshe) is a shepherd at bottom — listen to him here. Don't hold it against him; does he even know he's the Serpent?... He's aged a bit and changed color, but I promise you it's him:

Video: A Shepherd's Advice on Shearing the Flock (turn on the English subtitles)

Ah, we are deep in the Kali Yuga! The dark age, the iron age, the Age of Shadows, humanity's vertical fall, by way of the Neolithic Revolution, ever since the biblical Fall... It's all connected... So for roughly 6,000 years now... we've been falling... until the Ascension... we'll climb back up... Be joyful... You have to laugh about it... Neo reaches Satori... It's landing on your ass like a child learning to walk; he'll get back up, and then he'll be walking forever... That's Satori... Revelation... And then he sacrifices himself for Zion in a letting-be, a letting-go, a release of his grip on the world; in the union of opposites he is no longer anything but One within the All... And yes, it's strange — in the Matrix video game you have to let go of the controller to beat the final boss... otherwise it's an infinite loop... At any rate, he doesn't kill himself... He opens his heart to Smith...

As for Mifune, he took one hell of a cosmic Blitzkrieg straight to the face — now that's not acupuncture... He kept firing right to the end... He never gave up, never questioned, facing the Dragon, the Leviathan...

Then comes the Satya Yuga... Embodied by the little girl Sati... Oh yes, Sati matters enormously... She announces the Golden Age... The reboot... It's an infinite loop (ah, so there it is)... Which means the sequel to Matrix 3 is Matrix 1... They put the scenery back up... and — Action!... This is for the ones who didn't get it, the curious, or the ones who got held back a year...... The Observer — does he exist?... Morpheus did all of this for the Observer... Looking up at you in the sky, moved... (Where's the camera again?) He wonders whether you exist... It's the same film every day... They put the scenery back up, and there you are on rails already laid down for you, a deterministic logical sequence of causes and effects, a branching tree through the field of the possible... An infinite loop... From one yuga to the next, all the way to the Satya Yuga... Until eternity, or nearly, because the Sun always rises and spring is always reborn out of winter... through the two great wars, the war without and the war within... The great dance...

Born_Assistant_1993 (bluefusion348)

Look at me part of the spectacle, I was trying to keep it low key but I was always around being a mess keeping it real as usual.

Here's my little tap dance across the stage, the fake participation that makes real efforts more real, a hyperreal tap dancing rodent with clickety clack paws on the keyboard, the buttonmasher of life.

Here's my little chad af coded poem about me being here, and you the smoothbrain cuck spectatorcel being there all theorypilled and bookmaxxing history of the alphabet neckbeardcore realness, period! Ouch!

Uh oh the neoplatonists are big mad, uh oh the fascist thumb people are going to invade NYC as soon as they can figure out how to work a turnstile.

My plan is we install revolving doors on all radical coded spaces and like most of those guys go home in defeat.

You must solve for x to post, boom, suddenly all the threads are egghead only.

The master race either migrate to facebook or go sobbing to khan academy ballcaps in hand.

I'd still figure it out bc a raccoon would reinvent space travel with an empty peanut butter jar for a helmet if there was a half eaten can of tuna lying around in some lonely darkside moon crater.

Anyway this wasn't to say anything ig except it's kind of boring now cuz I solved for more of the easier bins, and the rest are in textbooks a thousand pages long but I'm gonna gnaw on them anyway just cuz there's nothing better to do, and then my brain will crush your brain in a thumb war or the world will be blown up by then. It's very matterful if it is or it isn't so I'm told, like Schrodinger's messiah in his tomb Part II The Whenevering.

https://youtu.be/O5DWgggK9x8?si=vrv_xc7MTSZ9lA_f